## Chullin Daf 33a

###### Chullin 33a:1
[Chullin 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:1)

מִי מִצְטָרֵף סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לְסִימָן שֵׁנִי לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 33a:2
[Chullin 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:2)

עַד כָּאן לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, אֶלָּא לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אֲבָל בַּאֲכִילָה – אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 33a:3
[Chullin 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, וְרַבִּי זֵירָא לִדְבָרָיו דְּרָבָא קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 33a:4
[Chullin 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:4)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, מְזַמְּנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין, וְאֵין מְזַמְּנִין גּוֹי עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 33a:5
[Chullin 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:5)

מַאי טַעְמָא? יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבִשְׁחִיטָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא – אִישְׁתְּרִי לְהוּ; גּוֹיִם דְּבִנְחִירָה סַגִּי לְהוּ וּבְמִיתָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָנֵי – כְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 33a:6
[Chullin 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 33a:7
[Chullin 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 33a:8
[Chullin 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 33a:9
[Chullin 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – כְּשֵׁרִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בַּדָּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בַּשְּׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 33a:10
[Chullin 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם, הָא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – אֵין נֶאֱכָלִים בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת. אַמַּאי? יָדַיִם שְׁנִיּוֹת הֵן, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 33a:11
[Chullin 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:11)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 33a:12
[Chullin 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:12)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 33a:13
[Chullin 33a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:13)

וְתוּ, אִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מֵהֶם דָּם לָא מִתַּכְשְׁרִי, (לִיתַּכְשְׁרִי) [לִיתַּכְשְׁרוּ] בְּחִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ! דְּקַיְימָא לַן חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 33a:14
[Chullin 33a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33a:14)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָכָא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁלְּקָחָן בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר עָסְקִינַן, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דִּתְנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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):