חולין 33 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Is the first organ to be reckoned together with the second in order to render [the foreleg] clean, and not nebelah, or not? Now the question put [by R. Zera] was only as to whether or not the animal was to be regarded as clean, and not nebelah, but [admittedly] it is forbidden to be eaten. R. Aha b. Rab said to Rabina: It may very well be that R. Zera did not withdraw his objection at all, but he merely formulated his question from the point of view of Raba, though he himself did not agree with it. R. Aha b. Jacob said: One may conclude from the ruling of R. Simeon b. Lakish that an Israelite may be invited to partake of the intestines, but not a gentile. Why is this? — Because to an Israelite everything depends upon the slaughtering; therefore, since here the animal has been properly slaughtered he may partake of the intestines. To the gentile, however, everything depends upon the death of the animal [and not upon the slaughtering], for even stabbing would be sufficient; therefore the intestines [of an animal slaughtered by an Israelite] would be regarded as a limb [cut off] from a living animal. R. Papa said: ‘As I was Sitting before R. Aha b. Jacob I thought of putting the question to him: Is there anything which is permitted to an Israelite and forbidden to a gentile? But I did not ask him this, for I said to myself: "He has himself suggested the reason for it"’. There was taught [a Baraitha] which contradicts the view of R. Aha b. Jacob: ‘If a person desires to eat the meat of an animal before it has actually died, he may cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the animal expires, and then eat it. Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this way’. This [Baraitha] on the other hand Supports the view of R. Idi b. Abin. For R. Idi b. Abin said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian: If a person wishes to be in good health he should cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the animal expires, and then eat it. Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this way. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED CATTLE OR A WILD BEAST OR A BIRD AND NO BLOOD CAME FORTH, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID AND IT MAY BE EATEN BY HIM WHOSE HANDS HAVE NOT BEEN WASHED, FOR IT HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY BLOOD. R. SIMEON SAYS, IT HAS BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY THE SLAUGHTERING. GEMARA. Now this is so only because no blood came forth, but if blood did come forth [it follows that] it may not be eaten by one with unwashed hands. But why? Are not [unwashed] hands unclean in the second degree and that which is unclean in the second degree cannot render ‘common’ food unclean in the third degree? — But whence do you gather that we are dealing with common food? — For it reads [in the Mishnah]. OR A WILD BEAST, and if it is dealing with consecrated animals [it is unintelligible, for] is there such a thing as a consecrated wild beast? Furthermore, if it is dealing with consecrated animals, can it be said that the slaughtering is valid where no blood came forth? The whole purpose [of the slaughtering] is to obtain the blood! Furthermore, if [it is dealing] with consecrated animals, can it be said that in the case where blood did come forth it would render [the animal] susceptible to uncleanness? Surely R. Hiyya b. Abba has said in the name of R. Johanan: ‘Whence do we know that the blood of consecrated animals cannot render anything susceptible to uncleanness? From the verse: Thou shalt poor it out upon the earth as water, which implies that blood which is poured out as water can render susceptible to uncleanness, but blood which is not poured Out as water cannot’. Furthermore, if [it is dealing] with consecrated animals, can it be said that where no blood came forth the animal would not be rendered susceptible to uncleanness? Surely it would be susceptible to uncleanness because of its sacred esteem, for it is established that sacred esteem will render [consecrated] matter susceptible to uncleanness! R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Here [in our Mishnah] we are dealing with unconsecrated animals that were bought [in Jerusalem] with Second Tithe money, and the ruling is not in accordance with R. Meir's view. For we have learnt, 13^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ

^ᵃnote:But this cannot be reconciled with the objection he raised against Raba. It is therefore right to say that R. Zera withdrew his objection.
^ᵇnote:For he is of the opinion that any defect that occurs to any limb in the course of the slaughtering will not affect the validity of the slaughtering, and the animal would even be fit for food.
^ᶜnote:According to Raba's view who stated above that Resh Lakish's ruling did not apply to the case where the intestines were pierced after the cutting of the first organ, the question arises: Would the animal be free from the uncleanness of nebelah or not?
^ᵈnote:In order that the animal may be fit for food.
^ᵉnote:For by the cutting of the organs only the animal is not absolutely dead, and at this stage the intestines are regarded, according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, as having been taken out from the living(!) animal and placed in a basket; hence they are forbidden to a gentile as a limb cut off from a living animal.
