Chullin Daf 33 (חולין דף ל״ג)
Daf: 33 | Amudim: 33a – 33b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (33a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
A lingering dilemma from the previous discussion: do two simanim cut for differing purposes still combine?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי מִצְטָרֵף סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לְסִימָן שֵׁנִי לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אוֹ לָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies this dilemma: Does the first siman join together with the second siman to purify the animal from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass or not? In both cases the dilemma is: Does the cutting of the first siman, which serves the dual purpose of being a component of permitting consumption and preventing impurity of the animal, join together with the cutting of the second siman, which serves only the purpose of preventing impurity, in order to constitute a single act of slaughter and thereby prevent the animal from assuming the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass? Or perhaps because the cutting of each siman is performed for a different purpose they do not join together?
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by sharpening an unresolved dilemma from the previous sugya. When the lung is perforated after the first siman is cut, the animal becomes a tereifa and may not be eaten — but might the completed slaughter still spare it from carcass impurity? The crux is whether two cuts performed for different purposes (one toward permitting consumption, one only toward purity) can be considered a single coherent act of שחיטה.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן = One of the two organs that must be cut in valid slaughter — the windpipe (kaneh) and gullet (veshet)
- נְבֵלָה = An animal that died without valid slaughter; it conveys ritual impurity by contact and carrying
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Limiting the scope of the dilemma — it concerns only purity, not permissibility for eating.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד כָּאן לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, אֶלָּא לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אֲבָל בַּאֲכִילָה – אֲסוּרָה.
English Translation:
In any event, we raise the dilemma only in order to purify the foreleg from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. But with regard to eating the slaughtered animal, all agree that it is forbidden, as even Rabbi Zeira concedes that the animal is a tereifa and retracts his objection to the distinction that Rava proposed between the lungs and the innards.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara carefully narrows the scope of the dilemma. The question of joining the simanim is purely about impurity — whether the carcass status is averted. As to consumption, there is no question at all: a lung perforated mid-slaughter renders the animal a tereifa, and even Rabbi Zeira ultimately concedes this, retracting the objection he had raised against Rava’s lung-versus-innards distinction.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵיפָה (tereifa) = An animal with a fatal physical defect; forbidden for consumption even if properly slaughtered
- אִיבַּעְיָא לַן = “We raised a dilemma” — the formula introducing an unresolved Talmudic question
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
A challenge to the previous assumption — perhaps Rabbi Zeira never retracted at all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, וְרַבִּי זֵירָא לִדְבָרָיו דְּרָבָא קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa bar Rav said to Ravina: Perhaps Rabbi Zeira actually did not retract his opinion, as even initially he held that there is no distinction between lungs and innards. If either is perforated after one siman was cut, the animal is a tereifa. And Rabbi Zeira stated his objection to the distinction of Rava in accordance with the statement of Rava, but he himself does not hold accordingly.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa bar Rav offers an alternative reading of the earlier exchange. Rather than assuming Rabbi Zeira conceded, perhaps he never retracted — he simply argued against Rava on Rava’s own terms (לדבריו), exposing an internal inconsistency, while personally maintaining that lungs and innards are alike. This is a classic Talmudic argumentative move: refuting an opponent from within his own premises without endorsing them.
Key Terms:
- לִדְבָרָיו דְּרָבָא קָאָמַר = “He spoke according to Rava’s words” — argued from the opponent’s premises, not one’s own
- הֲדַר בֵּיהּ = “He retracted” — withdrew from a previously stated position
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov derives a striking ruling from Reish Lakish: innards may be eaten by Jews but not gentiles.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, מְזַמְּנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין, וְאֵין מְזַמְּנִין גּוֹי עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues its analysis of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said that after the windpipe is cut, the lung is considered as though it was placed in a basket, and if it is perforated before the slaughter is completed, the animal does not become a tereifa. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Learn from the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that one may invite Jews to eat the innards of an animal that was slaughtered, but one may not invite gentiles to eat the innards of an animal that was slaughtered, because they are forbidden to gentiles.
קלאוד על הדף:
Building on Reish Lakish’s principle that the cut windpipe “places the lung in a basket” — treating the innards as already outside the body once slaughter begins — Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov draws a surprising consequence. Once both simanim are cut, a Jew may eat the innards even while the animal still convulses, but a gentile may not. The next segment supplies the reason.
Key Terms:
- בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין = The innards — the internal organs of the animal
- מְזַמְּנִין = “One may invite [to eat]” — i.e., the food is permitted to that party
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The reasoning: a Jew’s meat is permitted by slaughter, a gentile’s only by the animal’s death.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבִשְׁחִיטָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא – אִישְׁתְּרִי לְהוּ; גּוֹיִם דְּבִנְחִירָה סַגִּי לְהוּ וּבְמִיתָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָנֵי – כְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי דָּמוּ.
