חולין 33:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Whatsoever 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:Those cases enumerated in Shab. 13b for which the Rabbis decreed uncleanness in the second degree.
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:As the terumah is unclean in the third degree it cannot impart further uncleanness, and is therefore termed kuxp
^ᵈnote: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.
^ᵉnote:I.e., the Sages forbid a person whose hands are unwashed to eat Second Tithe.
^ᶠnote:For all agree that a person with unwashed hands may eat common food and touch Second Tithe.
^ᵍnote: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.
^ʰnote:To render it unclean in the second degree.
^ⁱnote:And make the terumah unclean in the third degree.
^ʲnote:Yad. III, I.
^ᵏnote: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!
^ˡnote:A person who enters a house afflicted with leprosy is rendered unclean in the first degree; v. Lev. Xlv, 46.
^ᵐnote:I.e., uncleanness in the second degree.
^ⁿnote: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.
^ᵒnote:That hands can be unclean in the first degree.
^ᵖnote:Our Mishnah therefore would be in ent1re accord with R. Akiba.
^ᵠnote:Sot. 27b, and Pes. 182.
^ʳnote:The day on which R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah was appointed head of the College. V. Ber. 28b.
^ˢnote:Lev. XI, 33. Heb. tnyh.
^ᵗnote:tny, meaning, ‘it is unclean’.
^ᵘnote: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.
^ᵛnote:For the verse contemplates every sort of food, common or consecrated.
^ʷnote: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.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote:Toh. II, 2.
^ᶻnote: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.
^ᵃᵃnote: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.
^ᵃᵇnote:That with common food there can be a third degree of uncleanness.
^ᵃᶜnote: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.