Chullin 117b (קיז:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

two

restrictive phrases are written

in these verses.

Here,

with regard to the removal of the ashes,

it is written, “and he shall place it”,

which indicates specifically he and no other.

There,

with regard to the beheaded heifer,

it is written, “the beheaded”.

And since restrictive phrases are written, even the one who says that two verses that come as one always teach a principle concedes that here they do not teach a principle, since the implication is specifically these and not others.

And we challenge this:

And three verses—

“for you,” “to atone,” and “it”—

why do I need them with regard to the blood,

since one of them is sufficient to exclude misuse of consecrated property?

And we explain:

One

verse—

to exclude

blood from the law of

notar,

so that if blood remained and one ate it, he is not liable for notar.

And one—

to exclude

blood

from misuse of consecrated property,

as we said above.

And one—

to exclude it from the law of impurity,

so that if one ate the blood while subject to ritual impurity of the body, he is not liable on account of impurity.

However,

to exclude blood

from piggul,

that is, if he rendered the sacrifice piggul and ate some of its blood—

there is no need for a verse. For we learned: Every

matter

that has a permitting factor, whether

it permits it

for a person,

such as sacrificial meat, which the sprinkling of the blood permits the kohanim to eat,

or whether

it permits it

for the altar,

such as the limbs of an olah, which the sprinkling of the blood permits to be burned on the altar,

one is liable for it on account of piggul.

But if it has no permitting factor, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

And blood

has no permitting factor, for

itself is the permitting factor.

We have returned to you, chapter “All the Meat.”

Introduction to the Chapter “The Hide and the Sauce”

A. Two types of ritual impurity apply to a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal:

impurity of an unslaughtered carcass and

impurity of foods.

The details of the laws of these two types of impurity are explained in this chapter.

B.

Impurity of an unslaughtered carcass

is an impurity

inherent

in a domesticated or non-domesticated animal that died without proper ritual slaughter.

The level of

impurity of the carcass

is

a primary source of impurity, and the carcass imparts impurity to everyone who touches it—a person, a utensil, or food—rendering them a first degree of impurity.

In contrast, the impurity of foods of a domesticated or non-domesticated animal that was slaughtered is not an inherent impurity. Rather, once the animal has been properly slaughtered and is permitted to be eaten, it becomes fit

By contrast, the impurity of food from a domesticated or wild animal that was slaughtered is not an inherent impurity. Rather, once the domesticated or wild animal has been slaughtered properly and is permitted for consumption, it now becomes fit

to receive

impurity from an impure object. Once the impure object touches it, it becomes impure with the impurity of foods, and it can also impart the impurity of foods to other foods.

Impurity of foods

is always

a first degree of impurity,

because foods do not become a primary source of impurity, even if they touched a corpse, which is the primary source of all primary sources of impurity.

As stated above, the essential distinction between the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass and the impurity of foods is that the impurity of a carcass is inherent, whereas the impurity of foods is an impurity that the food receives from an impure object. Therefore, the inherent impurity of a carcass does not require “preparation by liquids” in order to take effect.

And so it is stated in the Torah, in the Book of Leviticus [11:39]: “And if an animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.”

In contrast, food does not become impure with the impurity of foods unless it was first “prepared” to receive impurity by having water or other liquids placed upon it.

And so it is stated in the Torah [there, 11:37–38], in the two verses dealing with the impurity of foods: “

And if any part of their carcass [of the impure creeping animals] falls upon any sowing seed that is to be sown—it remains pure.

But if water is put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass falls upon it—it is impure for you.”

The “seed” mentioned here is a general designation for every type of food. The verse teaches that anything intended for eating does not receive impurity unless it is first “prepared” to receive impurity by having water [or other liquids] placed upon it.

C. Two concepts in the laws of impurity will be explained in this chapter, called

a handle

and

a protective covering.

The concept of

a handle

is found both with regard to the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass and with regard to the impurity of foods. But the concept of

a protective covering

is found only with regard to the impurity of foods, and not with regard to the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. “

A food’s handle

is something attached to the food but is not itself the food; rather, it is needed for the food, for example, because it enables one to hold the food. “

A food’s protective covering

is something attached to the food that protects it from spoiling, such as the peel of a fruit.

