Chullin 66

כל הטעון ביאת מים מדברי סופרים מטמא את הקדש ופוסל את התרומה ומותר בחולין ובמעשר דברי ר"מ וחכמים אוסרים במעשר

Whatsoever requires immersion in the waters [of a mikweh] by decree of the Scribes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those cases enumerated in Shab. ');">¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב שימי בר אשי

will [through contact] render consecrated food unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The general principle is that unclean matter defiles anything which comes in contact with it and that the thing so defiled becomes unclean in a lesser degree than that which defiled it. Further it has been laid down that uncleanness in common food extends to the second degree, in terumah');">²</span>

ממאי

and terumah invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the terumah is unclean in the third degree it cannot impart further uncleanness, and is therefore termed');">³</span>

דלמא עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי מאיר אלא באכילת מעשר אבל בנגיעה דמעשר ואכילה דחולין לא פליגי

but will leave common food or Second Tithe unaffected: so R'Meir.

והא נגיעה היא מדקתני

The Sages however regard Second Tithe to be affected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they forbid in the case of Second Tithe'. Presumably the Second Tithe becomes unclean in the third degree by contact with that which was unclean in the second degree. On this assumption our Mishnah can be interpreted as dealing with animals bought with Second Tithe money.');">⁴</span>

נאכלין בידים מסואבות מי לא עסקינן דקא ספי ליה חבריה

R'Shimi B'Ashi demurred: Is it really so?

אלא אמר רב פפא

Perhaps the Sages differ with R'Meir only on the question of eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages forbid a person whose hands are unwashed to eat Second Tithe.');">⁵</span>

הכא בידים תחלות עסקינן ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא

this Second Tithe, but there is no dispute between them on the question of coming into contact with the Second Tithe or of eating common food!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all agree that a person with unwashed hands may eat common food and touch Second Tithe.');">⁶</span>

דתניא

And here [in our Mishnah] it is a question of coming into contact, for it reads: AND MAY BE EATEN BY HIM WHOSE HANDS HAVE NOT BEEN WASHED, and this might very well mean that we are dealing with the case of one person feeding another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Mishnah does not say 'And one whose hands have not been washed may eat it', it is to be inferred that even a person with unwashed hands may feed another. And on the other hand, where the animal has been moistened by the blood, it may not be eaten by one whose hands are unwashed and similarly one with unwashed hands may not feed another. Hence the Mishnah forbids the touching of Second Tithe by one who is unclean in the second degree, which is contrary to all views.');">⁷</span>

אין ידים תחלות לחולין רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי מאיר

- Rather, said R'Papa, here [in the Mishnah] we are dealing with hands that were unclean in the first degree, and the ruling is in accordance with the view of R'Simeon B'Eleazar.

ידים תחלות לחולין ושניות לתרומה

For it was taught: Hands which are unclean in the first degree can in no wise affect common food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To render it unclean in the second degree.');">⁸</span>

תחלות לחולין אין לתרומה לא

R'Simeon B'Eleazar says in the name of R'Meir, Hands which are unclean in the first degree can affect common food, and hands which are unclean in the second degree can affect terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And make the terumah unclean in the third degree.');">⁹</span>

הכי קאמר

Does this mean to say that hands which are unclean in the first degree can affect common food only and not terumah? - Indeed no; it means, hands which are unclean in the first degree can affect even common food, but hands which are unclean in the second degree can affect terumah only but not common food.

תחלות אף לחולין שניות לתרומה אין לחולין לא

But is it possible for hands to be unclean in the first degree? - Yes.

ומי איכא ידים תחלות

For we have learnt: If a person put his hands into a house stricken with leprosy, his hands become unclean in the first degree: so R'Akiba.

אין דתניא

The Sages however say, His hands become unclean in the second degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yad. III, I.');">¹⁰</span>

הכניס ידיו לבית המנוגע ידיו תחלות דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים אומרים

Now all accept the principle that an entry by part of the person only is no entry,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the person himself is not rendered unclean, and on the same principle his hands too should not be rendered unclcan. The Rabbis, however, decreed that the latter be unclean as a precautionary measure against it being said: If hands when brought into a house stricken with leprosy remain clean, the body too should be clean!');">¹¹</span>

ידיו שניות

and the dispute between them is the extent of uncleanness imposed by the Rabbis upon the hands as a precaution against the entry of the whole person.

