Talmud Bavli Hullin 33a-b - translation by Tzvee

D.            Is this not the same as the question posed by Ilfa: if the foetus stuck its leg out between [the cutting of] one organ and the other, what is the rule? [33a] Do you say that the [slaughter of the] first organ combines with the second so as to remove the animal from the category of carrion? Or do you say that it does not?

E.            On this point there is a question only as to whether it removes the animal from the category of carrion. But as to eating, it is forbidden.

F.             Said R. Aha bar Rab to Rabina, “Perhaps [Zira] never retracted his objection. And R. Zira stated [his objection] according to the words of Raba [in A]. But he did not reason in accord with his view.”

G.            Said to him R. Aha bar Jacob, “You may derive from this rule of R. Simeon b. Laqish that you may invite an Israelite to eat the intestines, but you may not invite an idolater to eat the intestines.”

H.           What is the basis for this conclusion? For an Israelite the issue [of whether one may eat them] depends on [if you have a valid] act of slaughter. Since you have a perfectly good act of slaughter, they are permitted to him.

I.              For an idolater stabbing is sufficient [as an act of killing] and the issue [of whether one may eat them] depends on the death of the animal. These [intestines removed after the slaughter] are like a limb from a living animal.

J.              Said R. Pappa, “I was sitting before R. Aha bar Jacob and I thought it would make sense to pose the question, is there something that is permitted to an Israelite and forbidden to an idolater? But I did not say this to him. Because it made sense to me that he had stated the reason.”

III.3

A.            It was taught on Tannaite authority not in accord with R. Aha bar Jacob: if he wants to eat [meat] from an animal before its soul departs, he cuts an olive's bulk of meat from the place of the slaughter, and he salts it well, and he rinses it well, and he waits until the soul departs, and he eats it. Either an Israelite or an idolater is permitted to do this.

B.            This supports the view of R. Idi bar Abin. For said R. Idi bar Abin, said R. Yitzhak bar Ashian, “If he wants to become healthy, he cuts an olive's bulk of meat from the place of the slaughter of the beast, and he salts it well, and he rinses it well, and he waits until the soul departs, and he eats it. Either an Israelite or an idolater is permitted to do this.”

I.1 finds a text that seems to contradict ours and resolves the divergence. II performs an exercise in Mishnah-criticism and clarifies the correct meaning of the text. III.1 reverts to the problem of I. No. 2 takes up a secondary issue introduced in II. No. 3 tacks on a miscellany.

                                                                     2:5    

                A.            He who slaughters a beast, a wild animal, or fowl, from which blood did not exude —

                B.            they are valid.

                C.            And they are eaten with dirty hands,

                D.           because they have not been made susceptible to uncleanness by blood.

                E.            R. Simeon says, “They are rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the act of slaughter itself.”

I.1

A.            The basis for this is, blood did not exude from them. But if blood did exude from them, they are not eaten with dirty hands. Why not? The hands are deemed unclean in the second degree. And an object unclean in the second degree does not render unconsecrated things unclean in the third degree.

B.            And how do you know that we are dealing with unconsecrated things here? Because it teaches, a wild animal. If this were dealing with consecrated things, is there an instance of using a wild animal for consecrated things?

C.            And furthermore, if this pertains to consecrated things, if blood did not exude, is it valid? Inherently [in a consecrated animal] it is for the blood [that he slaughters it].

D.            And furthermore, if this pertains to consecrated things, if blood does exude, does this [alone] render it valid? Lo, did not R. Hiyya bar Abba say in the name of R. Yohanan, “Based on what do we say that the blood of consecrated things do not [alone] render it susceptible to uncleanness? As it says, `[Only you shall not eat the blood]; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water' (Deut. 12:16).” Blood that flows like water renders objects susceptible [to uncleanness]. Blood that does not flow like water does not render objects susceptible [to uncleanness].

E.            And furthermore, if this pertains to consecrated things, if blood did not exude, is it not valid? Let it be valid by virtue of the veneration of sancta. For we hold the principle that the veneration of sancta renders it susceptible [as a foodstuff to uncleanness].

F.             Said R. Nahman, said Rabbah bar Abbuha, “Here we are dealing with unconsecrated things that were bought with the money of tithes, and not in accord with the view of R. Meir.”

G.            For it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, [33b] Whoever requires immersion in water according to the rules of the scribes (1) renders Holy Things unclean and (2) spoils the heave-offering. “And he is permitted in respect to unconsecrated food and tithe,” the words of R. Meir. And sages prohibit in the case of tithe [M. Parah 11:5 A-C]. [A special rule pertains to tithes.]

