Talmud Bavli Hullin 120a-b - translation by Tzvee

J.             And there are those who teach [this dispute between Yohanan and Resh Laqish at B-C] [120a] pertaining to our Mishnah: The (1) hide, and (2) grease, and (3) sediment, and (4) flayed-off meat, and (5) bones, and (6) sinews, and (7) horns and (8) hooves join together [with the meat to which they are attached to form the requisite volume] to impart food uncleanness, but [they do] not [join together to impart] uncleanness of carrion [M. 9:1 A]. [What follows draws on the preceding and presents it in an alternative order.]

K.            Said Resh Laqish, “They taught this matter only with regard to a bone, that it may be deemed a protector. But hair is not deemed a protector.” And R. Yohanan said, “Even hair may be deemed a protector.”

L.            Said Resh Laqish to R. Yohanan, “But do we recognize a protector on top of a protector [i.e., that the hair on top of the hide can be deemed a protector with regard to uncleanness]? [This must refer to a case where the hair] penetrates [through to the flesh, so it is deemed to be one protector with regard to uncleanness].”

M.           R. Aha bar Jacob posed by way of contradiction to this: But on this basis we should infer that there is no way that we can write [proper] tefillin. For lo we need to have perfect writing and this is lacking [because the holes where the hair was penetrate the parchment].

N.            [Aha] must have forgotten this [teaching]: They said in the West, “Any hole over which the ink passes, is not deemed to be a hole [to invalidate the writing].”

O.            R. Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Laqish: Hide on which is an olive's bulk of [carrion] meat — that which touches the shred which juts forth from it, or hair which is on the opposite side, is unclean [M. 9:4 A-B]. Is it not the case [that it is unclean] on account of it [the hair] being deemed a protector? No [it is unclean] on account of it being deemed a handle.

P.             What purpose can one hair serve? In accord with what R. Ila said, “A bristle among bristles.” Here too you may refer to a hair among hairs.

Q.            And concerning what did R. Ila make his statement? Concerning this: And the outer husks of ears of corn, lo, these contract uncleanness and impart uncleanness but do not join together [M. Uqsin 1:3 K-L]. How can a husk serve [as a handle? It will break right off.] Said R. Ila, “[It refers to a case of] a bristle among bristles.” [Where one grasps many together they do not break off.]

II.1

A.            And grease [M. 9:1 A] — What is grease? Said Raba, “The fat.” Said to him Abayye, “That by itself would render unclean by virtue of the uncleanness of foods. Rather it [grease] is the gel that congeals [after seeping from the meat].”

B.            Why specify that it congeals? If it does not congeal it also [would combine in accord with the rules of Mishnah]. As Resh Laqish said, “The juice that is upon the vegetables combines to make up the quantity of a date's bulk on the Day of Atonement [to render a person liable for eating on the fast day].”

C.            [No, these cases are judged by different criteria.] There [regarding eating on the Day of Atonement] the criterion is the need to satisfy his hunger. Anything at all will satisfy his hunger. Here the criterion is combining [to form the requisite volume for uncleanness, for which it needs to be a solid]. If it gels, it combines. If it does not gel, it does not combine.

III.1

A.            And sediment [M. 9:1 A] — What is sediment? Said Raba, “The particles of meat that form a mush [Jastrow, s.v. pyrm', p. 1172].” Said to him Abayye, “That by itself would render unclean by virtue of the uncleanness of foods. Rather [it is in accord with what] R. Pappa said, `The spices.'”

B.            It was taught there on Tannaite authority: If someone coagulated blood and ate it, or dissolved forbidden fat and gulped it down, he is liable [b. Men. 21a].

C.            Now it makes perfect sense that, if someone coagulated blood and ate it, since he ate it, he conferred upon it the status [of food]. But where he dissolved forbidden fat and gulped it down, [why is he liable]? It is written concerning this that he [is liable only if he] eats. And lo this [gulping] is not eating.

D.            Said Resh Laqish, “Scripture stated, `For every person [who eats of the fat of an animal of which an offering by fire is made to the Lord shall be cut off from his people]' (Lev. 7:25). [The specific language] serves to include in the rule one who drinks it.”

E.            It was taught on Tannaite authority also with regard to leaven this very matter: If one dissolved it and swallowed it, if it is leaven, he is subject to the penalty of extirpation, but if it is unleavened, someone will not be able to carry out the obligation of eating unleavened bread on Passover with it [b. Pes. 35a].

F.             Now it makes perfect sense that, if it is not leavened, someone will not be able to carry out the obligation of eating unleavened bread on Passover with it. The Torah said [that it must be], “[You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread,] the bread of affliction [— for you came out of the land of Egypt in hurried flight — that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt]” (Deut. 16:3). And this is not, “the bread of affliction.”