English Translation:
What is the reason? For Jews the matter of rendering the meat of the animal fit for consumption is dependent upon the performance of a valid act of slaughter. Once there is full-fledged slaughter and both simanim are cut, the innards are permitted to them even if the animal is convulsing. But with regard to gentiles, for whom stabbing is sufficient and slaughter is not required, the innards are permitted only after the animal is completely dead, since the matter of rendering the meat of the animal fit for consumption is dependent upon its death. Therefore, if the animal is still convulsing, these innards, which are considered to be outside the body after the cutting of the two simanim, are considered like a limb from a living animal and it is forbidden for gentiles to eat them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The asymmetry rests on what each party needs to render meat permitted. A Jew is bound by שחיטה — once a valid slaughter is performed, the meat is permitted at that moment, even before the animal stops convulsing. A gentile, bound only by the Noahide prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal, is not permitted the meat until the animal is actually dead. While it convulses, the already-detached innards count as אבר מן החי for the gentile.
Key Terms:
- נְחִירָה = Killing by stabbing — sufficient to permit meat for a gentile, but not for a Jew
- אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי = A limb severed from a living animal — forbidden to all, and a specific Noahide prohibition for gentiles
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa recalls an objection he considered raising — and why he held back.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּבְעַי דְּאֵימָא לֵיהּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דִּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרֵי וּלְגוֹיִם אָסוּר? וְלָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, דְּאָמֵינָא: הָא טַעְמָא קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: I was sitting before Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov and I sought to say to him that his statement is difficult: Is there anything that is permitted for a Jew but prohibited for a gentile? But I did not say that to him, as I said to myself: Didn’t he say a reason for his ruling? Therefore, there is no reason to ask the question.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa’s recollection highlights how counterintuitive the ruling is — normally Jewish dietary law is the stricter system, so a thing permitted to a Jew yet forbidden to a gentile seems impossible. Rav Pappa restrained himself from objecting precisely because Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov had given a coherent reason: the gentile’s permission tracks death, not slaughter, so the same convulsing innards are genuinely “limb from a living animal” for him alone.
Key Terms:
- מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי = “Is there such a thing?” — a rhetorical formula challenging an apparent anomaly
- הָא טַעְמָא קָאָמַר = “He did state a reason” — once a ruling is grounded in logic, the anomaly objection falls away
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita that contradicts Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov — no Jew/gentile distinction is drawn.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא דְּלָא כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: הָרוֹצֶה לֶאֱכוֹל מִבְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ – חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, וְאוֹכְלוֹ, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִין בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov: One who seeks to eat from the meat of an animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and the blood, and wait until the animal’s soul departs, and eat it. It is permitted for both a gentile and a Jew to eat it. Contrary to the statement of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites a baraita that flatly contradicts Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov. Meat cut from a freshly slaughtered, still-convulsing animal — once salted and rinsed to remove blood, and once the animal has actually died — is permitted to “both a gentile and a Jew” alike. The baraita’s parity language directly undercuts the asymmetry Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov had constructed.
Key Terms:
- כְּזַיִת = An olive-bulk — the standard minimum measure for the act of eating in halacha
- בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה = The place of slaughter — the neck region where the simanim were cut
- תֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ = “Its soul departs” — the moment of the animal’s actual death
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The baraita corroborates an Amoraic teaching about eating such meat to recuperate.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּבְרִיא, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָתָהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִין בּוֹ.
English Translation:
This baraita supports the statement of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan says: One who seeks to recuperate from an illness should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of slaughter, i.e., the neck, of an animal, and salt it very well, and rinse it very well, and wait until the animal’s soul departs, and eat it. It is permitted for both a gentile and a Jew to eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same baraita provides direct textual support (מסייע) for an Amoraic teaching by Rav Idi bar Avin in the name of Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan: meat cut this way was understood as having recuperative or curative value. The procedure is identical — cut, salt thoroughly, rinse, wait for death — and again the meat is permitted equally to Jew and gentile, reinforcing the rejection of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov’s distinction.
Key Terms:
- מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ = “It supports him” — a cited source that confirms an Amora’s ruling
- הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּבְרִיא = “One who wishes to become healthy” — eating fresh meat understood as recuperative
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: slaughtered animals that did not bleed were never rendered susceptible to impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – כְּשֵׁרִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בַּדָּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בַּשְּׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them during the slaughter, all of these are permitted for consumption and do not require the ritual washing of the hands as they may be eaten with ritually impure [mesoavot] hands, because they were not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with blood, which is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself.