^ᶠnote:V. Sanh. 63a. Sonc. ed., p. 430.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘with unclean hands’. Hands that have not been washed are regarded by the Rabbis as unclean in the second degree. There is no fear here of the hands defiling the meat for the reason stated in the Mishnah, namely, that the flesh of the animal has not been made wet by water or blood or any other liquid, in conformity with the rule laid down in Lev. XI, 38.
^ʰnote:Since the slaughtering renders the animal fit for food it will likewise render it, as a food, susceptible to uncleanness without the necessity of water or other liquid to moisten it.
^ⁱnote:Wild beasts, like the gazelle and the hart, were not permitted to be offered as sacrifices.
^ʲnote:For it must be sprinkled upon the altar, v. supra 29a.
^ᵏnote:Deut. XII, 24.
^ˡnote:V. Pes. 35a. The very sanctity of consecrated things renders them susceptible to uncleanness without the necessity of any moistening by water.
^ᵐnote:V. Par. XI, 5.

²Whatsoever requires immersion in the waters [of a mikweh] by decree of the Scribes will [through contact] render consecrated food unclean, and terumah invalid, but will leave common food or Second Tithe unaffected: so R. Meir. The Sages however regard Second Tithe to be affected. R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred: Is it really so? Perhaps the Sages differ with R. Meir only on the question of eating this Second Tithe, but there is no dispute between them on the question of coming into contact with the Second Tithe or of eating common food! And here [in our Mishnah] it is a question of coming into contact, for it reads: AND MAY BE EATEN BY HIM WHOSE HANDS HAVE NOT BEEN WASHED, and this might very well mean that we are dealing with the case of one person feeding another? — Rather, said R. Papa, here [in the Mishnah] we are dealing with hands that were unclean in the first degree, and the ruling is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: Hands which are unclean in the first degree can in no wise affect common food. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Meir, Hands which are unclean in the first degree can affect common food, and hands which are unclean in the second degree can affect terumah. Does this mean to say that hands which are unclean in the first degree can affect common food only and not terumah? — Indeed no; it means, hands which are unclean in the first degree can affect even common food, but hands which are unclean in the second degree can affect terumah only but not common food. But is it possible for hands to be unclean in the first degree? — Yes. For we have learnt: If a person put his hands into a house stricken with leprosy, his hands become unclean in the first degree: so R. Akiba. The Sages however say, His hands become unclean in the second degree. Now all accept the principle that an entry by part of the person only is no entry, and the dispute between them is the extent of uncleanness imposed by the Rabbis upon the hands as a precaution against the entry of the whole person. One [R. Akiba] says that the Rabbis imposed upon the hands the same degree of uncleanness as upon the person himself; but the Sages say that they imposed upon the hands the usual degree of uncleanness attached to hands. But why do we not say that the ruling [in our Mishnah] accords with R. Akiba, who also holds that hands can be unclean in the first degree? — Because it may be that R. Akiba says so only with regard to terumah or consecrated food, since these are to be treated with strictness, but with regard to common food [he would agree that] they are unclean only in the second degree. But even so, be they unclean only in the second degree, have we not learnt that according to R. Akiba, whatever is unclean in the second degree can render common food unclean in the third degree? For we have learnt: On that same day R. Akiba expounded: It is written: And every earthen vessel, [whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it] shall be unclean [yitma]. Now there is not written tame but yitma, which signifies that it will make others unclean. This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree will [by contact] render common food unclean in the third degree? — Perhaps this is the law only with regard to such uncleanness as declared by the Torah but not with regard to such uncleanness as decreed by the Rabbis. R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hoshaia, Here [in our Mishnah] we are dealing with unconsecrated animals that were kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things, and the ruling is not in accordance with R. Joshua's view. For we have learnt: R. Eliezer says. He who eats [food unclean in] the first [degree becomes unclean in the] first degree; [if it was unclean] in the second degree, [he becomes unclean in] the second degree; and [if it was unclean in] the third degree, [he becomes unclean in] the third degree. R. Joshua says, [He who eats food unclean in] the first or second degree [becomes unclean in] the second degree; [if it was unclean in] the third degree. [he becomes unclean in] the second degree with regard to consecrated things only, but not with regard to terumah. This applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah. And so only in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah [is there a third degree of uncleanness], but not in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things, for he [R. Joshua] is of the opinion that in that latter case there cannot be a third degree of uncleanness. Why should we not say that our Mishnah deals^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ

^ⁿnote:Those cases enumerated in Shab. 13b for which the Rabbis decreed uncleanness in the second degree.
