Chullin 118

Impurity can be spread through touch. However, in order to be susceptible to impurity, food must first be made wet. On Chullin 36a, we encountered a beraita that says that food must be moistened with water to become susceptible. But the Mishnah (Makhshirin 6:5) names seven liquids: water, dew, wine, oil, blood, milk or honey.

These halakhot are operative when the source of impurity touches the food directly. On today’s daf, the rabbis ask: What happens when the source of impurity touches something connected to the food but is not itself edible? Something like the stem holding together a bunch of grapes, the crown of a pomegranate or the knob of an ear of corn? 

The rabbis call these natural food extensions yadayim, which literally means “hands.” Contextually, the word is better translated as “handles.” The role of “handles” in the transmission of impurity is a point of disagreement on today’s daf: 

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: There is a handle with regard to impurity, but there is no handle with regard to rendering it susceptible. And Rabbi Yohanan says: There is a handle with regard to impurity and with regard to rendering it susceptible.

Let’s take these positions in reverse order. Rabbi Yohanan thinks that if the “handle” of a dry item becomes wet, the produce itself becomes susceptible to impurity — even if the edible portion remained dry. Rav thinks that the edible portion of the produce needs to come into contact with one of these liquids to become susceptible to impurity. Both Rav and Rabbi Yohanan agree, however, that if both handle and produce have become wet and something impure touches the handle, the produce is made impure. They also agree that if something impure touches the (wet) edible portion of the produce directly, the handle also becomes impure and can spread that impurity. 

In sum, we might say they agree on handles spreading impurity; they disagree about whether the handle can also spread “wetness” (i.e., susceptibility). This is a cogent reading of their positions. The anonymous voice of the Talmud, however, sees a different disagreement. Or actually, two.

With regard to what do they disagree? If you wish, say a logical argument. If you wish, say a verse.

The rabbis explain the disagreement through different readings of a verse first:

One sage (Rav) holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically with the one preceding it and not before the one preceding it. And one sage (Rabbi Yohanan) holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically with the one preceding it, as well as the one before the one preceding it. The argument here is that the sages come to different conclusions because they have different rules for interpreting scripture.

Leviticus 11:37–38 are the key verses about the spread of impurity onto wet produce: “If such a carcass falls upon seed grain that is to be sown, it is pure; but if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be impure for you.” According to the Gemara’s reading of the debate between Rav and Rabbi Yohanan, Rav thinks that “for you” should be read with the phrase immediately before, “it shall be impure,” teaching that handles can spread impurity. Rabbi Yohanan, however, thinks we should read the phrase “for you” within the larger context of the verse itself, which is about coming into contact with liquid.

Or, perhaps, the Talmud muses, their disagreement is over a point of logic:

If you wish, say a logical argument. One sage (Rabbi Yohanan) holds that rendering food susceptible is the initial stage of impurity. And one sage (Rav) holds that rendering food susceptible is not the initial stage of impurity.

The second way the Talmud explains their argument hinges on exactly how we think about the process of becoming impure. If getting wet is part of that process, then if handles can conduct impurity, they should also convey wetness. That is, if the handle becomes wet, we consider the rest of the produce also wet. However, if getting wet is not part of the process of impurity, then we should not assume that the handle conveys wetness, even if it does convey impurity. 

We’ve now seen three takes on this tannaitic disagreement. First, my explanatory reading, then two more from the Gemara. All of them make sense in the context of the rabbis’ thinking. This reminds us to look beyond the surface of an argument — and even beyond our first understanding of it. What appears to be one kind of argument — about whether “handles” make produce susceptible to impurity — might really be another kind of argument entirely, about how to read sacred texts, or about how to define the act of becoming impure at all. We can’t participate in a centuries-old argument meaningfully if we don’t understand the terms of debate. Truthfully, we also can’t participate meaningfully in contemporary disagreements either until we learn to dig below the surface.

Read all of Chullin 118 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 26, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.