קלאוד על הדף:
The new mishna shifts from permissibility to the laws of הכשר — what makes food capable of contracting ritual impurity. Food becomes “susceptible” only after contact with one of the seven liquids (water, dew, wine, oil, blood, milk, honey). If a slaughtered animal happened not to bleed, its flesh was never wetted by blood and remains non-susceptible — so impure hands cannot defile it. Rabbi Shimon dissents, holding that the act of slaughter itself renders the meat susceptible, independent of blood.
Key Terms:
- הוּכְשְׁרוּ (hukhsheru) = “Were rendered susceptible” — food becomes capable of contracting impurity only after contact with one of the seven liquids
- יָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת = “Soiled hands” — hands ritually impure with second-degree impurity
- דָּם = Blood — one of the seven liquids that make food susceptible to impurity
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
The Gemara presses the mishna’s implication: why should bled meat be off-limits to impure hands?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דְּלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם, הָא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – אֵין נֶאֱכָלִים בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת. אַמַּאי? יָדַיִם שְׁנִיּוֹת הֵן, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין!
English Translation:
GEMARA: The reason that they may be eaten with ritually impure hands is that blood did not emerge from the animals or birds during the slaughter; but if blood emerged from them during slaughter, they may not be eaten with ritually impure hands. The Gemara asks: Why not? Ordinary hands are impure with second-degree ritual impurity and an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity to non-sacred items with which it comes into contact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reads the mishna by inference (דיוק): if non-bled meat may be eaten with impure hands, then bled meat may not. But this raises a sharp difficulty. Ordinary unwashed hands are a שני — second-degree impurity. And a basic rule of the impurity ladder is that a שני cannot generate a שלישי in ordinary non-sacred food. So even susceptible (bled) meat should not be defiled by impure hands. The rest of the sugya is a series of attempts to resolve this contradiction.
Key Terms:
- שֵׁנִי / שְׁלִישִׁי = Second-degree / third-degree impurity — rungs on the descending ladder of ritual contamination
- חוּלִּין = Non-sacred food — as opposed to teruma, second tithe, or sacrificial food
- טַעְמָא דְּ… = “The reason being…” — a דיוק, inferring the converse case from the mishna’s stated reason
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara establishes that the mishna must be discussing non-sacred food — two proofs.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִמַּאי דִּבְחוּלִּין עָסְקִינַן? דְּקָתָנֵי חַיָּה, דְּאִילּוּ קָדָשִׁים – חַיָּה בְּקָדָשִׁים מִי אִיכָּא? וְתוּ, אִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – כְּשֵׁרָה? הוּא עַצְמוֹ לַדָּם הוּא צָרִיךְ!
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: From where is it ascertained that we are dealing in the mishna with non-sacred food, and not with the slaughter of an offering? That is clear, as the tanna teaches in the list of those slaughtered: An undomesticated animal. As, if the tanna is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial animals and birds, is there any undomesticated animal included in the framework of sacrificial animals? And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when no blood emerges from them are the offerings valid? The offering itself requires blood, as it is only through the presenting of the blood upon the altar that the offering is accepted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The previous objection assumed the mishna deals with חולין, so the Gemara now verifies that premise. First proof: the mishna lists a חיה (undomesticated animal), and undomesticated animals are never brought as offerings. Second proof: if it were sacrificial, an offering that produced no blood would be invalid, since blood-presentation on the altar is what effects atonement — so “all of these are valid” could not be said.
Key Terms:
- קָדָשִׁים = Sacrificial animals, consecrated for the altar
- חַיָּה = An undomesticated/wild kosher animal (e.g., deer) — never offered as a sacrifice
- הוּא עַצְמוֹ לַדָּם הוּא צָרִיךְ = “The offering itself needs the blood” — its validity depends on blood being presented on the altar
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
A third proof: the blood of a sacrificial animal does not even render food susceptible.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתוּ, אִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, כִּי יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם מִי מַכְשִׁיר? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לְדַם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״, דָּם שֶׁנִּשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר!
English Translation:
And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when blood emerges from them, does it render them susceptible to ritual impurity? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived that the blood of sacrificial animals does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood of a non-sacred animal, which is poured like water when it is slaughtered, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, blood of a sacrificial animal, which is not poured like water but is presented on the altar, does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third reason the mishna cannot be about offerings. The verse “you shall pour it upon the earth like water” teaches that only blood discarded like water — the blood of non-sacred animals — has the power to render food susceptible. Sacrificial blood, destined for the altar rather than the ground, is excluded. So in a sacrificial context the mishna’s whole concern with blood-induced susceptibility would be moot. The mishna must therefore deal with חולין.