D. “A food’s protective covering” is more stringent than “a food’s handle,” because although a food’s handle receives impurity, it does not combine with the food to complete the measure of an egg-bulk [which is the measure for the impurity of foods]. A food’s protective covering, however, not only receives impurity, but also combines with the food itself to complete the measure of an egg-bulk.

As stated above, there is another distinction between a handle and a protective covering: the law of “a food’s protective covering” was introduced only with regard to the impurity of foods, and not with regard to the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses. Therefore, “a carcass’s protective covering” does not combine with it to complete the measure of an olive-bulk, which is the measure for the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses.

But the law of “a food’s handle” also applies to the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses. Therefore, if a person touched the handle of a carcass, he became impure from the carcass.

Our Mishna lists items that, when they are separate and are not attached to food, are not fit to receive the impurity of foods, because they are not intended for eating. But when they are attached to food, they receive impurity.

Moreover, they not only receive impurity; they also combine with the food to complete it to the measure of an egg-bulk, which is the measure for the impurity of foods, both to receive impurity and to impart impurity to others. Thus, even if the food itself does not contain an egg-bulk, but reaches that measure only together with the particular item, they combine to form the measure, both for receiving impurity and for imparting impurity to others.

There are two ways in which an item that is separate does not receive impurity, but when attached to food it does receive impurity.

The first is “a food’s protective covering.” The Torah introduced the law that a food’s protective covering receives impurity and combines with the food to form an egg-bulk. But when it is separate, it does not receive impurity, because it is not fit for eating.

The second is parts of the animal that are not intended to be eaten separately. When they are attached to food, since people customarily eat them together with the food, they become impure and impart impurity.

Mishna:

The hide

of an animal after its death, when it is attached to a piece of meat,

and the sauce,

the juice of the meat that emerges from it during cooking, when it has congealed on the meat;

and the kipa,

a spice that was cooked with the meat and is not eaten separately;

and the alal,

small pieces of meat that were cut together with the hide and remained attached to it;

and the bones,

which contain marrow intended for eating;

and the sinews, the horns, and the hooves—

all these items

combine

with the meat to complete it to the measure of an egg-bulk, with regard

to imparting the impurity of foods.

The hide, the bones, and the hooves combine because they are considered a “protective covering” for the meat. The sauce, the kipa, the alal, the horns, and the sinews combine because they are eaten together with the meat.

The Mishna stated that they “combine” to impart the impurity of foods because when they are not attached to food, they do not receive impurity at all, since they are not intended to be eaten separately. But

they

do not

combine for

the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses,

because if the meat is the meat of a carcass and does not contain an olive-bulk—which is the measure at which a carcass is fit to impart impurity—these items do not combine with it to complete the measure of an olive-bulk. This is because, in themselves, they do not have the status of carcass, and the law of a “protective covering” was stated only with regard to the impurity of foods, and not with regard to the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses.

Even those items that are customarily eaten together with the meat do not combine, because they are not considered a “carcass”; rather, they are considered merely food. The impurity of an unslaughtered carcass was stated only with regard to the meat of the carcass itself, as it is stated in the Torah: “One who touches its carcass”—and not with regard to food eaten together with the carcass.

Similarly,

we find an item to which the impurity of foods applies but to which the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass does not apply.

For example: an Israelite

who slaughters an impure animal for

the needs of

a gentile, and

the animal is still

twitching

[moving], even though the animal is forbidden to eat, it is nevertheless already considered food, and it

imparts the impurity of foods

[even before it dies and becomes impure as an unslaughtered carcass].

Since when an Israelite slaughters a pure animal, the act of slaughtering immediately permits it to be eaten, even while it is still twitching, it also immediately receives the impurity of foods, since it is considered food fit for eating even while it is twitching,

therefore, even when an Israelite slaughters an impure animal [which is forbidden for an Israelite to eat] for a gentile, the thought he has at the time of slaughter—that he is slaughtering it so that the gentile will eat it—is effective in giving it the status of food immediately, even while it is twitching.

