Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 1, 2019 | 讻状讚 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 35

The discussion relating to the status on one who eats chullin聽but treated it as truma or as kodashim continues –聽what is the person’s status regarding impurity? Rabbi Shimon stated in the mishna that shechita聽makes the animal susceptible to impurities – does he mean only shechita or also blood of the animal?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚诇讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

as there is not an olive-bulk of teruma in the amount of stew that he eats in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Therefore, one need not treat the mixture with the level of purity required of teruma.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 注爪诪讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诪讜转专 诇讬讙注

Rabbi Yonatan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For one who partakes of actual teruma that is impure with third-degree impurity, it is prohibited to partake of other teruma, but it is permitted to come into contact with teruma.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚注讜诇讗 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗讬 诪讚注讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讘谞讙讬注讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara notes that the statement of Ulla was necessary and the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. As, if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Ulla, I would say: This statement applies with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, but with regard to teruma itself perhaps contact is also prohibited. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. And if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Rabbi Yonatan, I would say: This statement applies with regard to teruma, but with regard to non-sacred food that was prepared with purity of teruma, perhaps eating it is also permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 讟讛讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 讗诇讗 拽讚砖 诪拽讜讚砖 讘诇讘讚

Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Na岣an, and he was sitting and saying: With regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and these items had become impure with third-degree impurity, he is ritually pure in terms of the right to partake of sacrificial food, as you have nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not.

诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 诇拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 拽讚砖 诪拽讜讚砖 讛讜讗

Rami bar 岣ma raises an objection from the mishna cited earlier (33b): One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes seconddegree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, and he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-脿-vis teruma. Eating an item with third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred items, as partaking of impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma. According to the statement of Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta, why does this food assume second-degree impurity? It is not sacrificial food, which is sanctified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪讛 砖讟讛专转讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讗爪诇 讛拽讚砖

Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta said to him: Leave teruma alone; its state of purity is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food. Therefore, non-sacred food that was prepared with the purity of teruma renders sacrificial food impure.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讚专住 诇驻专讜砖讬谉 讘讙讚讬 驻专讜砖讬谉 诪讚专住 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讙讚讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讚专住 诇拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that the purity of teruma is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food? It is from a mishna (岣giga 18b), as we learned: The halakhic status of the garments of an am ha鈥檃retz, who does not scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity, is like that of items rendered impure by treading, e.g., items designated for sitting or lying upon which a zav or a menstruating woman sits or lies, which are rendered a primary source of ritual impurity for individuals who scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity [perushin] and eat their non-sacred food in a state of purity. In other words, it is considered a primary level of impurity for them. The halakhic status of the garments of perushin is like that of items rendered impure by treading for priests who partake of teruma. In addition, the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚专住讜转 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪讚专住讜转

Rava said: Are you saying that one can cite proof from the halakha of items rendered impure by treading that the state of purity of teruma is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food? No proof may be cited from there, as the decree that the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food is different,

砖诪讗 转砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛 讗讘诇 讘驻讬专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘驻讬专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专

as with regard to garments there is concern lest his wife sit upon them when she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. But with regard to produce, we do not say that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure, and Rabbi Yitz岣k states his halakha with regard to produce as well.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘驻讬专讬 讜讛转谞谉 讗诐 讗诪专 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 诇拽讚砖 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟讛专转讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讗爪诇 讛拽讚砖 转讟诪讗 转专讜诪讛 诇拽讚砖

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k: And do we say with regard to produce that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣giga 24b): It is not permitted for a priest to accept teruma wine from an am ha鈥檃retz, but if an am ha鈥檃retz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma wine a quarterlog of sacrificial wine, he is deemed credible? And this indicates that teruma does not render the sacrificial food impure. And if you say with regard to teruma that its state of purity is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, let the teruma render the sacrificial food impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讘讜专讬谉 拽讗诪专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讘讜专讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讚诪讙讜 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽讚砖 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k said to Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti: Are you are saying that there is an objection to my opinion based on the case of impurity in a case of food items, the teruma wine and the sacrificial wine, that are attached in one barrel? Impurity in a case of food items that are attached is different, as, since the am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food, he is deemed credible with regard to the teruma as well.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讛砖谞讬 砖讘讞讜诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 拽讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 拽讚砖 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖

Rav Huna bar Natan raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k with regard to rendering sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity: Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity renders impure through contact a non-sacred liquid, which assumes first-degree impurity, and disqualifies teruma foods, in the sense that those foods are impure but do not transmit impurity to other food. And non-sacred food that is impure with third-degree impurity renders impure through contact a sacrificial liquid and disqualifies sacrificial foods, in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who said that there is nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but not non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讚砖 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers that this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of non-sacred foods, and they are incapable of assuming third-degree impurity.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻转专讜诪讛 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讞讚

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of teruma. Accordingly, a primary source of ritual impurity is able to render two items impure: The food item with which it comes into contact assumes first-degree impurity, and the food item with which that came into contact assumes second-degree impurity. And that item is able to disqualify one further item, which assumes third-degree impurity but will not render sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree impurity. According to both opinions in this baraita, non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not disqualify sacrificial food. According to the mishna in Teharot, it does disqualify sacrificial food.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讻砖专转 讜诇讗 讚诐

搂 The mishna states (33a): In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them, Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Shimon would say: It is its slaughter that renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, and not the blood that emerges during the slaughter.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诇讗 讘讚诐 诇讗 讗祝 讘砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rav Asi. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that Rabbi Shimon is saying: By means of the slaughter and not by means of the blood from the slaughter? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps Rabbi Shimon is saying: The animal can be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of blood and also by means of slaughter.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 讛讚诐 诪讻砖讬专 讜讛诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖专转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛谉 讜讻讬 讚诐 讘诇讘讚 诪讻砖讬专 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 谞诪讬 诪讻砖专转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita is support of Rav Asi鈥檚 statement. Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: Is it blood that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? But isn鈥檛 it slaughter that renders it susceptible? This indicates that Rabbi Shimon holds that it is specifically the slaughter and not the blood that renders the flesh susceptible to impurity. The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the Rabbis: Is it blood alone that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? Slaughter too renders it susceptible.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚诐 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖讬专 诇讗 讛讗 讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 讗讘诇 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita contrary to Rav Asi鈥檚 statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the animal that is dead of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what then is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?

诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诐 讛诪转 讚诐 讛诪转 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach the halakha of blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the animal himself, and what difference is there to me if the animal was killed by the angel of death? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that unlike blood of an animal that was killed, blood of an animal that is dead as a result of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖讬专 诇讗 讛讗 讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 讗讘诇 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita contrary to Rav Asi鈥檚 statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the wound of an animal does not render other items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?

诇砖诪注讬谞谉 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗

If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of its wound. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach blood of its wound, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the entire animal, and what difference is there to me if one killed half of the animal, i.e., wounded it? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches that unlike the blood of an animal that was killed, the blood from an animal鈥檚 wound does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讚诪讻砖讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛

The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to blood of animals that are killed that they render food items susceptible to ritual impurity? It is due to the fact that it is written: 鈥淏ehold, they are a people that rises up as a lioness, and as a lion he lifts himself up; he shall not lie down until he eats of the prey and drinks blood of carcasses鈥 (Numbers 23:24). The fact that the blood of a carcass, which in the context of the verse is referring to an animal that was killed, is mentioned in the context of drinking, indicates that it is a liquid that renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity.

讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 注诇 讛讗专抓 转砖驻讻谞讜 讻诪讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讚诪谉 讚驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

With regard to blood of slaughter it is also written: 鈥淥nly, you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth as water鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:16). The parallel to water ostensibly indicates that the blood of slaughter should also render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: That verse is not written with regard to susceptibility to impurity. The purpose for which it comes is to permit benefit from the blood of disqualified consecrated animals.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 35

讚诇讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

as there is not an olive-bulk of teruma in the amount of stew that he eats in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Therefore, one need not treat the mixture with the level of purity required of teruma.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 注爪诪讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诪讜转专 诇讬讙注

Rabbi Yonatan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For one who partakes of actual teruma that is impure with third-degree impurity, it is prohibited to partake of other teruma, but it is permitted to come into contact with teruma.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚注讜诇讗 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗讬 诪讚注讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讘谞讙讬注讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara notes that the statement of Ulla was necessary and the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. As, if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Ulla, I would say: This statement applies with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, but with regard to teruma itself perhaps contact is also prohibited. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. And if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Rabbi Yonatan, I would say: This statement applies with regard to teruma, but with regard to non-sacred food that was prepared with purity of teruma, perhaps eating it is also permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 讟讛讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 讗诇讗 拽讚砖 诪拽讜讚砖 讘诇讘讚

Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Na岣an, and he was sitting and saying: With regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and these items had become impure with third-degree impurity, he is ritually pure in terms of the right to partake of sacrificial food, as you have nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not.

诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 诇拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 拽讚砖 诪拽讜讚砖 讛讜讗

Rami bar 岣ma raises an objection from the mishna cited earlier (33b): One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes seconddegree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, and he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-脿-vis teruma. Eating an item with third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred items, as partaking of impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma. According to the statement of Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta, why does this food assume second-degree impurity? It is not sacrificial food, which is sanctified.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪讛 砖讟讛专转讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讗爪诇 讛拽讚砖

Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta said to him: Leave teruma alone; its state of purity is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food. Therefore, non-sacred food that was prepared with the purity of teruma renders sacrificial food impure.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讚专住 诇驻专讜砖讬谉 讘讙讚讬 驻专讜砖讬谉 诪讚专住 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讙讚讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讚专住 诇拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that the purity of teruma is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food? It is from a mishna (岣giga 18b), as we learned: The halakhic status of the garments of an am ha鈥檃retz, who does not scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity, is like that of items rendered impure by treading, e.g., items designated for sitting or lying upon which a zav or a menstruating woman sits or lies, which are rendered a primary source of ritual impurity for individuals who scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity [perushin] and eat their non-sacred food in a state of purity. In other words, it is considered a primary level of impurity for them. The halakhic status of the garments of perushin is like that of items rendered impure by treading for priests who partake of teruma. In addition, the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚专住讜转 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪讚专住讜转

Rava said: Are you saying that one can cite proof from the halakha of items rendered impure by treading that the state of purity of teruma is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food? No proof may be cited from there, as the decree that the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food is different,

砖诪讗 转砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛 讗讘诇 讘驻讬专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘驻讬专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专

as with regard to garments there is concern lest his wife sit upon them when she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. But with regard to produce, we do not say that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure, and Rabbi Yitz岣k states his halakha with regard to produce as well.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘驻讬专讬 讜讛转谞谉 讗诐 讗诪专 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 诇拽讚砖 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟讛专转讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讗爪诇 讛拽讚砖 转讟诪讗 转专讜诪讛 诇拽讚砖

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k: And do we say with regard to produce that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣giga 24b): It is not permitted for a priest to accept teruma wine from an am ha鈥檃retz, but if an am ha鈥檃retz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma wine a quarterlog of sacrificial wine, he is deemed credible? And this indicates that teruma does not render the sacrificial food impure. And if you say with regard to teruma that its state of purity is impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, let the teruma render the sacrificial food impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讘讜专讬谉 拽讗诪专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讘讜专讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讚诪讙讜 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗拽讚砖 诪讛讬诪谉 谞诪讬 讗转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k said to Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti: Are you are saying that there is an objection to my opinion based on the case of impurity in a case of food items, the teruma wine and the sacrificial wine, that are attached in one barrel? Impurity in a case of food items that are attached is different, as, since the am ha鈥檃retz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food, he is deemed credible with regard to the teruma as well.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讛砖谞讬 砖讘讞讜诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 拽讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 拽讚砖 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖

Rav Huna bar Natan raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k with regard to rendering sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity: Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity renders impure through contact a non-sacred liquid, which assumes first-degree impurity, and disqualifies teruma foods, in the sense that those foods are impure but do not transmit impurity to other food. And non-sacred food that is impure with third-degree impurity renders impure through contact a sacrificial liquid and disqualifies sacrificial foods, in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who said that there is nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but not non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讚砖 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers that this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of non-sacred foods, and they are incapable of assuming third-degree impurity.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻转专讜诪讛 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讞讚

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of teruma. Accordingly, a primary source of ritual impurity is able to render two items impure: The food item with which it comes into contact assumes first-degree impurity, and the food item with which that came into contact assumes second-degree impurity. And that item is able to disqualify one further item, which assumes third-degree impurity but will not render sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree impurity. According to both opinions in this baraita, non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not disqualify sacrificial food. According to the mishna in Teharot, it does disqualify sacrificial food.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讻砖专转 讜诇讗 讚诐

搂 The mishna states (33a): In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them, Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Shimon would say: It is its slaughter that renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, and not the blood that emerges during the slaughter.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诇讗 讘讚诐 诇讗 讗祝 讘砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rav Asi. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that Rabbi Shimon is saying: By means of the slaughter and not by means of the blood from the slaughter? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps Rabbi Shimon is saying: The animal can be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of blood and also by means of slaughter.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 讛讚诐 诪讻砖讬专 讜讛诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖专转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛谉 讜讻讬 讚诐 讘诇讘讚 诪讻砖讬专 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 谞诪讬 诪讻砖专转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita is support of Rav Asi鈥檚 statement. Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: Is it blood that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? But isn鈥檛 it slaughter that renders it susceptible? This indicates that Rabbi Shimon holds that it is specifically the slaughter and not the blood that renders the flesh susceptible to impurity. The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the Rabbis: Is it blood alone that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? Slaughter too renders it susceptible.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚诐 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖讬专 诇讗 讛讗 讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 讗讘诇 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita contrary to Rav Asi鈥檚 statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the animal that is dead of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what then is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?

诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诐 讛诪转 讚诐 讛诪转 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach the halakha of blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the animal himself, and what difference is there to me if the animal was killed by the angel of death? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that unlike blood of an animal that was killed, blood of an animal that is dead as a result of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖讬专 诇讗 讛讗 讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 讗讘诇 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita contrary to Rav Asi鈥檚 statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the wound of an animal does not render other items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?

诇砖诪注讬谞谉 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗

If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of its wound. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach blood of its wound, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the entire animal, and what difference is there to me if one killed half of the animal, i.e., wounded it? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches that unlike the blood of an animal that was killed, the blood from an animal鈥檚 wound does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讚诪讻砖讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛

The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to blood of animals that are killed that they render food items susceptible to ritual impurity? It is due to the fact that it is written: 鈥淏ehold, they are a people that rises up as a lioness, and as a lion he lifts himself up; he shall not lie down until he eats of the prey and drinks blood of carcasses鈥 (Numbers 23:24). The fact that the blood of a carcass, which in the context of the verse is referring to an animal that was killed, is mentioned in the context of drinking, indicates that it is a liquid that renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity.

讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 注诇 讛讗专抓 转砖驻讻谞讜 讻诪讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讚诪谉 讚驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

With regard to blood of slaughter it is also written: 鈥淥nly, you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth as water鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:16). The parallel to water ostensibly indicates that the blood of slaughter should also render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: That verse is not written with regard to susceptibility to impurity. The purpose for which it comes is to permit benefit from the blood of disqualified consecrated animals.

Scroll To Top