Key Terms:
- מַכְשִׁיר = “Renders susceptible” — causes food to become capable of contracting impurity
- ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״ = “You shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24) — the verse limiting susceptibility to blood treated like water
- דַּם קָדָשִׁים = Sacrificial blood — presented on the altar, hence not “poured like water”
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
A fourth proof: sacrificial food becomes susceptible automatically through “regard for sanctity.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתוּ, אִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מֵהֶם דָּם לָא מִתַּכְשְׁרִי, לִיתַּכְשְׁרוּ בְּחִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ! דְּקַיְימָא לַן חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.
English Translation:
And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when blood does not emerge from them are they not nevertheless rendered susceptible to ritual impurity? Let them be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of regard for sanctity, as we maintain that regard for sanctity renders food suceptible to ritual impurity even in the absence of contact with any of the seven liquids.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final proof. The mishna says non-bled animals “were not rendered susceptible” — but if these were offerings, they would be susceptible regardless of blood, since חיבת הקודש (regard for sanctity) renders sacrificial food susceptible without any liquid. The mishna’s statement that non-bled animals are non-susceptible therefore only makes sense for non-sacred food. With four proofs established, the Gemara returns to the unresolved difficulty of Segment 10.
Key Terms:
- חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ = “Regard for sanctity” — the principle that sacrificial food is rendered susceptible to impurity by its very consecration, without needing a liquid
- מִתַּכְשְׁרִי / מַכְשַׁרְתָּן = “Are rendered susceptible” / “renders them susceptible”
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Naḥman’s resolution: the meat was bought with second-tithe money, giving it elevated status.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָכָא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁלְּקָחָן בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר עָסְקִינַן, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דִּתְנַן:
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Here we are dealing with non-sacred food that one purchased in Jerusalem with second-tithe money, which assumes the status of the second-tithe produce. This produce, in turn, assumes third-degree impurity through contact with hands that have second-degree impurity. And this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Para 11:5):
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman offers the first of three resolutions to the Segment 10 difficulty. The mishna is not about ordinary חולין at all, but about meat purchased in Jerusalem with מעשר שני (second-tithe) money — which absorbs the sanctity of second tithe. Second-tithe produce is stringent enough to contract a שלישי from a שני, so impure hands genuinely do disqualify it. The mishna thus reflects the Rabbis’ view, against Rabbi Meir, as the next segment will quote.
Key Terms:
- כֶּסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר = Second-tithe money — coins onto which second-tithe sanctity was transferred, used to buy food in Jerusalem that then carries that sanctity
- מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי = Second tithe — produce (or its monetary equivalent) eaten by the owner in Jerusalem in purity
- דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר = “Not in accordance with Rabbi Meir” — the mishna follows the Rabbis who dispute him
Amud Bet (33b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
The cited mishna from Para — Rabbi Meir permits second-tithe contact with a rabbinically impure item.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַטָּעוּן בִּיאַת מַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּחוּלִּין וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
With regard to anything that by rabbinic law requires entry into water, i.e., either immersion or ritual washing of the hands, although it is pure by Torah law, it is accorded second-degree impurity. Therefore, such an item renders sacrificial food impure, meaning that the sacrificial food becomes impure and transmits impurity to other sacrificial food, and disqualifies teruma, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And it is permitted for non-sacred food and for second-tithe produce to come in contact with such an item, and no impurity is thereby transmitted. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the mishna from Para that Rav Naḥman invoked. It addresses items rabbinically impure — those requiring “entry into water.” Rabbi Meir holds such an item ranks as a שני: it conveys impurity to sacrificial food, disqualifies teruma, but is permitted to touch both ordinary חולין and second tithe. Crucially, Rabbi Meir treats מעשר שני exactly like חולין for this purpose.
Key Terms:
- טָעוּן בִּיאַת מַיִם = “Requires entry into water” — needing immersion or hand-washing, i.e., rabbinically impure
- מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים = “By the words of the Scribes” — i.e., of rabbinic rather than Torah origin
- תְּרוּמָה = The priestly portion of produce, eaten in purity by kohanim
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
The Rabbis’ dissent — second tithe is stringent and is rendered impure by a rabbinically impure item.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis prohibit items that require entry into water from coming in contact with second-tithe produce, as they hold that the produce is thereby rendered impure. According to the Rabbis, the status of second-tithe produce is more stringent than that of non-sacred food, and second-tithe produce assumes third-degree impurity upon contact with an item of second-degree impurity, which is in accordance with the opinion of the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir specifically about second tithe: they “prohibit” it — meaning a rabbinically impure שני does defile מעשר שני. For the Rabbis, second tithe is more stringent than ordinary חולין and can contract a שלישי from a שני. This is exactly the position Rav Naḥman attributed to our mishna in Chullin, which is why he said the mishna deals with second-tithe meat and follows the Rabbis, not Rabbi Meir.
