Chullin 234:1

מיעוטי כתיבי הכא כתיב (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו

limiting particles stated: here it is written: And he shall put them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 3. The express addition of the suffix 'them' (in the Heb. 'it' in the sing.) in the text serves to exclude others.');">¹</span>

התם כתיב (דברים כא, ו) הערופה

and there it is written: Whose neck was broken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI. 6; lit., 'the one whose neck was broken'. The redundant particle, the, limits the rule to this case only.');">²</span>

ותלתא קראי ל"ל בדם

Why are the three different texts with regard to the blood necessary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Namely. ' To you'. ' To make atonement', and 'It is'. V. supra p. 645, n. 4.');">³</span>

חד למעוטי מנותר וחד למעוטי ממעילה וחד למעוטי מטומאה

One excludes blood from the law of nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man ate the blood of a sacrifice which remained over beyond the prescribed time within which the meat there of may be eaten, he is liable only for eating blood, but not, in addition, for eating nothar.');">⁴</span>

אבל מפגול לא צריך קרא דתנן

another excludes it from the law of Sacrilege, and the third excludes it from the law of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man who was unclean ate the blood of a sacrifice, he is liable only for eating blood, but not, in addition, for eating it whilst unclean.');">⁵</span>

כל שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם ובין למזבח חייבין עליו משום פגול ודם גופיה מתיר הוא:

No text, however, is necessary to exclude it from the law of piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the sacrifice was rendered piggul (v. Glos.) and a man ate of the blood thereof he would not be liable for eating piggul.');">⁶</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל הבשר</strong></big><br><br>

for we have learnt: 'Whatsoever is rendered permissible, whether for man or for the altar, by a certain rite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 43a. By the proper sprinkling of the blood the sacrificial portions are rendered permissible to be burnt upon the altar, and the flesh to be consumed by the priest or owner. Therefore if the sacrifice was rendered piggul and a man ate of the flesh or of the sacrificial portions he would be liable; but if he ate of the blood, which is what renders others permissible, he would not be liable.');">⁷</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>העור</strong></big> והרוטב והקיפה והאלל והעצמות והגידין והקרנים והטלפים מצטרפין לטמא טומאת אוכלין אבל לא טומאת נבלות

is subject to the law of piggul', but the blood is itself that which renders [other parts of the offering] permissible.

כיוצא בו השוחט בהמה טמאה לעובד כוכבים ומפרכסת מטמאה טומאת אוכלין אבל לא טומאת נבלות עד שתמות או עד שיתיז את ראשה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE HIDE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the precise meaning of all these substances v. GEMARA:');">⁸</span>

ריבה לטמא טומאת אוכלין ממה שריבה לטמא טומאת נבלות

MEAT JUICE, SEDIMENT, ALAL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some kind of offal of meat, as explained in the GEMARA:');">⁹</span>

ר' יהודה אומר

BONES, SINEWS, HORNS AND HOOFS ARE TO BE INCLUDED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each of the substances enumerated would be reckoned together with a piece of meat less than an egg's bulk, so as to make up the quantity of an egg's bulk and, if unclean, would convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs or liquids. With regard to some of the substances, e.g., the meat juice, the sediment and the sinews, the reason why they would be reckoned together with the meat is because, although they are not eaten alone, they would be eaten together with the meat, and are therefore regarded as foodstuffs. And with regard to the other substances, e.g., the hide, bones, horns and hoofs, the reason is because each forms a protection or covering to a foodstuff and is therefore regarded as one with the foodstuff.');">¹⁰</span>

האלל המכונס אם יש בו כזית במקום אחד חייב עליו:

[TO MAKE UP THE MINIMUM QUANTITY IN ORDER] TO CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS, BUT NOT TO [MAKE UP THE MINIMUM QUANTITY IN ORDER TO] CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the meat was nebelah these substances would not be included together with the meat in order to make up an olive's bulk, the quantity necessary in order to convey uncleanness to men or vessels.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנינא להא דת"ר

SIMILARLY, IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL FOR A GENTILE AND IT STILL WRITHES CONVULSIVELY, IT CAN CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was touched by anything unclean. For although at this moment the animal may not be eaten, either by the Israelite who slaughtered it, for it is an unclean animal, or by the gentile, since by its death only is an animal rendered permitted to a gentile, and not by the slaughtering (v. supra 33a) , nevertheless the act of slaughtering performed by the Israelite has the effect that the animal be deemed a foodstuff forthwith, for this could only have been the intention and purpose of the slaughtering.');">¹²</span>

שומרים לטומאה קלה ולא שומרים לטומאה חמורה

BUT IT CAN ONLY CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS AFTER IT IS DEAD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then is it regarded as nebelah; cf. Lev. XI, 39.');">¹³</span>

שומרים לטומאה קלה מנלן

OR ITS HEAD HAS BEEN CHOPPED OFF.

דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

[SCRIPTURE] HAS [THUS] INTIMATED MORE CASES THAT CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS THAN THOSE THAT CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS.

(ויקרא יא, לז) על כל זרע זרוע כדרך שבני אדם מוציאין לזריעה חטה בקליפתה ושעורה בקליפתה ועדשים בקליפתן

R'JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED TOGETHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although alal by itself is not a foodstuff, if one collected a number of pieces together so that there was an olive's bulk in one place, this action is significant and renders the bulk a foodstuff.');">¹⁴</span>

ולא שומרים לטומאה חמורה מנלן

SO THAT THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK IN ONE PLACE, ONE WOULD THEREBY BECOME LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If this accumulated bulk was taken from a nebelah and a man touched it and later entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, he would be liable to the penalty of kareth.');">¹⁵</span>

דתנו רבנן

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>We have learnt [here in our Mishnah] what our Rabbis have taught elsewhere: Protections<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that which surrounds and encloses foodstuffs, e.g., the husk of grain, the peel of fruit, the shell of nuts, the hide of an animal, etc.');">¹⁶</span>

(ויקרא יא, לט) בנבלתה ולא בעור שאין עליו כזית בשר

[can be included to make up the quantity required] for a lighter uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That condition of uncleanness which can only render unclean foodstuffs and liquids, provided there was an egg's bulk of the unclean matter.');">¹⁷</span> but protections cannot [be included to make up the quantity required] for a graver uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nebelah-uncleanness. The condition of uncleanness that can even render unclean men and vessels, provided there was an olive's bulk of the unclean matter.');">¹⁸</span> Whence do we know that protections can be included for a lighter uncleanness? - From the following teaching of a Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael: It is written: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 37, with reference to the uncleanness of foodstuffs.');">¹⁹</span> that is to say, in the manner in which men take out the seeds for sowing: wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, lentils in their husks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by seed is meant the grain together with its husk; hence the protection of food is considered as part of the food itself.');">²⁰</span> And whence do we know that protections cannot be included for a graver uncleanness? - From the following which our Rabbis taught: [He that toucheth] the carcass thereof [shall be unclean],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 39.');">²¹</span> but not he that touches the hide which has not an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it.