Chullin

limiting particles stated: here it is written: And he shall put them,1 and there it is written: Whose neck was broken.2 Why are the three different texts with regard to the blood necessary?3 One excludes blood from the law of nothar,4 another excludes it from the law of Sacrilege, and the third excludes it from the law of uncleanness.5 No text, however, is necessary to exclude it from the law of piggul.6 for we have learnt: ‘Whatsoever is rendered permissible, whether for man or for the altar, by a certain rite.7 is subject to the law of piggul’, but the blood is itself that which renders [other parts of the offering] permissible. MISHNAH. THE HIDE,8 MEAT JUICE, SEDIMENT, ALAL,9 BONES, SINEWS, HORNS AND HOOFS ARE TO BE INCLUDED10 [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.11 SIMILARLY, IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL FOR A GENTILE AND IT STILL WRITHES CONVULSIVELY, IT CAN CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS,12 BUT IT CAN ONLY CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS AFTER IT IS DEAD,13 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 TOGETHER14 SO THAT THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK IN ONE PLACE, ONE WOULD THEREBY BECOME LIABLE.15 GEMARA. We have learnt [here in our Mishnah] what our Rabbis have taught elsewhere: Protections16 [can be included to make up the quantity required] for a lighter uncleanness,17 but protections cannot [be included to make up the quantity required] for a graver uncleanness.18 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,19 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.20 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],21 but not he that touches the hide which has not an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it. may be eaten, he is liable only for eating blood, but not, in addition, for eating nothar. eating it whilst unclean. eating piggul. 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. 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. olive's bulk, the quantity necessary in order to convey uncleanness to men or vessels. 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. bulk in one place, this action is significant and renders the bulk a foodstuff. consecrated food, he would be liable to the penalty of kareth. of an animal, etc. bulk of the unclean matter. was an olive's bulk of the unclean matter. itself.