The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general? Say that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, apply it to the matter of protection in general with regard to food. Although it is already written: “Upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), two verses are necessary to teach the halakha of protection with regard to food: One verse to teach that protection imports impurity and one to teach that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. But there is no source from which to derive that a handle imports impurity.

The Gemara answers: The halakha that a handle imports impurity is not derived from the superfluous verse written with regard to the impurity of a carcass. Rather, it is necessary to return to the explanation that was initially proposed, i.e., that it is written with regard to the impurity of food: “It is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that any part needed for your use of the food imparts impurity, including handles. It was asked with regard to this derivation: Say that this verse teaches that a handle exports impurity but not that it imports impurity. The Gemara suggests: That question is not difficult. From the outset, when the halakha of a handle is written: “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), it is written in the context of importing impurity. Therefore, it is inferred a fortiori that a handle exports impurity from the halakha that it imports impurity, and it is derived a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity. It is also derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: “On any sowing seed.”

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to teach the halakha of protection with regard to a carcass, as it is written: “Shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:39)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the matter itself, to teach that the halakha of protection is applicable to the impurity of a carcass.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what halakha is this taught? If it teaches that protection joins together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, you said in the mishna that protection does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. If it teaches that protection imports and exports the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary for the verse to teach this halakha because it is inferred a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle. The Gemara answers: Sometimes there is a matter that could be inferred a fortiori, and the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

The Gemara objects: If so, one may ask: With regard to protection in general, i.e., with regard to food, it was established that the verse is not necessary to teach that it imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. I will say to you instead that the verse teaches that protection imports impurity, and the reason that the verse teaches this halakha even though it could be inferred a fortiori is because sometimes there is a matter that could be inferred a fortiori and the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

The Gemara answers: Where it is possible to interpret the verse in a manner that a novelty is derived, we interpret it in such a manner and do not maintain that the verse teaches that which could be inferred a fortiori.

The Gemara returns to the previous proposal to derive that a handle imports impurity from the verse concerning protection of a carcass based on the reasoning that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general. Previously, the Gemara challenged this derivation: If the verse is not needed for the matter of protection for the impurity of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of protection in general. Rav Ḥaviva said in response: The halakha of protection of a carcass is different because it imports and exports impurity but does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the protection serves as a handle in that it only imports and exports impurity, we apply its novelty to the halakhot of a handle and not to the halakhot of protection.

§Previously it was derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing, e.g., wheat and barley in their shells. Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael objects to this from that which we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 2:3): The protrusion of a pomegranate joins together with the pomegranate to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk that is required to impart impurity, because it provides protection for the fruit. But its flower does not join together with the pomegranate in that regard because it does not provide protection for the fruit; rather, it provides protection for the protection of the fruit.

Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael asks: And why does the protrusion join together with the pomegranate to constitute an egg-bulk? Read here that the verse states: “On any sowing seed,” indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typically taken out to the field for sowing. But pomegranates are not typically taken out to the field for sowing with their protrusions, since they are usually planted in the field as seedlings.

And furthermore, one can object to this derivation from that which we learned in the mishna: The hide and the congealed gravy attached to the meat, and the spices, and the meat residue, and the bones, and the tendons, and the lower section of the horns, and the section of the hooves, all join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart impurity of food. From where do we derive that these protections, although they are not sown together with the food, join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity?

Rather, three terms with the root zayin, reish, ayin are written in the verse with regard to protection: “On any sowing [zerua] seed [zera] that is sown [yizzare’a].” One term is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to seeds, and one is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to trees, and the other term is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to meat, and eggs, and fish. Accordingly, this halakha is not limited to protection that is sown together with the food.

§It is written: “And if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). Previously, the Gemara derived from this verse that an appendage that serves as a handle both imports impurity to and exports impurity from the food. In addition, the simple understanding teaches that food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. With regard to these two halakhot, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: There is significance to a handle with regard to importing and exporting impurity, i.e., a handle imports impurity to and exports impurity from to the attached food, but there is no significance to a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Rather, the food itself must come into contact with liquid directly.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is significance to a handle with regard to importing impurity to and exporting impurity from the attached food, and with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity even if only the handle came into contact with liquid.

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical argument. If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse.

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse. One Sage, Rav, holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term immediately preceding it and not based on juxtaposition to the term before the one preceding it. In this case, the verse states: “For you,” indicating inclusion of a handle with regard to the matter of imparting impurity, which is stated in the preceding phrase: “It is impure,” but not with regard to the matter of rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid which is stated before the preceding phrase: “If water is put.”

And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term immediately preceding it, as well as to the term before the one preceding it. Therefore, he maintains that a handle can also render the attached food susceptible to impurity.

If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical argument. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that rendering food susceptible to impurity is the initial stage of the process of imparting impurity to it. Therefore, just as a handle imparts impurity, it can also render the food susceptible to impurity. And one Sage, Rav, holds that rendering food susceptible to impurity is not the initial stage of the process of imparting impurity.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Just as there is significance to a handle with regard to imparting impurity to food, so too there is significance to a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. And just as produce is susceptible to contracting impurity only when it is detached from the soil, so too produce cannot be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid until it is detached from the soil.

§The Gemara cites another disagreement between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rav says: There is no halakha of a handle with regard to imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food. And there is no halakha of protection with regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food. In addition, the protection does not join together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a halakha of a handle with regard to imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food. And there is a halakha of protection with regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food. In addition, it joins together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of both Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan from that which is taught in a Tosefta (Oholot 4:8): In a case of two bones that have two halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a dead person upon them, i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside a house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself, and the house is impure.

Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk?