Chullin 33a — the Talmud in English

Does the first sign join the second sign for purifying

the hand that came out

from the status of a carcass, or not.

And the sides of the doubt are: Since the slaughtering of the two signs is not equivalent with regard to the hand that came out—for when the first sign was slaughtered, while the hand was inside, the sign was slaughtered in order to permit the fetus and to purify it from the status of a carcass, whereas when the second sign was slaughtered, since the fetus had brought out its hand, the slaughtering of the second sign was effective with regard to this hand only to purify it from the status of a carcass but not to permit it for eating, and therefore they do not join for any purpose; or, since the slaughtering of the two signs also comes to purify from the status of a carcass, with regard to the purification of the limb the slaughtering of the two signs joins?

And in the chapter “An animal whose fetus is difficult,” Rava resolves the doubt: it is reasonable that just as the first sign joins the second sign to permit the entire animal for eating, so they join to purify the limb that came out from the status of a carcass. And likewise the doubt of Rabbi Zeira can be resolved.

And we return to our discussion and say:

The doubt was raised only with regard to purifying from the status of a carcass. But with regard to eating,

it is certainly

prohibited

according to Rabbi Zeira, because it became a tereifa between the two signs. And it is proven that Rabbi Zeira retracted his reasoning that there is no tereifa for half of the animal’s life.

Rav Aha bar Rav said to Ravina: Perhaps, in fact, he did not retract

Rabbi Zeira from his reasoning that there is no tereifa for half of the animal’s life, and according to his view there is no place for the doubt, since the animal is fit even for eating.

And Rabbi Zeira, according to the words of Rava,

who holds that there is tereifa for half of the animal’s life,

raised

the doubt.

But he himself does not hold so.

And now the Gemara brings an amora who understood the ruling of Reish Lakish like Rava, and learned from the words of Reish Lakish a halakha concerning the prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

The prohibition of a limb from a living animal is permitted through the slaughtering of the two signs of the animal, even while it is convulsing.

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

After the animal’s soul has departed, it is permitted to eat even from limbs that separated from it after the slaughtering. In this respect the prohibition of “You shall not eat upon the blood” differs from the prohibition of a limb from a living animal, for once the prohibition of a limb from a living animal has taken effect, it is not removed through the death of the animal.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: Learn from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Israelites may join together over

the eating of

the intestines

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

But gentiles may not join together over

the eating of

the intestines

of the animal, for they are prohibited to them because of the prohibition of a limb from a living animal, and one who feeds it to them transgresses because of “placing a stumbling block before the blind.”

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

that there is here a prohibition of a limb from a living animal? But the animal was slaughtered!

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

Israelites, since the matter depends on slaughtering

[since the permission of the animal from the prohibition of a carcass depends on slaughtering], the Torah revealed that slaughtering is considered for them like death, and

since there is valid slaughtering, they are permitted

[since there is proper slaughtering, they are permitted] even from the prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

But

gentiles,

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

sufficing for them is tearing

or any other manner of killing ,

and with death

in actuality

the matter depends

to permit them from the prohibition of a limb from a living animal;

these

intestines that separated before death

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

and every limb that separated before the death of the living creature becomes prohibited even after its death.

Rav Pappa said: I was sitting before Rav Aha bar Yaakov, and I wanted to say to him

[I was studying from Rav Aha bar Yaakov when he said this statement, and I wanted to say to him]:

Is there anything that is permitted to an Israelite but prohibited to a gentile?!

[Is it possible that there is something permitted to an Israelite but prohibited to a gentile?] For should we not learn from the permission for an Israelite that there is likewise no prohibition for a gentile!

And I did not say it to him,

I did not present this objection before him, because

I said: He has stated the reason,

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

It was taught in a beraita not in accordance with Rav Aha bar Yaakov: One who wishes to eat

a piece that was cut

from an animal before its soul departs,

because this is a healthy matter,

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

for from there he can cut without having to remove the hide,

and salts it very well and rinses it

very well,

more than other meat ,

and waits for it until its soul departs,

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

and eats it; both a gentile and an Israelite are permitted to eat it,

and we do not say that slaughtering did not permit it to a gentile, in accordance with Rav Aha bar Yaakov’s reasoning ; rather, since it is permitted to an Israelite, it is also permitted to a gentile .

It supports him

this beraita

with regard to Rav Idi bar Avin,

who disputes Rav Aha bar Yaakov.

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

Mishna:

One who slaughters an animal, a wild animal, or a bird, and no blood emerged from them—

they are fit,

and we do not say that perhaps they were dead at the time of the slaughtering. And we likewise do not say that the mitzva of covering the blood, which is lacking in the case of a wild animal and a bird, invalidates the slaughtering.

And

one who touches them does not need the washing of hands, but

they may be eaten with impure hands,

because they do not receive the impurity of foods

since they were not rendered susceptible

to receive impurity

through blood.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Although they were not rendered susceptible through one of the seven liquids to receive impurity, they

were rendered susceptible through slaughtering

to receive impurity. Since the slaughtering was effective in permitting them for eating, it is likewise effective in making them food with regard to receiving 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 emerged from them

and they were thereby rendered susceptible to receive impurity,

they may not be eaten with impure hands,

because the hands would render them impure.

And we challenge:

Why

[why] would the hands render the meat impure? After all, ordinary

hands are second-degree

with regard to impurity

they are.

And a second degree does not create a third degree in non-sacred food,

but only in teruma and consecrated food is there a third degree of impurity!

And the Gemara explains:

And from where is it established that we are dealing with non-sacred food,

perhaps in truth we are dealing here with consecrated meat, which receives impurity from hands?

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

A.

For it teaches

in the Mishna

a wild animal, for if

the Mishna were speaking about

consecrated food,

it would not mention a wild animal, since

is there a wild animal among consecrated offerings,

after all, there are offerings only from animals and birds?!

B.

Furthermore, if it is consecrated food

that the Mishna is discussing,

since no blood emerged from them,

how can this animal be

fit

for eating? After all,

it itself,

the offering,

requires blood,

for sprinkling upon the altar, and this is what permits the flesh of the offering for eating!

3.

Furthermore, if [the Mishna is dealing] with consecrated offerings

the Mishna is dealing, then even

when blood came out of them, who renders

the blood of consecrated offerings the sacrificial flesh susceptible to receiving impurity?

But Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: From where [do we know] concerning the blood of consecrated offerings

that fell upon seeds

that it does not render them susceptible

to receiving 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 unconsecrated,

which is poured like water,

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

renders [produce] susceptible

to receiving impurity. But the blood of consecrated offerings

which is not poured like water,

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

does not render [produce] susceptible.

4.

Furthermore, if [the Mishna is dealing] with consecrated offerings

the Mishna is speaking,

when blood did not come out of them,

why

are they not rendered susceptible

because no liquid was placed upon them?

Let them be rendered susceptible

without liquid,

through the affection for consecrated things, for it is established

that even the wood and frankincense of consecrated property receive impurity, because

the affection for consecrated things renders them susceptible

and regards them as food. Likewise, the food of consecrated offerings should be rendered susceptible without water, by virtue of the affection for consecrated things.

And since it has been proven that our Mishna is not dealing with consecrated offerings, this is difficult: for hands, which are only second-degree [sources] of impurity, do not render unconsecrated produce impure!

Rav Nahman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said: Here, we are dealing with unconsecrated [food] purchased with second-tithe money

in Jerusalem,

we are dealing,

and it acquires the sanctity of second tithe; and the law of second tithe is like that of teruma, and it has a third degree [of impurity].

And

the Mishna follows

not Rabbi Meir,

for in his view second tithe is equivalent to unconsecrated produce with regard to receiving impurity, and he permitted eating second tithe with ritually impure hands.

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