Chullin 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

Do the first sign and the second sign combine to render pure [

the limb that protruded]

from the status of an animal carcass, or not?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Since the slaughtering of the two signs does not have the same effect with regard to the protruding limb—for when the first sign was slaughtered, while the limb was still inside, the sign was slaughtered both to permit the fetus and to purify it from the status of an animal carcass, whereas when the second sign was slaughtered, since the fetus had extended its limb, the slaughtering of the second sign helped with regard to this limb only to purify it from the status of an animal carcass, but not to permit it for consumption—perhaps they do not combine for any purpose. Or perhaps, since the slaughtering of both signs also comes to purify it from the status of an animal carcass, the slaughtering of the two signs combines with regard to purifying the limb?

And in the chapter Behema HaMaksheh, Rava resolves the uncertainty: It is reasonable that just as the first sign combines with the second sign to permit the entire animal for consumption, so too they combine to purify the protruding limb from the status of an animal carcass. And likewise, one can resolve the uncertainty of Rabbi Zeira.

We return to the matter under discussion and say:

The question arose only with regard to purifying it from the status of an animal carcass. But with regard to consumption,

it is certainly

prohibited

according to Rabbi Zeira, because it became a tereifa between the slaughtering of the two signs. This proves that Rabbi Zeira retracted his reasoning that an animal cannot become a tereifa while it possesses only half its vitality.

Rav Aḥa bar Rav said to Ravina: Perhaps Rabbi Zeira never retracted

his reasoning that an animal cannot become a tereifa while it possesses only half its vitality, and according to his view there is no room for the question, since the animal is fit even for consumption.

And Rabbi Zeira, according to Rava’s statement,

who maintains that an animal can become a tereifa while it possesses only half its vitality,

stated

the uncertainty.

But he himself does not hold this view.

The Gemara now brings an amora who understood Reish Lakish’s ruling in accordance with Rava, and derived from Reish Lakish’s words a law concerning the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal.

The prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is removed through the slaughtering of the animal’s two signs, even while it is still convulsing.

However, as long as the animal’s soul has not departed, it is prohibited to eat from it because of the prohibition, “You shall not eat upon the blood” [Leviticus 19:26], and one does not receive lashes for this prohibition.

After the animal’s soul has departed, it is permitted to eat even limbs that separated from it after the slaughtering. In this respect, the prohibition “You shall not eat upon the blood” differs from the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal: Once the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal takes effect, it is not removed by the animal’s death.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Learn from the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Jews may join together over

the eating of

the intestines

of any animal that was slaughtered, since they are permitted.

But gentiles may not join together over

the eating of

the intestines

of the animal, since they are prohibited to them under the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal, and one who feeds them to a gentile transgresses the prohibition of “placing a stumbling block before the blind.”

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that there is here a prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal? The animal was slaughtered!

Since through the slaughtering the lung and the intestines are considered detached from the animal, they are prohibited as a limb from a living animal. However, with regard to

Jews, since the matter depends on slaughtering [

as the animal’s permission from the prohibition of an animal carcass depends on slaughtering], the Torah revealed that slaughtering is considered for them equivalent to death. And

since there is proper slaughtering, they are permitted [

since there is valid slaughtering, they are permitted] even with regard to the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal.

But

gentiles,

to whom the prohibition of an animal carcass and the laws of slaughtering were not given,

for them piercing is sufficient

or any other means of killing ,

and with death

in actuality

the matter depends

with regard to removing the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal for them. Therefore,

these

intestines that separated before the animal’s death

are considered for them like a limb from a living animal,

and any limb that separated before the living creature’s death becomes prohibited even after its death.

Rav Pappa said: I was sitting before Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, and I wanted to say to him [

I was studying from Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov when he said this statement, and I wanted to say to him]:

Can there be something that is permitted to a Jew but prohibited to a gentile?!

[Can it be that something is permitted to a Jew but prohibited to a gentile?] For one should derive from the fact that it is permitted to a Jew that it is not prohibited even to a gentile!

But I did not say this to him,

I did not raise this challenge before him, because

I said: He has stated the reason,

and there is no additional prohibition for the gentile that was not imposed upon the Jew; rather, the definition of death differs with regard to the Jew.

It was taught in a beraita not in accordance with Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov: One who wishes to eat

a piece that was cut

from an animal before its soul departs,

because this is healthy,

cuts an olive-bulk of meat from the place of slaughtering,

from which he can cut without having to remove the hide,

and salts it thoroughly and rinses it

thoroughly,

more thoroughly than other meat ,

and waits for it until its soul departs

so that he will not transgress the prohibition “You shall not eat upon the blood” .