^ᵒnote:The general principle is that unclean matter defiles anything which comes in contact with it and that the thing so defiled becomes unclean in a lesser degree than that which defiled it. Further it has been laid down that uncleanness in common food extends to the second degree, in terumah (v. Glos.) to the third degree, and in consecrated food to the fourth degree. The last degree of uncleanness in each category is itself unclean but cannot impart uncleanness and is called kuxp, ‘invalid’. As we are dealing with uncleanness in the second degree it will naturally render consecrated food unclean in the third degree.
^ᵖnote:As the terumah is unclean in the third degree it cannot impart further uncleanness, and is therefore termed kuxp
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘they forbid in the case of Second Tithe’. Presumably the Second Tithe becomes unclean in the third degree by contact with that which was unclean in the second degree. On this assumption our Mishnah can be interpreted as dealing with animals bought with Second Tithe money.
^ʳnote:I.e., the Sages forbid a person whose hands are unwashed to eat Second Tithe.
^ˢnote:For all agree that a person with unwashed hands may eat common food and touch Second Tithe.
^ᵗnote:Since the Mishnah does not say ‘And one whose hands have not been washed may eat it’, it is to be inferred that even a person with unwashed hands may feed another. And on the other hand, where the animal has been moistened by the blood, it may not be eaten by one whose hands are unwashed and similarly one with unwashed hands may not feed another. Hence the Mishnah forbids the touching of Second Tithe by one who is unclean in the second degree, which is contrary to all views.
^ᵘnote:To render it unclean in the second degree.
^ᵛnote:And make the terumah unclean in the third degree.
^ʷnote:Yad. III, I.
^ˣnote:Therefore the person himself is not rendered unclean, and on the same principle his hands too should not be rendered unclcan. The Rabbis, however, decreed that the latter be unclean as a precautionary measure against it being said: If hands when brought into a house stricken with leprosy remain clean, the body too should be clean!
^ʸnote:A person who enters a house afflicted with leprosy is rendered unclean in the first degree; v. Lev. Xlv, 46.
^ᶻnote:I.e., uncleanness in the second degree.
^ᵃᵃnote:The Talmud endeavours to establish wherever possible the ruling of an anonymous Mishnah in accordance with the view of R. Akiba for it was by his direction and on his authority that the Tannaitic teachings were collected.
^ᵃᵇnote:That hands can be unclean in the first degree.
^ᵃᶜnote:Our Mishnah therefore would be in ent1re accord with R. Akiba.
^ᵃᵈnote:Sot. 27b, and Pes. 182.
^ᵃᵉnote:The day on which R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah was appointed head of the College. V. Ber. 28b.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lev. XI, 33. Heb. tnyh.
^ᵃᵍnote:tny, meaning, ‘it is unclean’.
^ᵃʰnote:tnyh And R. Akiba argued that this word should not be read as yitma, for then it has the same meaning as tame, but should be read as yetamme, meaning, ‘it shall render others unclean’. R. Akiba accordingly interprets the verse thus: If a dead reptile is suspended in the air-space of an earthenware vessel, the latter is thereby rendered unclean in the first degree, and whatever foodstuffs are in the vessel are unclean in the second degree; and since the text states tnyh in connection, with the latter it means that they will render others unclean in the third degree.
^ᵃⁱnote:For the verse contemplates every sort of food, common or consecrated.
^ᵃʲnote:The uncleanness attached to unwashed hands is a Rabbinic enactment. It is suggested that, being merely Rabbinic in origin, the law with regard thereto is not so rigid, and so would not render others unclean in the third degree.
^ᵃᵏnote:It was not unusual for many to eat their ordinary food in the same strictness regarding the laws of uncleanness as applied to consecrated food, in order that whenever partaking of consecrated food they would be accustomed to the rules of cleanness appertaining thereto.
^ᵃˡnote:Toh. II, 2.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., he would render consecrated food unclean in the third degree and the latter in turn could render other consecrated food unclean in the fourth degree.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., he would not by contact render terumah unclean in the third degree (i.e., invalid); he is nevertheless forbidden in his condition of uncleanness to eat terumah, v. infra.
^ᵃᵒnote:That with common food there can be a third degree of uncleanness.
^ᵃᵖnote:For he holds that the determ1nat1on to treat common food with the cleanness proper to consecrated food is of no effect; our Mishnah, therefore, which deals with an animal kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated animals, will agree with R. Eliezer but not with R. Joshua.