Key Terms:
- חֲכָמִים = “The Sages” — here, the majority opinion disputing Rabbi Meir
- אוֹסְרִים בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר = “Prohibit regarding tithe” — they rule the impure item defiles second-tithe produce
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Shimi bar Ashi challenges Rav Naḥman: maybe the Rabbis only forbid eating, not contact.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילַת מַעֲשֵׂר, אֲבָל בִּנְגִיעָה דְּמַעֲשֵׂר וַאֲכִילָה דְחוּלִּין – לָא פְּלִיגִי.
English Translation:
Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to this interpretation of that mishna. From where is it clear that it is contact that the Rabbis prohibit? Perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to a person with second-degree impurity partaking of second-tithe produce. But with regard to contact of an individual with second-degree impurity with second-tithe produce or his eating non-sacred food, they do not disagree.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Shimi bar Ashi attacks the linchpin of Rav Naḥman’s resolution. The Rabbis in Para said only “they forbid regarding tithe” — perhaps that means only the stringent case of actually eating second tithe, not mere touching it. If so, the Rabbis would concede that touching second-tithe meat with impure hands is fine — and our Chullin mishna, which forbids contact, could not be explained as second-tithe meat per the Rabbis.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ = “Objects to it” — a formal challenge to a stated position
- נְגִיעָה = Contact/touching — a lighter form of interaction than eating
- אֲכִילָה = Eating — a more stringent interaction with food vis-à-vis impurity
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara shows our mishna is a contact case — defeating Rav Naḥman’s second-tithe explanation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא נְגִיעָה הִיא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי נֶאֱכָלִין בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּקָא סָפֵי לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ?
English Translation:
And this case in the mishna is a case involving contact with the flesh of the slaughtered animal, from the fact that it teaches: They may be eaten with ritually impure hands, in the passive form, and not: One may eat them with impure hands. Are we not dealing with a case where another with impure hands fed him, but the one eating it was ritually pure and did not touch it? Therefore, the case in the mishna here, which indicates that it is forbidden for one with impure hands to touch the flesh if it has come in contact with the blood, cannot be referring to an animal purchased in Jerusalem with second-tithe money. The reason is that in that case, the Rabbis concede that contact with second-tithe produce, even produce rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the blood, is permitted for one whose hands are impure with second-degree ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara confirms Rav Shimi bar Ashi’s objection by parsing the mishna’s grammar. The mishna uses the passive “are eaten” (נֶאֱכָלִין), not the active “one eats” — implying a case where a person with impure hands feeds someone else who is pure. That makes the mishna fundamentally a נגיעה (contact) case. Since even the Rabbis permit impure-hand contact with second tithe, Rav Naḥman’s explanation collapses, and a new resolution is needed.
Key Terms:
- נֶאֱכָלִין = “Are eaten” — passive voice, implying being fed by another rather than eating oneself
- דְּקָא סָפֵי לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ = “His fellow feeds him” — a third party with impure hands places food into the mouth of a pure eater
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa’s resolution: the mishna speaks of first-degree-impure hands, per Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּיָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת עָסְקִינַן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת לַחוּלִּין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת לַחוּלִּין, וּשְׁנִיּוֹת לַתְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
Rather Rav Pappa said: Here, in the mishna, we are dealing with hands that are impure with first-degree ritual impurity, which render even non-sacred food impure. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it is not that they render non-sacred food impure; rather, it means that they impart to teruma and sacrificial food second-degree impurity rather than third-degree impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it means that they render non-sacred food impure. And in those cases where hands have second-degree impurity it means that they invalidate teruma and impart to it third-degree impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa offers the second resolution. The mishna concerns ordinary חולין meat, but hands with first-degree impurity (תְּחִלּוֹת) — far more potent than ordinary second-degree hands. He cites Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar (in Rabbi Meir’s name), who holds that first-degree-impure hands do render even non-sacred food impure. On this view there is no difficulty: a ראשון defiling חולין to a שני is entirely normal.
