Talmud - Hullin 118a חולין קי״ח א׳

One might have thought that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the external side of the hide of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh, but does not touch the flesh itself, does not become impure. Therefore, the verse states: “One who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). It is derived from the term “shall be impure” that even one who touches the hide in this manner becomes impure.

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? The first clause of the baraita teaches that the hide does not impart impurity of a carcass while the latter clause teaches that one who touches the hide does become impure with the impurity of a carcass. Rava said, and some say it unattributed: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The term “its carcass” teaches that one who touches the flesh of a carcass becomes impure but one who touches the hide of a carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure. And even if the volume of the hide together with the flesh adds up to an olive-bulk, the hide does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart impurity of an animal carcass.

One might have thought that I remove from the category of impurity of a carcass even a hide upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh with regard to one who touches the external side of the hide of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh but does not touch the flesh itself. One might have thought that he does not become impure in such a case, and that the hide in this case does not even constitute a handle of the flesh, which would render one who touches it impure as though he touched the flesh itself.

Therefore, the verse states: “Shall be impure,” from which it is derived that even though an appendage that serves as protection for the flesh does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses, it is considered a handle of the flesh, which does impart impurity. Therefore, if there is an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the hide, one who touches the outside of the hide becomes impure, even if he did not touch the flesh.

§The Gemara discusses the transmission of impurity of food with regard to accessories that serve as a handle and that provide protection. We learned in a mishna there (Okatzin 1:1): With regard to any appendage that serves as a handle, i.e., a part that one holds while eating the food, but does not provide protection, the attached food becomes impure if the handle comes into contact with a source of impurity, and the handle transmits impurity from the attached food to other foods that come into contact with the handle. But the handle does not join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

With regard to any appendage that provides protection, even if it does not serve as a handle, the attached food becomes impure if the protection comes into contact with an impure item, and the protection imparts impurity, and it also joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. With regard to an appendage that does not serve as a handle nor as protection, the attached food does not become impure if the appendage comes into contact with a source of impurity, nor does the appendage impart impurity. In addition, it does not join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

The Gemara asks: Where is this halakha that handles are susceptible to and impart impurity written? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to the impurity of food: “But if water is put on the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38). It is derived from the term “for you” that any part needed for your use of the food is susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity, including the handles that facilitate the consumption of the food.

And furthermore it is written with regard to the impurity of a carcass: “And if any animal which is for you to consume dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The term “for you” indicates that any part needed for your use of the carcass imparts impurity, including the handles. One who touches the handle of an item that is impure with impurity of a carcass becomes impure as though he touched the carcass itself. These two verses teach that a handle transmits impurity both with regard to importing impurity into the attached food and with regard to exporting impurity from the attached food.

A verse is not needed to derive that protection both imports and exports impurity. This halakha is inferred a fortiori from the halakha of a handle: If a handle, which is treated more leniently than protection because it does not protect the food, nevertheless both imports and exports impurity, then with regard to protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle because it protects the food, should it not all the more so import and export impurity?

Since this is so, why do I need the verse that the Merciful One writes from which it is derived that protection is considered part of the food with regard to ritual impurity, i.e., the verses: “Upon any sowing seed that is sown…It is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38)? Conclude from these verses that protection not only imparts impurity, but even joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

The Gemara challenges: But say that these verses should be interpreted differently: A handle, which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it imports but does not export impurity. Protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle, is considered like food to import and export impurity. But it is not derived that a handle exports impurity nor that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

The Gemara explains: You cannot say that a handle is considered part of the food such that it imports but does not export impurity for the following reason: Now that the handle is considered part of the food with regard to importing impurity into the food, is it necessary to state that it exports impurity? If a handle can cause ritually pure food attached to it to become impure, certainly it can transmit the impurity of impure food attached to it to other foods. Consequently, since a handle both imports and exports impurity, it is inferred a fortiori that protection also imports and exports impurity. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning appendages that serve as protection that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

The Gemara challenges: But say instead that a handle, which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it exports but does not import impurity. Protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle, both exports and imports impurity. But it is not derived that a handle imports impurity nor that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

The Gemara explains: There is an additional derivation with regard to a handle, as it is written with regard to the impurity of vessels: “And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether an oven, or a range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and shall be impure for you” (Leviticus 11:35).

