חולין 117:2 — Soncino English Talmud

limiting particles stated: here it is written: And he shall put them, and there it is written: Whose neck was broken. Why are the three different texts with regard to the blood necessary? One excludes blood from the law of nothar, another excludes it from the law of Sacrilege, and the third excludes it from the law of uncleanness. No text, however, is necessary to exclude it from the law of piggul. for we have learnt: ‘Whatsoever is rendered permissible, whether for man or for the altar, by a certain rite. is subject to the law of piggul’, but the blood is itself that which renders [other parts of the offering] permissible. MISHNAH. THE HIDE, MEAT JUICE, SEDIMENT, ALAL, BONES, SINEWS, HORNS AND HOOFS ARE TO BE INCLUDED [TO MAKE UP THE MINIMUM QUANTITY IN ORDER] TO CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS, BUT NOT TO [MAKE UP THE MINIMUM QUANTITY IN ORDER TO] CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS. SIMILARLY, IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL FOR A GENTILE AND IT STILL WRITHES CONVULSIVELY, IT CAN CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS, BUT IT CAN ONLY CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS AFTER IT IS DEAD, OR ITS HEAD HAS BEEN CHOPPED OFF. [SCRIPTURE] HAS [THUS] INTIMATED MORE CASES THAT CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS THAN THOSE THAT CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS. R. JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED TOGETHER SO THAT THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK IN ONE PLACE, ONE WOULD THEREBY BECOME LIABLE. GEMARA. We have learnt [here in our Mishnah] what our Rabbis have taught elsewhere: Protections [can be included to make up the quantity required] for a lighter uncleanness, but protections cannot [be included to make up the quantity required] for a graver uncleanness. Whence do we know that protections can be included for a lighter uncleanness? — From the following teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael: It is written: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, that is to say, in the manner in which men take out the seeds for sowing: wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, lentils in their husks. And whence do we know that protections cannot be included for a graver uncleanness? — From the following which our Rabbis taught: [He that toucheth] the carcass thereof [shall be unclean], but not he that touches the hide which has not an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Lev. VI, 3. The express addition of the suffix ‘them’ (in the Heb. ‘it’ in the sing.) in the text serves to exclude others.
^ᵇnote:Deut. XXI. 6; lit., ‘the one whose neck was broken’. The redundant particle, the, limits the rule to this case only.
^ᶜnote:Namely. ‘ To you’. ‘ To make atonement’, and ‘It is’. V. supra p. 645, n. 4.
^ᵈnote:If a man ate the blood of a sacrifice which remained over beyond the prescribed time within which the meat there of may be eaten, he is liable only for eating blood, but not, in addition, for eating nothar.
^ᵉnote:If a man who was unclean ate the blood of a sacrifice, he is liable only for eating blood, but not, in addition, for eating it whilst unclean.
^ᶠnote:I.e., if the sacrifice was rendered piggul (v. Glos.) and a man ate of the blood thereof he would not be liable for eating piggul.
^ᵍnote:V. Zeb. 43a. By the proper sprinkling of the blood the sacrificial portions are rendered permissible to be burnt upon the altar, and the flesh to be consumed by the priest or owner. Therefore if the sacrifice was rendered piggul and a man ate of the flesh or of the sacrificial portions he would be liable; but if he ate of the blood, which is what renders others permissible, he would not be liable.
^ʰnote:For the precise meaning of all these substances v. Gemara.
^ⁱnote:Some kind of offal of meat, as explained in the Gemara.
^ʲnote:Each of the substances enumerated would be reckoned together with a piece of meat less than an egg's bulk, so as to make up the quantity of an egg's bulk and, if unclean, would convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs or liquids. With regard to some of the substances, e.g., the meat juice, the sediment and the sinews, the reason why they would be reckoned together with the meat is because, although they are not eaten alone, they would be eaten together with the meat, and are therefore regarded as foodstuffs. And with regard to the other substances, e.g., the hide, bones, horns and hoofs, the reason is because each forms a protection or covering to a foodstuff and is therefore regarded as one with the foodstuff.
^ᵏnote:If the meat was nebelah these substances would not be included together with the meat in order to make up an olive's bulk, the quantity necessary in order to convey uncleanness to men or vessels.
^ˡnote:If it was touched by anything unclean. For although at this moment the animal may not be eaten, either by the Israelite who slaughtered it, for it is an unclean animal, or by the gentile, since by its death only is an animal rendered permitted to a gentile, and not by the slaughtering (v. supra 33a), nevertheless the act of slaughtering performed by the Israelite has the effect that the animal be deemed a foodstuff forthwith, for this could only have been the intention and purpose of the slaughtering.
^ᵐnote:Only then is it regarded as nebelah; cf. Lev. XI, 39.
^ⁿnote:Although alal by itself is not a foodstuff, if one collected a number of pieces together so that there was an olive's bulk in one place, this action is significant and renders the bulk a foodstuff.
^ᵒnote:If this accumulated bulk was taken from a nebelah and a man touched it and later entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, he would be liable to the penalty of kareth.
^ᵖnote:I.e., that which surrounds and encloses foodstuffs, e.g., the husk of grain, the peel of fruit, the shell of nuts, the hide of an animal, etc.
^ᵠnote:That condition of uncleanness which can only render unclean foodstuffs and liquids, provided there was an egg's bulk of the unclean matter.
^ʳnote:Nebelah-uncleanness. The condition of uncleanness that can even render unclean men and vessels, provided there was an olive's bulk of the unclean matter.
^ˢnote:Lev. XI, 37, with reference to the uncleanness of foodstuffs.
^ᵗnote:I.e., by seed is meant the grain together with its husk; hence the protection of food is considered as part of the food itself.
^ᵘnote:Ibid. 39.