Key Terms:
- יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת = “First[-degree] hands” — hands bearing first-degree (ראשון) impurity, not the usual second-degree
- רִאשׁוֹן = First-degree impurity — one rung above the ordinary שני of unwashed hands
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara refines the wording of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s baraita.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּחִלּוֹת לְחוּלִּין – אִין, לִתְרוּמָה – לָא? הָכִי קָאָמַר: תְּחִלּוֹת – אַף לְחוּלִּין, שְׁנִיּוֹת – לִתְרוּמָה אִין, לְחוּלִּין – לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar say that in those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, with regard to non-sacred food, yes, they render it impure, but with regard to teruma, hands do not render it impure? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is saying: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it means that they render even non-sacred food impure, and all the more so they render teruma impure. But in those cases where hands have second-degree impurity, it means that with regard to teruma, yes, the hands invalidate teruma and impart third-degree impurity, but with regard to non-sacred food, hands do not render it impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
A brief clarification of the baraita’s phrasing. Read literally, “first-degree to חולין” might wrongly suggest first-degree hands affect only חולין and not teruma. The Gemara corrects: the word אף (“even”) is key — first-degree hands defile even חולין, and a fortiori teruma. The contrast intended is with second-degree hands, which affect teruma but not חולין.
Key Terms:
- אַף = “Even” — the inclusionary word signaling that the lighter category (חולין) is also affected
- אִין… לָא = “Yes… no” — the Talmudic shorthand for affirming one case and excluding another
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara verifies that first-degree-impure hands exist — the case of the leprous house.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אִיכָּא יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת? אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: הִכְנִיס יָדָיו לְבַיִת הַמְנוּגָּע – יָדָיו תְּחִלּוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָדָיו שְׁנִיּוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And are there cases where hands assume first-degree impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is taught in a mishna (Yadayim 3:1): If one inserts his hands into a leprous house (see Leviticus 14:33–53) his hands assume first-degree impurity as though his entire body entered the house; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: His hands assume second-degree impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa’s resolution depends on hands ever bearing first-degree impurity, so the Gemara confirms the possibility. The cited case: one who inserts only his hands into a בית המנוגע, a house afflicted with the impurity of tzaraat. Rabbi Akiva rules the hands become a ראשון — treated as if the whole body had entered. The Rabbis rule the hands become only a שני. Rav Pappa’s mishna would follow Rabbi Akiva.
Key Terms:
- בַּיִת הַמְנוּגָּע = A leprous house — a house struck with tzaraat (see Leviticus 14:33–53), a source of impurity
- הִכְנִיס יָדָיו = “He inserted his hands” — partial bodily entry into the afflicted house
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Locating the dispute: both agree partial entry is not Torah-level entry; the decree is rabbinic.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת לֹא שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה, וְהָכָא בִּגְזֵירָה יָדָיו אַטּוּ גּוּפוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees that in principle, partial entry into a leprous house is not characterized as entry in terms of rendering one who enters impure. Therefore, one who inserted his hands into the house is not impure by Torah law. And here, it is with regard to a rabbinic decree that renders his hands impure that they disagree: The Sages issued a decree that if one inserted his hands into a leprous house, his hands are impure due to the impurity by Torah law that one assumes when he enters the house with his entire body. The objective of the decree is to prevent him from entering the leprous house.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pinpoints what Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis actually dispute. By Torah law, both agree that partial entry — only the hands — is not “entry,” so there is no Torah-level impurity. The disagreement is purely about the rabbinic decree that nonetheless impurifies the inserted hands, a decree enacted to deter people from entering the afflicted house entirely.
Key Terms:
- בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת = “Partial entry” — entering with only part of the body, e.g., the hands alone
- גְּזֵירָה יָדָיו אַטּוּ גּוּפוֹ = A decree on “hands on account of body” — impurifying the hands to discourage full bodily entry
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The two sides of the decree: hands modeled on the body, or hands modeled on ordinary hands.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר סָבַר: יָדָיו – כְּגוּפוֹ שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן, וּמָר סָבַר: יָדַיִם – כְּיָדַיִם דְּעָלְמָא שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that when the Sages issued the decree they determined that the status of his hands inserted into the house is like the status of his body that enters the house, first-degree impurity. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the Sages rendered the status of hands inserted into the house like the status of hands in general, with regard to which they issued a decree of second-degree impurity, even if they had been washed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara articulates the conceptual split within the rabbinic decree. Rabbi Akiva: the Sages modeled the inserted hands on the body that fully enters — hence first-degree impurity. The Rabbis: the Sages modeled them on hands in general, which always carry a standing decree of second-degree impurity — hence merely a שני. This is the precise hinge on which Rav Pappa’s resolution rests.
