## Chullin Daf 33b

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

כׇּל הַטָּעוּן בִּיאַת מַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּחוּלִּין וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

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


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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר.

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


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

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.

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


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

וְהָא נְגִיעָה הִיא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי נֶאֱכָלִין בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּקָא סָפֵי לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ?

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


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

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.

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


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

תְּחִלּוֹת לְחוּלִּין – אִין, לִתְרוּמָה – לָא? הָכִי קָאָמַר: תְּחִלּוֹת – אַף לְחוּלִּין, שְׁנִיּוֹת – לִתְרוּמָה אִין, לְחוּלִּין – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וּמִי אִיכָּא יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת? אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: הִכְנִיס יָדָיו לְבַיִת הַמְנוּגָּע – יָדָיו תְּחִלּוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָדָיו שְׁנִיּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת לֹא שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה, וְהָכָא בִּגְזֵירָה יָדָיו אַטּוּ גּוּפוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מָר סָבַר: יָדָיו – כְּגוּפוֹ שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן, וּמָר סָבַר: יָדַיִם – כְּיָדַיִם דְּעָלְמָא שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְלוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: יָדָיו תְּחִלּוֹת הָוְיָין? דִּלְמָא כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּתְרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים, דַּחֲמִירִי, אֲבָל לְחוּלִּין – שְׁנִיּוֹת הָוְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְלִיהֶוְיָין נָמֵי שְׁנִיּוֹת, דְּהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

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


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

דִּלְמָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא.

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


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

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.

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


###### Chullin 33b:15
[Chullin 33b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33b:15)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי – שֵׁנִי, שְׁלִישִׁי – שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 33b:16
[Chullin 33b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33b:16)

בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה.

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


###### Chullin 33b:17
[Chullin 33b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33b:17)

עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין, עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא, קָסָבַר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לֵית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 33b:18
[Chullin 33b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/33b:18)

וְלוֹקְמַהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Let us interpret** the mishna