דכולי עלמא ביאה במקצת לא שמה ביאה והכא בגזירה ידיו אטו גופו קא מיפלגי מר סבר

One [R'Akiba] says that the Rabbis imposed upon the hands the same degree of uncleanness as upon the person himself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person who enters a house afflicted with leprosy is rendered unclean in the first degree; v. Lev. Xlv, 46.');">¹²</span>

ידיו כגופו שוינהו רבנן ומר סבר

but the Sages say that they imposed upon the hands the usual degree of uncleanness attached to hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., uncleanness in the second degree.');">¹³</span>

ידים כידים דעלמא שוינהו רבנן

But why do we not say that the ruling [in our Mishnah] accords with R'Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmud endeavours to establish wherever possible the ruling of an anonymous Mishnah in accordance with the view of R. Akiba for it was by his direction and on his authority that the Tannaitic teachings were collected.');">¹⁴</span>

ולוקמה כרבי עקיבא דאמר ידיו תחלות הויין

who also holds that hands can be unclean in the first degree? - Because it may be that R'Akiba says so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That hands can be unclean in the first degree.');">¹⁵</span>

דלמא כי קאמר רבי עקיבא הני מילי בתרומה וקדשים דחמירי אבל לחולין שניות הויין

only with regard to terumah or consecrated food, since these are to be treated with strictness, but with regard to common food [he would agree that] they are unclean only in the second degree.

וליהויין נמי שניות דהא שמעינן ליה לר"ע דאמר

But even so, be they unclean only in the second degree, have we not learnt that according to R'Akiba, whatever is unclean in the second degree can render common food unclean in the third degree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah therefore would be in ent1re accord with R. Akiba.');">¹⁶</span>

שני עושה שלישי בחולין

For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 27b, and Pes. 182.');">¹⁷</span>

דתנן בו ביום דרש רבי עקיבא

On that same day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The day on which R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah was appointed head of the College. V. Ber. 28b. tnyh');">¹⁸</span>

(ויקרא יא, לג) וכל כלי חרש וגו' יטמא טמא לא נאמר אלא יטמא לטמא אחרים לימד על ככר שני שהוא עושה שלישי בחולין

R'Akiba expounded: It is written: And every earthen vessel, [whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it] shall be unclean [yitma].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 33. Heb. tny');">¹⁹</span>

דלמא הני מילי בטומאה דאורייתא אבל בדרבנן לא

Now there is not written tame<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , meaning, 'it is unclean'. tnyh');">²⁰</span>

אמר ר"א א"ר הושעיא

but yitma,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And R. Akiba argued that this word should not be read as yitma, for then it has the same meaning as tame, but should be read as yetamme, meaning, 'it shall render others unclean'. R. Akiba accordingly interprets the verse thus: If a dead reptile is suspended in the air-space of an earthenware vessel, the latter is thereby rendered unclean in the first degree, and whatever foodstuffs are in the vessel are unclean in the tnyh second degree; and since the text states in connection, with the latter it means that they will render others unclean in the third degree.');">²¹</span>

הכא בחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש עסקינן ודלא כרבי יהושע

which signifies that it will make others unclean.

דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר

This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree will [by contact] render common food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse contemplates every sort of food, common or consecrated.');">²²</span>

האוכל אוכל ראשון ראשון שני שני שלישי שלישי

unclean in the third degree? - Perhaps this is the law only with regard to such uncleanness as declared by the Torah but not with regard to such uncleanness as decreed by the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness attached to unwashed hands is a Rabbinic enactment. It is suggested that, being merely Rabbinic in origin, the law with regard thereto is not so rigid, and so would not render others unclean in the third degree.');">²³</span>

רבי יהושע אומר

R'Eleazar said in the name of R'Hoshaia, Here [in our Mishnah] we are dealing with unconsecrated animals that were kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was not unusual for many to eat their ordinary food in the same strictness regarding the laws of uncleanness as applied to consecrated food, in order that whenever partaking of consecrated food they would be accustomed to the rules of cleanness appertaining thereto.');">²⁴</span>

האוכל אוכל ראשון ושני שני שלישי שני לקדש ואין שני לתרומה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה

and the ruling is not in accordance with R'Joshua's view.

על טהרת תרומה אין על טהרת הקדש לא קסבר

For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. II, 2.');">²⁵</span>

חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש לית בהו שלישי

R'Eliezer says.

ולוקמה

He who eats [food unclean in] the first [degree becomes unclean in the] first degree; [if it was unclean] in the second degree, [he becomes unclean in] the second degree; and [if it was unclean in] the third degree, [he becomes unclean in] the third degree. R'Joshua says, [He who eats food unclean in] the first or second degree [becomes unclean in] the second degree; [if it was unclean in] the third degree. [he becomes unclean in] the second degree with regard to consecrated things only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he would render consecrated food unclean in the third degree and the latter in turn could render other consecrated food unclean in the fourth degree.');">²⁶</span> but not with regard to terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he would not by contact render terumah unclean in the third degree (i.e., invalid) ; he is nevertheless forbidden in his condition of uncleanness to eat terumah, v. infra.');">²⁷</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That with common food there can be a third degree of uncleanness.');">²⁸</span> applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah. And so only in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah [is there a third degree of uncleanness], but not in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things, for he [R'Joshua] is of the opinion that in that latter case there cannot be a third degree of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he holds that the determ1nat1on to treat common food with the cleanness proper to consecrated food is of no effect; our Mishnah, therefore, which deals with an animal kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated animals, will agree with R. Eliezer but not with R. Joshua.');">²⁹</span> Why should we not say that our Mishnah deals