Key Terms:
- מָר סָבַר… וּמָר סָבַר = “One master holds… and one master holds” — the formula contrasting two Tannaitic positions
- שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן = “The Sages assigned them [a status]” — the rabbinic decree that determined the level of impurity
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Why not interpret the mishna per Rabbi Akiva himself? Perhaps his ruling is limited to teruma and kodashim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: יָדָיו תְּחִלּוֹת הָוְיָין? דִּלְמָא כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּתְרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים, דַּחֲמִירִי, אֲבָל לְחוּלִּין – שְׁנִיּוֹת הָוְיָין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Pappa interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Let Rav Pappa interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If one inserts his hands into a leprous house, his hands assume first-degree impurity. The Gemara answers: Perhaps when Rabbi Akiva says that one’s hands assume first-degree impurity, that statement applies only in cases of teruma and sacrificial food, which are stringent. But with regard to non-sacred food, perhaps hands are impure only with second-degree impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why Rav Pappa specifically needed Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar rather than just Rabbi Akiva, who plainly speaks of first-degree hands. The answer: Rabbi Akiva’s ruling might apply only to the stringent contexts of teruma and sacrificial food, while for חולין even he might rate the hands a mere שני — leaving the original difficulty intact. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, by contrast, explicitly extends first-degree status to חולין.
Key Terms:
- וְלוֹקְמַהּ = “Let him establish it [as]” — a proposal to interpret the mishna per a different authority
- הָנֵי מִילֵּי = “These words [apply]” — a qualifying phrase limiting a ruling’s scope
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
An objection: even if the hands are only second-degree, Rabbi Akiva still holds a שני makes a שלישי in חולין.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיהֶוְיָין נָמֵי שְׁנִיּוֹת, דְּהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: And let hands also be impure only with second-degree impurity and the mishna could still be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we heard that Rabbi Akiva says: An item of second-degree impurity imparts third-degree impurity to non-sacred items.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses further. Even granting that Rabbi Akiva rates the inserted hands as a mere שני for חולין, the mishna could still follow him — because Rabbi Akiva independently holds that a שני does generate a שלישי in non-sacred food. This view directly contradicts the universal assumption underlying the Segment 10 difficulty. The next segment supplies the source for this Akivan position.
Key Terms:
- שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין = “A second-degree item produces a third-degree in non-sacred food” — Rabbi Akiva’s distinctive ruling, against the standard assumption
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
The source: Rabbi Akiva’s famous Yavne derashah on “yitma” — a שני loaf makes a שלישי in חולין.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן, בּוֹ בְּיוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ וְגוֹ׳ יִטְמָא״, ״טָמֵא״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״יִטְמָא״ – לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, לִימֵּד עַל כִּכָּר שֵׁנִי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין.
English Translation:
As we learned in a mishna (Sota 27b): On that day, when Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed Nasi in Yavne, Rabbi Akiva taught: “And every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure, and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33). With regard to the item rendered impure in the vessel, it is not stated: It is impure [tameh]; rather, the term “it shall be impure [yitma]” is stated, indicating that the item has the capacity to transmit impurity to other items. This verse teaches about a loaf with second-degree impurity that had been rendered impure in the airspace of an earthenware vessel in which there was a creeping animal, that through contact it renders non-sacred food impure with third-degree ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The source is Rabbi Akiva’s celebrated derashah from “that day” in Yavne. The verse uses the active form יִטְמָא (“it shall make impure”/“shall become impure”) rather than the static טָמֵא (“it is impure”). Rabbi Akiva reads the active form as teaching that the contents — a שני loaf inside an earthenware vessel containing a sheretz — can transmit impurity onward, producing a שלישי even in non-sacred food. This proves Rabbi Akiva’s atypical view.