G.            But [it does not make sense that], if it is leaven, he is subject to the penalty of extirpation. It is written concerning this that he [is liable only if he] eats.

H.            Said Resh Laqish, “Scripture stated, `For every person [who eats of the fat of an animal of which an offering by fire is made to the Lord shall be cut off from his people]' (Lev. 7:25). [The specific language] serves to include in the rule one who drinks it.”

I.             It was taught on Tannaite authority also with regard to carrion of a clean bird this very matter: If he melted it with a fire [and drank it], he is unclean. In the sun, he is clean. And we may bring up the question: It is written concerning this that he [is liable only if he] eats it.

J.             Said Resh Laqish, “Scripture stated, `For every person [who eats of the fat of an animal of which an offering by fire is made to the Lord shall be cut off from his people]' (Lev. 7:25). [The specific language] serves to include in the rule one who drinks it.”

K.            If this is the case, then [if he melted it] in the sun also [let him be unclean]. [If he melts it] in the sun it putrefies.

L.            And it is necessary [for scripture to teach all these cases, i.e., liquid fat, leaven and carrion of a bird]. For if the Torah had written the rule only for fat, the rule for leaven could not be derived from it. For [fat] never had a interval when it was valid [for eating and leaven did]. And the rule for carrion of a bird could not be derived from it. For [fat] carries the punishment of extirpation [for one who eats it and carrion does not].

M.           And if the Torah had written the rule only for leaven, the rule for fat could not be derived from it. For [leaven] there are no permitted exceptions [but there are for some fats]. And the rule for carrion of a bird could not be derived from it. For [leaven] carries the punishment of extirpation [for one who eats it and carrion does not].

N.            And if the Torah had written the rule only for carrion of a bird, neither of these could be derived from it. For [carrion] renders unclean through contact [and the others do not].

O.            Okay. We cannot derive the other ones from one [rule stated in the Torah]. Let us derive one of them from the other two. Which two? Let the Torah not state the rule with regard to carrion of a clean bird and let us derive it from the other two. But [this will not work because] what is the rule for the other two? They carry the punishment of extirpation [for one who eats them, and carrion does not].

P.             Let the Torah not state the rule with regard to leaven and let us derive it from the other two. But [this will not work because] what is the rule for the other two? For [they] never had a interval when they were valid [for eating and leaven did].

Q.            Let the Torah not state the rule with regard to fat and let us derive it from the other two. But [this will not work because] what is the rule for the other two? For them, there are no permitted exceptions [but there are for some fats].

R.            And what are those [exceptions]? If you say it is the fat of an animal that is sacrificed that is permitted to be brought on the altar, [then consider regarding] carrion of a bird [a similar exception] is also permitted, [viz.] the bird killed by wringing the neck for a sacrifice on the altar. Rather [the exception must be] wild-animal-fat [that is permitted] to an ordinary person, [then consider regarding] carrion of a bird [a similar exception] is also permitted, [viz.] a bird killed by wringing the neck for a sin offering [is permitted] to the priests.

S.             Invariably [the exception for fat must be] wild-animal-fat that is permitted to an ordinary person. And the objection [that carrion of a bird is permitted to] priests [is not an effective objection]. When the priests receive [their portion of the sacrifices], they receive it from the table of the Most High [as a special gift, b. Bes. 21a].

III.2

A.            And lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: [The verse says,] “These are unclean [to you among all that swarm; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:31). This specification prohibits [also] the fluids and gravy and froth from them [b. Hul. 112b]. Why do I need to teach this derivation? Let us derive [the rule for these] from those [three rules relating to fat, leaven and carrion of a bird, above].

B.            It is necessary [to teach a separate derivation]. For if the Torah had not written this I would have reasoned that in the case for which you logically deduce a rule from another source, that case is in other respects with regard to the law identical to the other source. What is the case there [in the three cases]? There must be an olive's bulk [for liability]. So too here [regarding swarming things], there must be an olive's bulk [for liability. And the law is in fact that a lentil's bulk is enough.]

C.            [120b] But [consider that] the Torah could have written [the rule] for swarming things and let us then derive these [other three] from it. [This cannot be done] because you could refute [the derivation on these grounds]: What is the case regarding swarming things? They are unclean in any amount at all. [And the minimum for the other three is an olive's bulk.]