This law applies under two conditions. The first condition is that the animal die through valid ritual slaughter. If it dies through nechira [killing by cutting the animal’s windpipe and gullet without valid ritual slaughter], or through invalid slaughter, such as if he paused or pressed during the slaughter, it is not considered food while it is twitching, because it is only in the case of valid slaughter that we find that an animal that is twitching is considered food.

The second condition is that the animal was slaughtered for a gentile. If it was slaughtered for an Israelite, the thought that he slaughtered it for the purpose of eating is not effective in giving the animal the status of food, because it is forbidden to eat, and his thought is nullified.

But

it

does not

impart

the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses,

as long as it is twitching,

until it dies or until its head is severed,

at which point it is considered dead even if it is still twitching. This is because with regard to the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses it is stated: “And if an animal dies,” teaching that the animal does not impart impurity until it dies.

This distinction applies only to an impure animal, since one who properly slaughters a pure animal does not cause it to become impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass at all, even after it dies.

Accordingly, we find that the verse

increased

the cases that impart

the impurity of foods

more

than

it increased the cases that impart the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The alal

small pieces of meat that remained attached to the hide after it was flayed [and are subordinate to the hide and are not considered meat],

when gathered,

when he gathered them into one place—

if it contains an olive-bulk in one place

and they are the meat of an unslaughtered carcass, it has the status of the meat of an unslaughtered carcass. If a person touched it and entered the Temple or ate sacrificial food while impure,

he is liable for it

to receive karet.

Since he gathered them and accorded them importance, they are not subordinate to the hide; rather, they are like all other meat. Even by Torah law they are considered the meat of an unslaughtered carcass, and therefore he is liable to receive karet for them.

Rabbi Yehuda comes to dispute the opinion of the Rabbis, according to whom the alal never imparts impurity as an unslaughtered carcass, even when it has been gathered into one place.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that the hide does not combine with the meat to complete the measure of an olive-bulk for the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses, even though it is a protective covering for the meat.

And we say:

We already learned

in the Mishna

that which the Sages taught

in a beraita:

The law of

protective coverings

is that they combine with the food they protect to complete the measure of the food only with regard

to minor impurity—

that is, “the impurity of foods,” which is minor impurity [because impure food imparts impurity only to other food and does not impart impurity to a person or utensils]. If the food together with the protective covering contains an egg-bulk, they impart the impurity of foods.

But not

is the law of the combination of

protective coverings

stated with regard

to major impurity—

that is, “the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass,” which is major impurity [because it also imparts impurity to a person and utensils]. If the carcass together with the protective covering contains an olive-bulk, they do not impart the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass.

And we explain:

The

protective coverings that combine with regard

to minor impurity—

from where do we know this?

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is stated in the verse that teaches about the impurity of foods: “And if any part of their carcass [of the impure creeping animals] falls

upon any sowing seed that is to be sown,”

and we interpret the words “that is to be sown” to mean that foods impart impurity

in the manner in which people take out

the seed to the field

for sowing.

That is,

a wheat grain in its husk

5 , and barley in its husk,

and lentils in their husks. This teaches that just as wheat is sown, so does it impart impurity; therefore, even the husk combines to complete the measure of an egg-bulk for the impurity of foods.

Although the verse states, “Upon every seed-bearing seed that is sown, it is pure,” nevertheless we learn from here the law of impurity concerning the fruit’s protector. The reason the Torah says, “It is pure,” is only that the seed had not been prepared with water to receive impurity. But had the seed been prepared, it would become impure in this manner, even when the wheat is in its husk].

And regarding that which we said :

and protectors

join with the food with regard

to severe impurity—

from where do we derive this?

As the Sages taught:

The Torah states concerning the impurity of an animal carcass, “One who touches

its carcass

shall become impure until evening,” and we expound: Specifically, one who touches the carcass itself becomes impure,

but not

one who touches

skin upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh,

who does not become impure, even if the skin completes the flesh to the measure of an olive-bulk. From here we learn that a protector, like skin, does not join with an animal carcass for purposes of impurity.