Key Terms:
- בּוֹ בְּיוֹם = “On that day” — the day Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was installed as Nasi at Yavne, marked by many landmark teachings
- כִּכָּר שֵׁנִי = A loaf with second-degree impurity
- כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ = An earthenware vessel — which conveys impurity to its contents through its airspace
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
The defense of Rav Pappa: Rabbi Akiva’s ruling may apply only to Torah-level impurity, not to hands.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּלְמָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Perhaps this statement, that non-sacred food becomes impure with third-degree ritual impurity, applies only with regard to impurity by Torah law, e.g., a creeping animal; but with regard to impurity by rabbinic law, e.g., impurity of hands, that is not the halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now explains why Rav Pappa could not simply rely on Rabbi Akiva’s “שני makes שלישי” view. That derashah concerned a Torah-level chain — a sheretz in an earthenware vessel. But the impurity of hands is rabbinic, and perhaps the שלישי-producing power of a שני does not extend to rabbinic impurity. Rav Pappa therefore needed Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, whose ruling about first-degree hands works even for the rabbinic impurity of the leprous house.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = Torah-level impurity — e.g., contact with a sheretz
- טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן = Rabbinically decreed impurity — e.g., the impurity of unwashed hands
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
A third resolution: the meat was prepared at the purity level of kodashim — and Rabbi Eliezer’s view is cited.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ עָסְקִינַן, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן – רִאשׁוֹן, שֵׁנִי – שֵׁנִי, שְׁלִישִׁי – שְׁלִישִׁי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said a third explanation of the mishna: Here we are dealing with a case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. And the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a mishna (Teharot 2:2): Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first-degree ritual impurity assumes first-degree impurity. One who eats food with second-degree ritual impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar (citing Rabbi Hoshaya) gives the third resolution. The mishna concerns חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקודש — non-sacred food deliberately prepared at the elevated purity standard of sacrificial food. Such food is treated more stringently and can contract a שלישי. The mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one who eats food of a given impurity degree assumes that same degree — so the impurity chain extends to a שלישי in such food.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ = Non-sacred food prepared at the purity level of sacrificial food — voluntarily held to a stricter standard
- הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֶל = “One who eats food [of a certain impurity]” — and thereby contracts impurity of a corresponding degree
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
The contrasting view of Rabbi Yehoshua, against whom the mishna is said to be set.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי – שֵׁנִי, שְׁלִישִׁי – שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first-degree or second-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One with second-degree impurity who comes into contact with teruma disqualifies it, but does not render it impure. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, i.e., his contact with sacrificial food renders it impure with the capacity to transmit impurity to other sacrificial food, but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma, and his contact with teruma does not disqualify it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua’s position, by contrast with Rabbi Eliezer, caps the impurity one absorbs by eating: whether one eats ראשון- or שני-level food, one becomes only a שני. One who eats שלישי-level food becomes a שני vis-à-vis sacrificial food but is reckoned even lower vis-à-vis teruma. His more lenient scheme is what the mishna in Chullin, on this resolution, must reject.
Key Terms:
- שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ = “Second-degree with respect to sacrificial food” — impurity reckoned at one level for kodashim
- וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה = “But not second-degree for teruma” — the same person ranks lower regarding teruma
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying which food can even have a שלישי — non-sacred food held to teruma’s purity standard.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
Eating an item that has third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred food, as partaking of impure teruma or sacrificial food is prohibited. Generic non-sacred food cannot contract third-degree impurity at all. Therefore, the case of one who eats food that has third-degree impurity is referring specifically to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies the scenario behind “one who eats שלישי-level food.” It cannot mean impure teruma or kodashim, since eating those is forbidden outright. And ordinary חולין cannot bear a שלישי at all. So it must mean חולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה — non-sacred food prepared at teruma’s purity level, which is stringent enough to acquire a שלישי. This sets up the inference drawn in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה = Non-sacred food prepared at teruma’s purity standard
- שְׁלִישִׁי = Third-degree impurity — which generic non-sacred food cannot contract
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
The inference: Rabbi Yehoshua holds kodashim-level non-sacred food does not contract a שלישי.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין, עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא, קָסָבַר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לֵית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי.
English Translation:
The Gemara infers from Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement that if one prepares items as if their level of purity were on the level of purity of teruma, then yes, they have the status like teruma, but if one prepares items as if their level of purity were on the level of purity of sacrificial food, they do not have the status like sacrificial food, and such items would not contract third-degree impurity. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws the decisive inference. Since Rabbi Yehoshua’s “שלישי-eating” case works only for חולין at teruma’s level, it implies that חולין prepared at kodashim’s level — counterintuitively — do not contract a שלישי. This is precisely the position Rabbi Hoshaya’s resolution rejected: the Chullin mishna, which treats kodashim-level חולין as susceptible to a שלישי, is “not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.”
Key Terms:
- קָסָבַר = “He holds [the view that]” — introducing the underlying premise attributed to a Sage
- לֵית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי = “They have no third-degree [potential]” — they cannot contract third-degree impurity
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
The daf breaks off mid-objection — a fresh challenge to Rabbi Hoshaya’s resolution begins.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלוֹקְמַהּ
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: Let us interpret the mishna
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends mid-sentence, opening a new challenge that will continue onto daf 34. The word וְלוֹקְמַהּ (“let us establish it [otherwise]”) signals that the Gemara is about to question why Rabbi Hoshaya needed his particular construction, proposing yet another way to read the mishna. The three-way debate over the Segment 10 difficulty — Rav Naḥman, Rav Pappa, Rabbi Hoshaya — thus carries forward into the next daf.
Key Terms:
- וְלוֹקְמַהּ = “Let us establish it [as]” — the formula proposing an alternative interpretation of the mishna