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

Daf Yomi

January 2, 2019 | 讻状讛 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

Chullin 36

When we say that things that are sanctified are susceptible to impurities, it is the same as when liquids render items susceptible – that they become impure and can transmit impurities or are they not able to transmit impurities to other items?


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

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗住讬专讬 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚诪谉 诇讘注讬 拽讘讜专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


It could enter your mind to say: Since benefit from disqualified consecrated animals is forbidden with regard to their fleece and labor, perhaps benefit from their blood is also forbidden, and let it require burial. Therefore, the verse teaches us that benefit from their blood is permitted.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛 驻专讟 诇讚诐 拽讬诇讜讞 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd drinks the blood of carcasses,鈥 from which it is derived that the blood of an animal that was killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity, serves to exclude blood that emerges in a surge due to arterial pressure at the moment of slaughter while the animal is still alive that does not render seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 讚诐 注诇 讛讚诇注转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters an animal and splashed blood of the slaughter on a gourd of teruma, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi 岣yya says: If the gourd came into contact with a source of impurity, one places the matter in abeyance, as there is uncertainty whether the blood rendered it susceptible to impurity.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讗讞专 砖专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉 讗谞讜 注诇 诪讬 谞住诪讜讱 讘讗讜 讜谞住诪讜讱 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖专转 讜诇讗 讚诐


Rabbi Oshaya said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and Rabbi 岣yya says that one places the matter in abeyance, on whom shall we rely? Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon would say: It is slaughter that renders the animal susceptible, and not blood.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讚诐 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讻砖讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞转拽谞讞 讛讚诐 讘讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇住讬诪谉 专讘讬 住讘专 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜讛讗讬 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗


Rav Pappa said in explanation: Everyone, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya, agrees that where there is blood on the gourd throughout the slaughter continuously from beginning to end, everyone, both Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: Slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: Slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, agrees that the blood renders the gourd susceptible to impurity, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. When they disagree is in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd between the cutting of one siman and the other siman. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the gourd is blood of slaughter.


专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讻讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讛讚讘专 注讚 讙诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇讚诐 讘住讜祝 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专


Rabbi 岣yya holds that slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and this is blood of a wound, which does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. And what is the meaning of the ruling of Rabbi 岣yya that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that one places the matter in abeyance until the conclusion of the slaughter. If there is blood remaining on the gourd at the conclusion of the slaughter the blood renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, and if not, the blood does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.


讜诪讗讬 讘讗讜 讜谞住诪讜讱 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讻砖讬专


The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi 岣yya the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.


讘谞转拽谞讞 诪讬讛讜 讗砖讜讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诪专 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪专 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara answers that in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of slaughter, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi 岣yya correspond to each other: One Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and the other Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity. The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 转讜诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪砖诪注 讜谞转拽谞讞 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉


Rav Ashi said that the term: One places the matter in abeyance, indicates that it remains in abeyance forever. It is a fundamental halakhic uncertainty for which there is no resolution. And in the case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of the slaughter, the halakha is unclear. This is because Rabbi 岣yya is uncertain whether slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance or whether slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance. And what is the meaning of his ruling that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that if a source of impurity comes into contact with the gourd after the blood was wiped off the gourd, one may neither eat the gourd, as perhaps it is impure teruma, nor may one burn it, as perhaps it is pure.


讜诪讗讬 讘讗讜 讜谞住诪讜讱 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住驻讬拽讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖专讬驻讛 诪讬讛讜 砖讜讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诪专 诇讗 砖专驻讬讛 讜诪专 诇讗 砖专驻讬讛


The Gemara asks: And according to this explanation, what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi 岣yya, there is uncertainty with regard to the status of the gourd. The Gemara answers that with regard to the matter of burning, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi 岣yya correspond to each other: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, does not burn the gourd, because it was not rendered susceptible to impurity, and the other Sage, Rabbi 岣yya, does not burn the gourd, due to the uncertainty.


讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讝讗转 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉


The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one burns the gourd since the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and contact with a source of impurity renders it impure, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages. And this is what Rabbi 岣yya is saying: In a case such as this, one places the matter in abeyance; one may neither eat the gourd nor burn it.


讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 爪专讬讚 砖诇 诪谞讞讜转 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讻讬 诪讛谞讬讗 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诇讗驻住讜诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诇诪讬诪谞讗 讘讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises a dilemma: With regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, does one count the descending levels of impurity characteristic of other foods that come into contact with a primary source of impurity, i.e., that food assumes first-degree impurity, and food that comes into contact with that food assumes second-degree impurity; or does one not count the descending levels of first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity? The Gemara elaborates: When regard for sanctity is effective in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it effective only to disqualify that item itself, but to count the descending levels of first-degree and second-degree impurity it is not effective? Or perhaps once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there is no difference whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讗 砖诪注 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讙讜壮 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讻砖专 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘诪讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专


Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear proof from a baraita. It is written: 鈥淥f all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, it shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk it shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). From that verse it is derived: Food that comes into contact with water is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and to count the descending levels of impurity, but food that does not come into contact with water is not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Apparently, for the dry portion of flour that did not come into contact with a liquid but was rendered susceptible by regard for sanctity, one does not count the descending levels of impurity.


讗讟讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 讻讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish does not have knowledge of the halakha that only food that comes into contact with water is susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: This is the dilemma that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is raising: Is the halakhic status of consecrated food that is subject to regard for sanctity like that of food that comes into contact with water, and one does not count the descending levels of impurity for items that come into contact with it, or no, its halakhic status is unique?


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞诪讬 诪讬转讜专讬 拽专讗讬 拽讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar, who cited the verse to resolve the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, is not merely citing a verse that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish knows. Rather, he too is stating his proof from the extraneous formulation of the verses. Since it is written: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), why do I need the verse: 鈥淥f all food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34)?


诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讬讘转 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 讞讚 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讞讚 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓


Is it not to exclude items rendered susceptible to impurity due to regard for sanctity? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, both verses teach that food becomes impure only after it is rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids. One verse is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse, and one verse is referring to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal.


讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 讛讻砖专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讘诇 砖专抓 讚诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讻砖专


And both verses are necessary, as had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, one would have concluded that it is there that food requires being rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a corpse is less stringent, as a portion of a corpse the size of a lentil-bulk does not render people or vessels impure. But in the case of impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, which is more stringent, as the creeping animal renders people or vessels impure with a portion of it the size of a lentil-bulk, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖专抓 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 诪转 讚诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讻砖专 爪专讬讻讗


And had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, one would have concluded that it is there that food must be rendered susceptible to impurity, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a creeping animal is less stringent, as a creeping animal does not render people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days. But with regard to a corpse, which renders people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure from it. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to teach both verses.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讻砖专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讘讛讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬


Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna (33a) to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion that only with regard to food rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids does one count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity: Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rabbi Shimon is saying they were rendered susceptible in every sense, and even to count the descending levels of impurity, first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity.


讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诪讚专讘谞谉


Why is the animal rendered susceptible to impurity in every sense; but the slaughtered animal is not food that comes into contact with water? Apparently, even items that did not come into contact with water are susceptible to impurity in every sense. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not susceptible by Torah law. Rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讘讜爪专 诇讙转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诪讚专讘谞谉


Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear an objection to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the winepress, Shammai says: The grapes are rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the liquid that seeps from them, and Hillel says: They are not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity; and ultimately, Hillel was silent and did not respond to Shammai, accepting his opinion. Why does that liquid render the grapes susceptible to impurity; but the grapes are not food that comes into contact with water? Contact with liquid renders food susceptible to impurity only if the contact was with the intent of the owner, and here, the liquid did not seep out of the grapes of one鈥檚 own volition. Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: Hillel does not hold that the grapes are susceptible by Torah law; rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via the liquid a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗谞讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专转 诇讬讛 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞诪讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I said to you an objection from the statement of Rabbi Shimon: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself, and you said to me: It was the Sages who accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. And Rabbi Zeira said to you an objection from the case of one who harvests grapes, and you said to him: It is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the liquid from the grapes a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. If so, will you also say in response to the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings that it is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the regard for sanctity of the flour a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇转诇讜转 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇砖专讜祝


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was raising a dilemma with regard to placing the matter in abeyance, and one may neither eat the consecrated flour nor may one burn it, which would be the case for impurity by rabbinic law? When Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises the dilemma it is with regard to whether to burn the gourd, which is the case when the impurity is by Torah law.


诪讻诇诇 讚讞讬讘转 讛拽讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 讛讗讬 讘砖专 讚讗转讻砖专 讘诪讗讬


The Gemara notes that it may be learned by inference that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that regard for sanctity renders sacred items subject to ritual impurity by Torah law, as his dilemma was limited to whether one counts the descending levels of impurity from those susceptible items, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity, not the impurity of the sacred item itself. From where do we derive this halakha? If we say that it is derived from that which is written: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), then it must be ascertained: This flesh that was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, by what means was it rendered susceptible?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗转讻砖专 讘讚诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇谞讜 注诇 讛讗专抓 转砖驻讻谞讜 讻诪讬诐 讚诐 讛谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专


If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by means of the blood of the animal, this is difficult. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: From where is it derived with regard to blood of sacrificial animals that it does not render food susceptible to impurity? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood of a non-sacred animal, which is poured like water when it is slaughtered, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, blood of a sacrificial animal, which is not poured like water but is presented on the altar, does not render food susceptible to impurity.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬转讻砖专 讘诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讚讬讬谉 砖讛谉 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转专讙诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讛讗 诪砖拽讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讻砖专 讘讞讘转 讛拽讚砖


Rather, perhaps say that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the liquids of the Temple abattoir. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, say: With regard to the liquids of the Temple abattoir, not only are they ritually pure, but they do not even render food susceptible to impurity. And if you would say that one should explain the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, as referring exclusively to blood, and the other liquids render food susceptible, but doesn鈥檛 he say: Liquids, in the plural? Rather, is it not that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity via regard for sanctity?


讜讚诇诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 驻专讛 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讛注讘讬专讛 讘谞讞诇 砖讞讟讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 诪砖拽讛 讟讜驻讞 注诇讬讛


The Gemara responds: And perhaps the verse can be explained in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The verse is referring to a case where one had a cow that was to be sacrificed as a peace offering, and since the owner is entitled to the meat and the hide of the animal, in order to improve their quality he conveyed it through the river and slaughtered the animal while the liquid was still upon it and the animal was damp. That liquid rendered the meat susceptible to impurity.


讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讜讛讘砖专 诇专讘讜转 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诪讻砖专讗 诇讛讜 讜诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诪讻砖专转讛


Rather the proof is from the latter portion of that verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And the flesh, every pure person may eat flesh鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). The Gemara explains: The second mention of the term 鈥渁nd the flesh鈥 in the verse is superfluous and serves to include the halakha that with regard to sacred wood and frankincense, impurity disqualifies them from being burned on the altar. Are wood and frankincense edible and therefore included in the verse: 鈥淥f all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34)? Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish derived from this that regard for sanctity renders them susceptible to ritual impurity and renders their status like that of food. Here too, in the case of a dry portion of flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, regard for sanctity renders it susceptible to ritual impurity.


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 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 36

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗住讬专讬 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚诪谉 诇讘注讬 拽讘讜专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


It could enter your mind to say: Since benefit from disqualified consecrated animals is forbidden with regard to their fleece and labor, perhaps benefit from their blood is also forbidden, and let it require burial. Therefore, the verse teaches us that benefit from their blood is permitted.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛 驻专讟 诇讚诐 拽讬诇讜讞 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd drinks the blood of carcasses,鈥 from which it is derived that the blood of an animal that was killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity, serves to exclude blood that emerges in a surge due to arterial pressure at the moment of slaughter while the animal is still alive that does not render seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 讚诐 注诇 讛讚诇注转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters an animal and splashed blood of the slaughter on a gourd of teruma, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi 岣yya says: If the gourd came into contact with a source of impurity, one places the matter in abeyance, as there is uncertainty whether the blood rendered it susceptible to impurity.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讗讞专 砖专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉 讗谞讜 注诇 诪讬 谞住诪讜讱 讘讗讜 讜谞住诪讜讱 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖专转 讜诇讗 讚诐


Rabbi Oshaya said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and Rabbi 岣yya says that one places the matter in abeyance, on whom shall we rely? Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon would say: It is slaughter that renders the animal susceptible, and not blood.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讚诐 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讻砖讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞转拽谞讞 讛讚诐 讘讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇住讬诪谉 专讘讬 住讘专 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜讛讗讬 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗


Rav Pappa said in explanation: Everyone, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya, agrees that where there is blood on the gourd throughout the slaughter continuously from beginning to end, everyone, both Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: Slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: Slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, agrees that the blood renders the gourd susceptible to impurity, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. When they disagree is in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd between the cutting of one siman and the other siman. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the gourd is blood of slaughter.