H.           R. Shimi bar Ashi raised an objection to this: Why [follow the view of sages that second remove renders tithes unclean in the third remove (Rashi)]? Perhaps on this point R. Meir only disputed the view of sages with regard to eating tithes. But with regard to [transfer of uncleanness through] contact with tithes, and with regard to eating unconsecrated things, they did not dispute.

I.              But lo, the [issue of our Mishnah must be the transfer of uncleanness through] contact. Because it was taught, And they are eaten with dirty hands [M. 2:5 C]. [The passive voice suggests where blood did not exude] that are we not dealing with one who feeds his fellow? [The implication is that if blood exuded, a person with unwashed hands may not feed another. This means that contact with a second remove of uncleanness (the hands) renders the food unclean. And there seems to be no precedent for this view (Rashi).]

J.              Rather said R. Pappa, “Here we are dealing with hands that are unclean in the first remove. And this accords with the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar.” For it was taught on Tannaite authority, [The rule governing the uncleanness of] hands [in the first remove has] no [bearing upon] unconsecrated food. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Meir, “The hands are unclean in the first remove so far as Holy Things are concerned and are unclean in the second remove so far as heave-offering is concerned [T. Toh. 1:6 A-B].” [The citation in our passage of the Talmud reads “unconsecrated things” instead of “Holy Things.” The argument that follows requires this reading.]

K.            [Does this mean that hands are unclean] in the first remove with regard to unconsecrated things but not with regard to heave-offering? This is the way you should state the matter, [Hands are regarded as unclean] in the first remove even with regard to unconsecrated things. [Hands that are unclean] in the second degree, with regard to heave-offering, yes [they render it unclean] but with regard to unconsecrated things, no [they do not render it unclean].

L.            And is there such a thing as hands unclean in the first remove? Yes. As it was taught on Tannaite authority, He who pokes his hand into a house afflicted with nega — “his hands are in the first remove of uncleanness,” the words of R. Aqiba. And sages say, “His hands are in the second remove of uncleanness [M. Yad. 3:1 A-C].” According to all authorities partial entry [of only his hand into the house] is not deemed an entry [of his whole body or he would be unclean]. And here the dispute is over the issue of whether we decree uncleanness of [the remove that would pertain to] his whole body [had he entered] upon his hand [entering into an unclean house]. One authority reasoned that the rabbis equated his hands with his whole body [and decreed the same level of uncleanness, i.e., first remove, Aqiba]. The other authority reasoned that the rabbis equated his hands with the general rule for hands [i.e., second remove].

M.           And why do we not support [the view that our Mishnah] is in accord with the view of R. Aqiba who said that hands are unclean in the first remove? Perhaps it is because R. Aqiba states his rule with regard to heave-offering and consecrated things that are subject to a more stringent rule. But with regard to unconsecrated things they are unclean in the second remove.

N.           But even if they are unclean in the second remove, lo we have heard that R. Aqiba said, “[Contact with objects unclean in] the second remove render them unclean in the third remove [even for] unconsecrated things.”

O.            As was taught on Tannaite authority, On that day did R. Aqiba expound as follows: “And if any of them falls into any earthen vessel, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it” (Lev. 11:33). It does not say “is unclean” but “it will be unclean” [ytm', that could also be read “will render unclean”] — that is, to impart uncleanness to other things. Thus has Scripture taught concerning a loaf of bread unclean in the second remove, that it imparts uncleanness in the third remove [to a loaf of bread with which it comes into contact] [M. Sotah 5:2 A-B].

P.            Perhaps this pertains only to uncleanness ordained on the authority of Scripture but not to that ordained on the authority of the rabbis [e.g., uncleanness of hands].

Q.            Said R. Eleazar, said R. Hoshia, “Here we are dealing with unconsecrated things that were prepared in accord with the [higher] standards of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things.” And this is not in accord with the view of R. Joshua. As it was taught on Tannaite authority, R. Eliezer says, “He who eats food unclean in the first remove is unclean in the first remove; [he who eats] food unclean in the second remove is unclean in the second remove; [he who eats] food unclean in the third remove is unclean in the third remove.” R. Joshua says, “He who eats food unclean in the first remove and food unclean in the second remove is unclean in the second remove. [He who eats] food unclean in the third remove is unclean in the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned, and is not unclean in the second remove so far as heave-offering is concerned — in the case of unconsecrated food that is prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering” [M. Toh. 2:2].

R.            [This means that for] unconsecrated food that is prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering, yes [the rule of a third remove applies], but for unconsecrated food that is prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things, no [the rule does not apply]. He [Joshua] reasons that unconsecrated things that are prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things do not have the rule of a third remove of uncleanness.