And he may eat it; both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it,

and we do not say that slaughtering does not permit it to a gentile, as Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov maintained . Rather, since it is permitted to a Jew, it is also permitted to a gentile .

It supports

this beraita

Rav Idi bar Avin,

who disagrees with Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov.

As Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ashyan: One who wishes to become healthy cuts an olive-bulk of meat from the place of slaughtering of an animal, salts it thoroughly and rinses it thoroughly, and waits for it until its soul departs; both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it.

Mishna:

With regard to one who slaughters a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird, and no blood emerges from them—

they are fit,

and we do not say that perhaps they were already dead at the time of slaughtering. Nor do we say that the absence of the mitzva of covering the blood in the case of a wild animal or bird prevents the slaughtering from being valid.

And

one who touches them need not perform ritual handwashing, but

they may be eaten with impure hands,

because they do not become susceptible to food impurity,

since they were not prepared

to receive impurity

through blood.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even though they were not prepared through one of the seven liquids to receive impurity, they

were prepared through slaughtering

to receive impurity. Since the slaughtering was effective in permitting them for consumption, it is likewise effective in making them food with regard to susceptibility to impurity.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: And they may be eaten with impure hands.

And we infer:

The reason is that no blood emerged from them; but if blood did emerge from them

and they thereby became susceptible to impurity,

they may not be eaten with impure hands,

because the hands would render them impure.

And we challenge this:

Why [

why would the hands render the meat impure? Ordinarily,

hands are second-degree

impurity

.

And a second-degree impurity does not impart third-degree impurity to non-sacred food,

as there is a third degree of impurity only with regard to teruma and consecrated food!

The Gemara explains:

From where do you know that we are dealing with non-sacred food,

and perhaps the Mishna is actually speaking of consecrated meat, which can receive impurity from hands?

The Gemara brings four proofs that the Mishna is speaking of non-sacred food and not of consecrated food.

a.

As it teaches

in the Mishna

“a wild animal,” for if

the Mishna had been speaking of

consecrated food,

it would not have mentioned a wild animal, since

is there a wild animal among consecrated offerings?

Are there not offerings only from domesticated animals and birds?!

b.

Furthermore, if the Mishna is speaking of consecrated offerings

and

no blood emerged from them,

how can

this animal be fit

for consumption? After all,

it itself,

the offering,

requires blood,

for sprinkling upon the altar, and this is what permits the flesh of the offering to be eaten!

c.

Furthermore, if it is referring to sacrificial offerings

the Mishna is discussing, then even

when blood came out of them, what renders

the sacrificial blood the meat of the offering fit to contract ritual impurity?

But Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: From where is it derived that sacrificial blood

that fell on seeds

does not render them fit

to contract ritual impurity?

As it is stated

with regard to blood:

“You shall pour it upon the ground like water” [Deuteronomy 12:16].

The verse teaches that only

blood

that is non-sacred,

which is poured like water,

and need not be received in a vessel, is like water and

renders

produce fit to contract ritual impurity. But sacrificial blood

which is not poured like water,

but is received in a vessel and sprinkled upon the altar,

does not render it fit.

d.

Furthermore, if it is referring to sacrificial offerings

the Mishna is discussing,

when no blood came out of them,

why

are they not rendered fit

because no liquid was placed upon them?

Let them be rendered fit

without liquid,

by virtue of the sacrificial sanctity, as we hold

that even consecrated wood and frankincense contract ritual impurity, because

the sacrificial sanctity renders them fit

and gives them the status of food. Likewise, sacrificial food should be rendered fit without water, by virtue of the sacrificial sanctity.

And once it has been demonstrated that our Mishna is not discussing sacrificial offerings, the difficulty arises: surely hands, which are only second-degree sources of ritual impurity, do not render non-sacred food impure!

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: Here we are dealing with non-sacred meat purchased with second-tithe money

in Jerusalem,

and we are dealing

with it as it assumes the sanctity of second tithe; and the status of second tithe is like that of teruma, and it has a third-degree status of ritual impurity.

And

the Mishna follows

not Rabbi Meir,

who holds that second tithe is equivalent to non-sacred food with regard to contracting ritual impurity, and permitted one to eat second tithe with impure hands.

And the Gemara cites the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis: