Chullin 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

As we learned in tractate Para [11:5]:

in tractate Parah [11:5]:

Every

person who is ritually pure by Torah law, but is a person [or a vessel]

who requires immersion in water [for example, a person who must wash his hands in order to purify them from the ritual impurity of liquids, or a person whose head and majority of his body entered drawn water, or a vessel that became impure through liquids]

[such as a person who requires the washing of the hands for their purification from the impurity of liquids, or a person whose head and greater part entered drawn water, or a vessel that became impure through liquids]

by rabbinic ordinance,

for the Sages decreed at the upper chamber of Hanania ben Hizkiah the eighteen decrees including the impurity of the hands, is thereby a second-degree source of impurity, and the law concerning him is that he

renders consecrated food impure,

making it third-degree impurity, so that it renders consecrated food like itself impure, making it fourth-degree impurity,

and disqualifies teruma,

so that the teruma itself becomes disqualified because of the impurity, but it does not impart fourth-degree impurity.

And he is permitted with non-sacred food and maaser,

as there is no third-degree impurity in them,

the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages prohibit

him

with regard to maaser.

It follows that according to the Sages the law of maaser differs from that of non-sacred food, and a second-degree source renders maaser third-degree impurity.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi challenged

Rav Naḥman:

From what [what is the proof]

that there is one who maintains that there is third-degree impurity in maaser, and that it became impure from impure hands?

Perhaps,

the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Meir

in the Mishna in tractate Para

only

with regard to

eating maaser,

maintaining that the prohibition against eating while impure with the impurity of the body applies by rabbinic ordinance to a person whom the Sages assigned the status of a second-degree source of impurity, such as one whose hands are impure or one whose head and majority of his body entered drawn water.

But with regard to touching maaser

through a second-degree source of impurity, which does not render it third-degree impurity,

and eating non-sacred food,

for which washing the hands beforehand is not required,

they did not disagree

with Rabbi Meir, and they too maintain that it is permitted with impure hands.

This is also implied by the Mishna in tractate Para, which used the expressions “permits” and “prohibit,” indicating that their disagreement concerns only the prohibition against eating maaser. Had their disagreement concerned the acceptance of impurity, the Mishna there would have used the expressions “impure” and “pure.”

But this

whereas our Mishna here is dealing with

touching,

and you cannot interpret it as referring to the prohibition against eating for one who is impure with a rabbinically ordained second-degree impurity.

From the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna that the flesh of a domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird that was not rendered susceptible to impurity by the blood of slaughter,

“may be eaten with impure hands,”

and it does not teach, “one may feed them with impure hands,” so that we could infer that if they were rendered susceptible by the blood of slaughter, they would be prohibited to eat with impure hands.

Are we not dealing,

is it not also referring to a case in which the person with impure hands is not the one eating, but rather

his fellow is feeding him,

as his fellow feeds him the meat with impure hands, because the meat was not rendered susceptible by the blood of slaughter?

This implies that if the meat had been rendered susceptible by the blood of slaughter, it would have been prohibited for a person whose hands are impure to feed it to a ritually pure person. This is not because of a prohibition against eating on the part of the person eating, but because the touch of the feeder, who is a second-degree source of impurity due to his impure hands, disqualifies maaser, making it third-degree impurity with regard to maaser.

The challenge therefore remains: there is no one who maintains that a second-degree source renders maaser third-degree impurity!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

our Mishna is dealing with non-sacred meat, and not with ordinary hands, which are second-degree impurity, but rather

here we are dealing with hands that are primary sources [first-degree sources]

[first-degree hands]

of impurity,

which render the food a second-degree source of impurity.

And

the Mishna is according to

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

who maintains that there are hands that are first-degree sources of impurity, even with regard to non-sacred food.

As it was taught:

In all cases,

hands are not primary sources with regard to

rendering

non-sacred food

impure. That is to say, even where the Sages decreed that the hands should have the status of primary sources, this does not apply to non-sacred food, but only to teruma and consecrated food.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

There are

hands

that are

primary sources with regard to non-sacred food, and

hands that are

second-degree sources;

for example, ordinary hands are impure

with regard to teruma,

as a second-degree source renders it third-degree impurity.

The Gemara was astonished: Is it possible that there are hands that are

primary sources with regard to non-sacred food, but not with regard to teruma!?

Is non-sacred food more stringent than teruma!?

And we explain:

This is what

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

meant: Those hands that are primary sources are

primary sources even with regard to non-sacred food. All the more so with regard to teruma. And hands that are

second-degree sources with regard to teruma, yes, but not with regard to non-sacred food.

And we ask:

But are there hands that are primary sources?

If a person touches a primary source of impurity, his entire body becomes a first-degree source of impurity, and not only his hands. And if he touches a first-degree source of impurity with his hands, in which case his body does not become impure even by rabbinic law and only his hands become impure, they become second-degree sources!

And we answer:

Yes.

According to Rabbi Akiva, there is a case in which a person does not become impure from a primary source of impurity, while his hands become impure from it and are first-degree sources.

As we learned

in tractate Yadayim [3:1]:

If he inserted his hands into a house afflicted with leprosy,

but did not enter the house with his body,

his hands are primary sources, the words of Rabbi Akiva. And the Sages say: His hands are second-degree sources.

Everyone

maintains

that partial entry is not considered entry,

and one who inserts his hands into the house is not included in the Torah’s statement, “And one who enters the house shall be impure” [Leviticus 14:46] .

And here, it is with regard to a decree

that the Sages issued concerning

his hands

that entered a house afflicted with leprosy, that they should become impure

on account of his body

that entered,

that they disagree.

One master,

Rabbi Akiva,

maintains: His hands are like his body,

which is a first-degree source,

and the Sages assigned them that status.

And the other master,

the Sages,

maintains: These hands

upon which the Sages decreed impurity on account of the body were not given the status of the body, but rather

like ordinary hands,

which are second-degree sources;

the Sages assigned them that status.

The practical difference resulting from this decree applies, for example, when he inserted his hands into the house after washing them, so that they were not impure with the impurity of ordinary hands.

We challenge Rav Pappa: Why did he need to establish the Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?

Let him establish it in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who said that hands can be primary sources,

since most unattributed Mishnayot follow Rabbi Meir according to Rabbi Akiva!

And we answer: Although a first-degree source of impurity by Torah law renders food impure and makes it a second-degree source, whether the food is non-sacred or teruma, with regard to rabbinic impurities there are sometimes cases in which, with regard to teruma, they are first-degree sources, and the teruma that touches them renders other teruma impure, while with regard to non-sacred food they are second-degree sources and do not render it impure.

And similarly, with regard to Rabbi Akiva, one can say:

Perhaps, when Rabbi Akiva said

that the hands are first-degree sources,

this applies only to teruma and consecrated food, which are stringent. But with regard to non-sacred food, they are second-degree sources.

But Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explicitly said that the hands are primary sources even with regard to non-sacred food.

And we ask:

And let those hands also be

with which our Mishna is dealing

second-degree sources,

and we can say that it is dealing with ordinary hands and not with hands that entered a house afflicted with leprosy, and the Mishna can be established in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

as we have heard Rabbi Akiva say: A second-degree source renders non-sacred food third-degree impurity,

unlike the accepted ruling that a second-degree source does not render non-sacred food third-degree impurity!

As we learned

in tractate Sota [27b]:

On that day

when Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed Nasi,

Rabbi Akiva expounded:

It is written in the Torah, in the passage concerning the impurity of creeping animals [Leviticus 11:33–34]:

“And every earthenware vessel

into which any of them falls, whatever is inside it shall become impure, and it you shall break. From all food that may be eaten, upon which water comes,

it shall become impure.”

The Torah states that if a creeping animal falls into the airspace of a clay oven, the oven becomes a first-degree source of impurity, and the loaves inside it become impure and become second-degree sources.

It does not say “it shall be impure,” but rather “it shall become impure”;

the verse can be expounded as “it shall render impure,” meaning that it has the power

to render others impure.

The verse taught

that

with regard to a loaf that is a second-degree source, that it renders non-sacred food third-degree impurity.

For the verse does not indicate that there is a distinction between non-sacred food and teruma.

And we answer: The Mishna cannot be established in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, because

perhaps

this statement, that a second-degree source renders non-sacred food third-degree impurity,

applies to Torah impurity. But with regard to

rabbinic

impurity,

such as that of the hands,

it does not.

The Gemara offers another way to interpret the Mishna: it is dealing with hands that are second-degree sources and with non-sacred food that was prepared according to the purity standards of consecrated food, in which there is third-degree impurity.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said: Here we are dealing with non-sacred food that was prepared according to the purity standards of consecrated food,

as there are people accustomed to eating consecrated food, and in order to protect it from impurities that disqualify it, they observe the purity of their non-sacred food as they would that of consecrated food. The Sages ordained that this practice is effective, so that such food accepts impurity from a second-degree source, as does consecrated food.

And we say

And

our Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who maintains that non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of consecrated food does not have the status of consecrated food; rather, the practice of one who treats it as consecrated food is disregarded. Only with regard to teruma, since it is more commonly found, did the Sages ordain that non-sacred food prepared according to its purity standards should have third-degree impurity.

The Gemara cites a Mishna dealing with the impurity of the body, from which Rabbi Yehoshua’s view concerning non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of consecrated food can be learned.

By Torah law, food does not render a person or vessels impure, because food does not become a primary source of impurity, and a person and vessels do not contract impurity from a first-degree source, but only from a primary source of impurity.

The Sages ordained that a person who eats impure food becomes impure through the food he eats, but not a person who merely touches it. Even when impurity is contracted through eating, the person who eats does not become impure until he eats the measure of half a peras of impure food. By Torah law, anything that touches impurity and becomes impure through it descends one degree in its level of impurity. However, with regard to the “impurity of the body” ordained by the Sages, the tannaim disagreed in the Mishna cited here: Is one to be stringent and assign the eater the status of the food, since according to the rabbinic ordinance eating is more stringent than touching, or does the level of impurity descend?

As we learned

in tractate Toharot [2:2]:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

A ritually pure person

who eats food

that is

a first-degree source

of impurity thereby becomes

a first-degree source

of impurity, and whatever he touches becomes second-degree impurity.

And a ritually pure person who eats food that is

a second-degree source

of impurity becomes

a second-degree source

and disqualifies teruma.

And a ritually pure person who eats food that is

a third-degree source

of impurity becomes

a third-degree source

and disqualifies consecrated food.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats first-degree food

descends in his level of impurity through this act and becomes a second-degree source.

And

likewise, if he ate food that is

a second-degree source,

he too is

a second-degree source,

but in this case he does not descend in his level of impurity.

And if he ate food that is

a third-degree source,

the person who eats it becomes

a second-degree source with regard to consecrated food.

The consecrated food that he touches becomes third-degree impurity and renders fourth-degree impurity.

And

he does not become

a second-degree source with regard to teruma,

and he does not render it third-degree impurity.

The Gemara below will explain why at times the person who eats descends to a lower level of impurity than the food, at times remains at the food’s level of impurity, and at times is more stringent than it.

Rabbi Yehoshua explains his statement: The impure food with which I am dealing is non-sacred food. And if you say: Is there not no third-degree impurity in non-sacred food? The answer is that the case is

non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of teruma.

And the Gemara infers from Rabbi Yehoshua:

With regard to non-sacred food prepared in a state of ritual purity for teruma, no; with regard to [food prepared in a state of ritual purity] for sacrificial offerings, it

can become subject to third-degree impurity.

He holds that

Rabbi Yehoshua:

non-sacred food prepared in a state of ritual purity for sacrificial offerings does not have third-degree impurity.

Therefore, our Mishna cannot be understood as referring to non-sacred food prepared in a state of ritual purity for sacrificial offerings and as following Rabbi Yehoshua.