III.3

A.            And lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: Untithed produce, new produce, consecrated produce, produce of the seventh year, produce of mixed kinds — for all of these, the liquids that ooze from them have the same status as the produce itself. What is the source of this rule? If you maintain that we derive it from these three [i.e., fat, leaven, carrion of a bird, above, this will not work because we can object]. What is the case regarding these [three]? They are all prohibited by virtue of their self-defined status.

B.            We may grant [that you may derive the rule] wherever they are prohibited by virtue of their self-definition. But where they are not prohibited by virtue of their own self-definition [as in the case of consecrated produce], what is the source of the rule [that they are prohibited]? We may derive that from the case of first fruits.

C.            For R. Yosé taught: “[You shall bring of the] fruit [of the ground” (Deut. 26:2) means] that you may bring fruit, but not juice. If [nonetheless] one brought grapes but then pressed them, how do we know [that he has carried out his obligation]? Scripture states, “Which you will bring,” [implying that you need only bring the fruit, but once you have brought it, you may press it into wine][b. Arakin 11a].

D.            But you can refute this [as follows]. What is the case regarding first fruits? They need [when they are brought to perform the rites of] recitation and setting down. [Not so in the other instances.]

E.            Rather we may derive [the rule for produce not prohibited by its own self-definition] from the case of heave-offering. [That also must be defined by the owner.] And what is the source of the rule for heave-offering itself? It is juxtaposed in scripture to the [rule for] first fruits. And a master has said, “`…the offering [trmh] of your hand' (Deut. 12:17) refers to first fruits” [b. Meilah 16b]. [The word for heave-offering is used there in the sense of ordinary offering to refer to first fruits.] [But you can refute this derivation.] What is the case with regard to heave-offering? You are indeed [if you eat it] liable to the death penalty and to [the payment of] an added fifth [which is not the case with regard to consecrated things]. Rather we may derive [the rule for consecrated produce] from both of them [i.e.,] heave-offering and first fruits. [But you can refute this derivation as well.] What is the case with regard to heave-offering and first fruits? You are indeed [if you eat it] liable to the death penalty and to [the payment of] an added fifth [which is not the case with regard to consecrated things].

F.             Rather you may derive this [rule for consecrated things] from the rules for heave-offering and one of these [other three] or from the rules for first fruits and one of these [other three].

G.            And lo what was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: [As regards any of the following which have the status of heave- offering:] (1) honey made from dates, (2) wine made from apples, (3) vinegar made from winter grapes or (4) any other fruit juice in the status of heave-offering — R. Eliezer obligates [a nonpriest who unintentionally drinks any of these] to [payment of] the principal and [added] fifth. But R. Joshua exempts [M. Terumot 11:2 A-C].

H.            What is the basis of their dispute? They dispute over the principle of whether when we draw an inference, it pertains throughout, or whether an inference is restricted to its original terms. [That is to say, the words used for establishing this analogy based on verbal correspondence are available for this particular purpose and no other, so Neusner, b. Yeb. 78b.]

I.             R. Eleazar reasons in accord with the view that when we draw an inference [it pertains throughout] — [i.e.,] what is the case regarding first fruits? Liquids that ooze from them have the same status as the produce itself. So also regarding heave-offering, liquids that ooze from them have the same status as the produce itself. And it pertains throughout — so what is the case regarding first fruits? Even other kinds [of liquids that ooze from them have the same status as the produce itself]. So too for heave-offering, even other kinds.

J.             And R. Joshua reasons in accord with the view that an inference is restricted to its original terms. [That is to say, the words used for establishing this analogy based on verbal correspondence are available for this particular purpose and no other.] What is the case regarding first fruits? Liquids that ooze from them have the same status as the produce itself. So also regarding heave-offering, liquids that ooze from them have the same status as the produce itself. And it is restricted to its own terms. What are the liquids that are holy with regard to heave-offering? Oil and wine, yes; other liquids, no. So too with regard to the rule that liquids that ooze from them have the same status as the produce itself — [this] applies to oil and wine, yes; to other liquids, no.

K.            And lo that which was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: And they may not bring first fruits in the form of liquids, except for that which is produced from olives or grapes [M. Ter. 11:3 E-F]. In accord with whose view is this? It accords with R. Joshua who said, “An inference is restricted to its original terms.” And he derives the rule for first fruits from that of heave-offering.

L.            And lo that which was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: They do not receive the forty stripes for [drinking liquids made from produce which is] from the first three years of growth of a vineyard or orchard (see Lev. 19:23), except for [drinking] that which is produced from olives or grapes [M. Ter. 11:3 C-D]. In accord with whose view is this? It accords with R. Joshua who said, “An inference is restricted to its original terms.” And he derives the rule for first fruits from that of heave-offering.