Talmud zu Chullin 2:13

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave⁸⁴Babli Ḥulin 35a. Since the third degree of impurity disqualifies but does not induce impurity for heave, the person is permitted in principle to touch heave but not to eat it.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there⁸⁵Mishnah Taharot 2:2., “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.⁸⁶R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave⁸⁷While in theory he could touch heave without bad effects, since touching could lead to eating we tell him to stay away from heave in all respects. This is not a biblical rule.. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following⁸⁸Mishnah Parah 11:5.: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.⁸⁹The Mishnah states that anybody needing immersion in water for rabbinic impurity may without immersion eat profane food and Second Tithe according to R. Meïr, but the majority forbids him Second Tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe<sup>90</sup>There should not have been any question since the problem already was solved in a Mishnah known to all.. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta<sup>91</sup>A quote from Halakhah 3, Note 136. The reference is to a deep mourner who is obligated to see to the burial of a close relative and is forbidden any sacral act. As stated here, it implies that the person eating disqualified sancta is forbidden any sacral act.. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]<sup>92</sup>Mishnah Ḥulin 2:5.: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter<sup>93</sup>For the majority, slaughtered meat is prepared for impurity (Note 80) either by the blood spilled in the act of slaughter or by cutting the animal into pieces, or by later contact with water. Since meat eaten otherwise than raw must be kashered in water, the Mishnah implies that meat not prepared by blood may be eaten raw with unwashed hands and remain untouched by impurity..” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua<sup>86</sup>R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta⁸⁶R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He⁹⁴Rebbi in the baraita. tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.<sup>95</sup>Mishnah Taharot 1:9. Bread baked to accompany sancta is prepared for impurity both by the water used in making the dough and by the fact that it is used in the Temple. If the bread is leavened, as required for thanksgiving offerings (Lev. 7:13), and some moisture remains in bubbles inside the loaves, it is considered as if outside. If the loaf is touched by disqualified (4th order impure) food, the moisture becomes impure in the first degree and the loaf actually impure; while totally dry food is not impacted by the touch of disqualified food.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid<sup>96</sup>“Fluid by his pronouncement” is profane food intentionally prepared by the standards of sancta. “Sanctified fluid” is fluid actually used in the Temple.? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there⁹⁷In Mishnah Parah Chapter 10., one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah⁸⁵Mishnah Taharot 2:2. which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta⁹⁸The Mishnah text is R. Joshua’s. Since he formulates it for profane food prepared in the standards of heave, it is clear that he excludes profane food prepared in the standards of sancta; his statement requires equal treatment for actual sancta, possible only in the Temple, and food prepared in the standards of sancta, possible everywhere in the Holy Land at all times (subject to the availability of ashes of the Red Cow.). From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta⁹⁹As stated in the Mishnah there.. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta¹⁰⁰But nothing implies that this also is valid for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta..

“Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, to exclude the statement of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer says that the thoughts of a Non-Jew are about pagan worship²¹⁸Mishnah Ḥulin 2:7. He holds that even if a Jew correctly slaughters an animal for a Gentile the meat is forbidden since the Gentile owner in his mind dedicates the slaughter to his god. Practice follows R. Yose who holds that only the slaughterer’s intentions have any influence on the process of slaughtering. Babli 32b..

If somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry¹²⁸Any idolatrous sacrifice is forbidden for any use; Deut. 13:18., Rebbi Joḥanan said, the intention invalidates¹²⁹If the slaughter were for idolatry, everybody would agree that the meat is forbidden for consumption. But here the slaughter is not intended for idolatry, only that later part of the blood and fat would be used for idolatrous purposes, for instance, if the animal is a Gentile’s property; cf. Note 131., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the intention does not invalidate¹³⁰Only an action can trigger the prohibition. If the Gentile takes part of the animal for himself for idolatrous purposes after he had sold most of the meat to Jews, there is no reason why the meat should be forbidden to Jews.. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state¹³¹Mishnah Ḥulin 2:7: “If somebody slaughters for a Gentile, his slaughtering is valid, but Rebbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rebbi Eliezer said: Even if he slaughtered it only for the Gentile to eat the appendage of its liver, it is invalid since the Gentile’s thoughts are always for idolatry. Rebbi Yose said, that is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since in a case where thought makes sanctified food unusable, everything is determined by the person who officiates; in the case of profane food which cannot become invalidated by thought, it is only logical that everything depend on the slaughterer.”
It is forbidden to eat from a sacrifice after its appointed time (piggul) or outside the appropriate sacred precinct. If the slaughterer intends the sacrifice to be eaten at the wrong time or place, the entire sacrifice becomes invalid. But if the owners had the same idea, their intentions are irrelevant; they could invalidate the sacrifice only by actually using it at the wrong time and at the wrong place. R. Yose argues that profane slaughter cannot have rules more strict than sacrificial slaughter. If the owner’s intentions are irrelevant for sacrificial slaughter, they must be irrelevant also for profane slaughter.: “Rebbi Yose said, that is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since in a case where thought makes sanctified food unusable, etc.,” and thought invalidates for piggul and leftover¹³²A sacrifice not eaten during its appointed time becomes forbidden as leftover even if it was not intended from the start to be eaten out of its time.. He said to him, truly thought invalidates for piggul and leftover; but if somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, the intention does not invalidate¹³³He holds that only for Jewish sacrifices does the wrong thought at slaughter invalidate the act; for all others the wrong thought invalidates the act but is not transferable to others. If the slaughter was for idolatry, the entire meat is forbidden. If the slaughter was for using part of the blood or fat for idolatry, that blood or fat becomes forbidden by being used; it has no influence on the other parts. (Babli Ḥulin 39a/b).. If he slaughtered and then the blood was sprinkled in an idolatrous rite and the fat was burned in an idolatrous rite¹³⁴In the Babli (Ḥulin 39b): It was slaughtered and after that [the slaughterer] expressed an intention [of idolatry]., there was such a case in Caesarea and they pronounced neither prohibition nor permission. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were not apprehensive¹³⁵In the Babli, the reference is to the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah, who holds that a later action indicates a prior thought. If suicide can validate a prior bill of divorce then idolatrous practice can invalidate a prior slaughter. Since this also explains the insertion of the paragraph here, it has to be accepted as explanation.. If you say that they were apprehensive, they should have taught a prohibition. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were apprehensive. If you say that they were not apprehensive, they should not have dealt with the case¹³⁶A rabbi could have dismissed the case without bringing it to the attention of the full court. But what they really said was that the scrupulous should not eat from the meat; those who did eat did not sin..