It is derived from the term “for you” that any part needed for your use of a vessel has the impurity status of the vessel itself, including the handles. Therefore, if the vessel comes into contact with a source of impurity, the handle is considered part of the vessel and is also rendered impure. Consequently, there are two derivations with regard to a handle: One teaches that a handle imports impurity into the object to which it is attached, and the other teaches that a handle exports impurity from the object. It is derived through a fortiori inference from the halakha of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse that states “Upon any sowing seed” teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

The Gemara asks: With regard to these three verses that are interpreted as referring to handles, one of which discusses the impurity of food, one of which discusses the impurity of vessels, and one of which discusses the impurity of carcasses, which of them is superfluous such that one can derive from it that a handle does not merely export impurity from the food but imports impurity to the food as well? All of these verses are necessary to teach that a handle exports impurity.

The Gemara elaborates on the question: Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of seeds, i.e., food, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of vessels and animal carcasses, be derived from it. But one cannot infer from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of vessels, as what is notable about seeds? It is notable in that they have a greater susceptibility to impurity. Food is susceptible to even second-degree impurity, whereas vessels are susceptible to only first-degree impurity. Likewise, one cannot derive from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of an animal carcass because the impurity of food applies to more items, as is taught in the mishna that some items are susceptible to the impurity of food but not to the impurity of animal carcasses.

Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and the impurity of an animal carcass, be derived from it. But this inference is also not valid, as what is notable about the impurity of an oven? It is notable in that a vessel transmits impurity to foods not only through contact but also through its airspace, whereas those other types of impurity do not share this element of stringency.

Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an animal carcass, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and of vessels, be derived from it. But this inference is also not valid, as what is notable about the impurity of a carcass? It is notable in that a carcass transmits impurity to a person, and transmits impurity to one carrying the carcass even if he is not touching it, and its impurity emanates from its body and does not originate from an external source. Those other types of impurity do not share these elements of stringency.

The Gemara answers: The halakha of one of these three types of ritual impurity cannot be derived from the halakha of any one of the others. Yet, one of the verses is still superfluous because one can derive the halakha of one of these three types from the other two.

The Gemara asks: Which can one derive from the other two? Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of seeds, i.e., food, and derive this halakha from those two other cases, the impurity of carcasses and of vessels. But this inference is not valid, as what is notable about those cases? They are notable in that they become ritually impure without first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. Shall you say the same halakha with regard to seeds, which do not share this element of stringency, as food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This element of leniency is not unique to the impurity of food. Produce that is not rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid is equivalent to an oven whose construction is not complete. An oven whose construction is incomplete is also not susceptible to impurity.

Rather, refute this derivation in the following manner: What is notable about those cases of impurity of carcasses and vessels? They are notable in that they become impure even without contact. An oven becomes impure if a creeping animal is within its airspace, and the impurity of an animal carcass originates from its own body without contact with an external source. Shall you state the same halakha with regard to seeds, which become impure only through contact?

Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and derive this halakha from those cases, the impurity of food and carcasses. But this derivation is not valid, as what is notable about those cases of the impurity of food and carcasses? They are notable in that they are food. Therefore, their halakhot cannot necessarily be applied to an oven and other vessels that are not food.

Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to a carcass and derive this halakha from those cases of the impurity of food and vessels. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, since one can derive in such a manner that a handle attached to a carcass imparts impurity, why do I need the verse to state the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass? If it is not needed for the matter of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass, apply it to the matter of a handle in general with regard to food, and derive from it that a handle imports impurity to the food.

Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle imports impurity and that a handle exports impurity, and one can infer that protection imports and exports impurity a fortiori from the halakha of a handle. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning protection that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

The Gemara challenges: But it is still necessary for the verse to state the halakha that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of a carcass; as, if the Merciful One had not written the halakha of a handle with regard to impurity of a carcass, I would say: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In this case, a halakha with regard to the impurity of carcasses which is inferred a fortiori from the cases of impurity of food and impurity of vessels is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. Just as handles in these cases of impurity of food and vessels do not transmit impurity to a person, so too the handle of a carcass does not transmit impurity to a person. Therefore, the verse from which it is derived that a handle exports the impurity of a carcass is necessary, and cannot be applied to the matter of importing impurity.

The Gemara answers: Rather, it is necessary for the verse to state the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass, but it is not necessary for the verse to state the halakha of protection with regard to the impurity of a carcass. With regard to what halakha does the Merciful One write that verse? If it is teaching that protection joins together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, you said that protection does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. And if it is teaching that protection exports the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary to teach that, because that halakha is inferred a fortiori from the halakha of a handle.

Rather, if it is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, apply it to the matter of the handle of a carcass. And if it is not needed for the matter of a handle of a carcass, apply it to the matter of a handle in general, and derive from it that a handle imports impurity. Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle exports impurity and that a handle imports impurity, and one can derive from the verse concerning protection with regard to the impurity of food that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 118a examines when touching an animal carcass's hide, rather than its flesh directly, still transmits ritual impurity under an olive-bulk measure.