专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讻讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讛讚讘专 注讚 讙诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇讚诐 讘住讜祝 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专


Rabbi 岣yya holds that slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and this is blood of a wound, which does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. And what is the meaning of the ruling of Rabbi 岣yya that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that one places the matter in abeyance until the conclusion of the slaughter. If there is blood remaining on the gourd at the conclusion of the slaughter the blood renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, and if not, the blood does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.


讜诪讗讬 讘讗讜 讜谞住诪讜讱 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讻砖讬专


The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi 岣yya the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.


讘谞转拽谞讞 诪讬讛讜 讗砖讜讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诪专 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪专 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara answers that in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of slaughter, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi 岣yya correspond to each other: One Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and the other Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity. The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 转讜诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪砖诪注 讜谞转拽谞讞 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讜诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉


Rav Ashi said that the term: One places the matter in abeyance, indicates that it remains in abeyance forever. It is a fundamental halakhic uncertainty for which there is no resolution. And in the case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of the slaughter, the halakha is unclear. This is because Rabbi 岣yya is uncertain whether slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance or whether slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance. And what is the meaning of his ruling that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that if a source of impurity comes into contact with the gourd after the blood was wiped off the gourd, one may neither eat the gourd, as perhaps it is impure teruma, nor may one burn it, as perhaps it is pure.


讜诪讗讬 讘讗讜 讜谞住诪讜讱 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住驻讬拽讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖专讬驻讛 诪讬讛讜 砖讜讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诪专 诇讗 砖专驻讬讛 讜诪专 诇讗 砖专驻讬讛


The Gemara asks: And according to this explanation, what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi 岣yya, there is uncertainty with regard to the status of the gourd. The Gemara answers that with regard to the matter of burning, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi 岣yya correspond to each other: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, does not burn the gourd, because it was not rendered susceptible to impurity, and the other Sage, Rabbi 岣yya, does not burn the gourd, due to the uncertainty.


讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讝讗转 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉


The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one burns the gourd since the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and contact with a source of impurity renders it impure, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages. And this is what Rabbi 岣yya is saying: In a case such as this, one places the matter in abeyance; one may neither eat the gourd nor burn it.


讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 爪专讬讚 砖诇 诪谞讞讜转 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讻讬 诪讛谞讬讗 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诇讗驻住讜诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诇诪讬诪谞讗 讘讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises a dilemma: With regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, does one count the descending levels of impurity characteristic of other foods that come into contact with a primary source of impurity, i.e., that food assumes first-degree impurity, and food that comes into contact with that food assumes second-degree impurity; or does one not count the descending levels of first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity? The Gemara elaborates: When regard for sanctity is effective in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it effective only to disqualify that item itself, but to count the descending levels of first-degree and second-degree impurity it is not effective? Or perhaps once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there is no difference whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讗 砖诪注 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讙讜壮 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讻砖专 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘诪讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专


Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear proof from a baraita. It is written: 鈥淥f all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, it shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk it shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). From that verse it is derived: Food that comes into contact with water is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and to count the descending levels of impurity, but food that does not come into contact with water is not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Apparently, for the dry portion of flour that did not come into contact with a liquid but was rendered susceptible by regard for sanctity, one does not count the descending levels of impurity.


讗讟讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 讻讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish does not have knowledge of the halakha that only food that comes into contact with water is susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: This is the dilemma that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is raising: Is the halakhic status of consecrated food that is subject to regard for sanctity like that of food that comes into contact with water, and one does not count the descending levels of impurity for items that come into contact with it, or no, its halakhic status is unique?


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞诪讬 诪讬转讜专讬 拽专讗讬 拽讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar, who cited the verse to resolve the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, is not merely citing a verse that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish knows. Rather, he too is stating his proof from the extraneous formulation of the verses. Since it is written: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), why do I need the verse: 鈥淥f all food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34)?


诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讬讘转 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 讞讚 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讞讚 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓


Is it not to exclude items rendered susceptible to impurity due to regard for sanctity? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, both verses teach that food becomes impure only after it is rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids. One verse is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse, and one verse is referring to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal.


讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 讛讻砖专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讘诇 砖专抓 讚诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讻砖专


And both verses are necessary, as had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, one would have concluded that it is there that food requires being rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a corpse is less stringent, as a portion of a corpse the size of a lentil-bulk does not render people or vessels impure. But in the case of impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, which is more stringent, as the creeping animal renders people or vessels impure with a portion of it the size of a lentil-bulk, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖专抓 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 诪转 讚诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讻砖专 爪专讬讻讗


And had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, one would have concluded that it is there that food must be rendered susceptible to impurity, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a creeping animal is less stringent, as a creeping animal does not render people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days. But with regard to a corpse, which renders people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure from it. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to teach both verses.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讻砖专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讘讛讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬


Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna (33a) to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion that only with regard to food rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids does one count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity: Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rabbi Shimon is saying they were rendered susceptible in every sense, and even to count the descending levels of impurity, first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity.


讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诪讚专讘谞谉


Why is the animal rendered susceptible to impurity in every sense; but the slaughtered animal is not food that comes into contact with water? Apparently, even items that did not come into contact with water are susceptible to impurity in every sense. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not susceptible by Torah law. Rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讘讜爪专 诇讙转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诪讚专讘谞谉


Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear an objection to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the winepress, Shammai says: The grapes are rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the liquid that seeps from them, and Hillel says: They are not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity; and ultimately, Hillel was silent and did not respond to Shammai, accepting his opinion. Why does that liquid render the grapes susceptible to impurity; but the grapes are not food that comes into contact with water? Contact with liquid renders food susceptible to impurity only if the contact was with the intent of the owner, and here, the liquid did not seep out of the grapes of one鈥檚 own volition. Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: Hillel does not hold that the grapes are susceptible by Torah law; rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via the liquid a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗谞讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专转 诇讬讛 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞诪讬 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讛讻砖专 诪讬诐


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I said to you an objection from the statement of Rabbi Shimon: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself, and you said to me: It was the Sages who accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. And Rabbi Zeira said to you an objection from the case of one who harvests grapes, and you said to him: It is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the liquid from the grapes a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. If so, will you also say in response to the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings that it is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the regard for sanctity of the flour a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇转诇讜转 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇砖专讜祝


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was raising a dilemma with regard to placing the matter in abeyance, and one may neither eat the consecrated flour nor may one burn it, which would be the case for impurity by rabbinic law? When Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises the dilemma it is with regard to whether to burn the gourd, which is the case when the impurity is by Torah law.


诪讻诇诇 讚讞讬讘转 讛拽讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 讛讗讬 讘砖专 讚讗转讻砖专 讘诪讗讬


The Gemara notes that it may be learned by inference that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that regard for sanctity renders sacred items subject to ritual impurity by Torah law, as his dilemma was limited to whether one counts the descending levels of impurity from those susceptible items, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity, not the impurity of the sacred item itself. From where do we derive this halakha? If we say that it is derived from that which is written: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), then it must be ascertained: This flesh that was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, by what means was it rendered susceptible?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗转讻砖专 讘讚诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇谞讜 注诇 讛讗专抓 转砖驻讻谞讜 讻诪讬诐 讚诐 讛谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专


If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by means of the blood of the animal, this is difficult. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: From where is it derived with regard to blood of sacrificial animals that it does not render food susceptible to impurity? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood of a non-sacred animal, which is poured like water when it is slaughtered, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, blood of a sacrificial animal, which is not poured like water but is presented on the altar, does not render food susceptible to impurity.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬转讻砖专 讘诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讚讬讬谉 砖讛谉 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转专讙诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讛讗 诪砖拽讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讻砖专 讘讞讘转 讛拽讚砖


Rather, perhaps say that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the liquids of the Temple abattoir. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, say: With regard to the liquids of the Temple abattoir, not only are they ritually pure, but they do not even render food susceptible to impurity. And if you would say that one should explain the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, as referring exclusively to blood, and the other liquids render food susceptible, but doesn鈥檛 he say: Liquids, in the plural? Rather, is it not that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity via regard for sanctity?


讜讚诇诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 驻专讛 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讛注讘讬专讛 讘谞讞诇 砖讞讟讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 诪砖拽讛 讟讜驻讞 注诇讬讛


The Gemara responds: And perhaps the verse can be explained in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The verse is referring to a case where one had a cow that was to be sacrificed as a peace offering, and since the owner is entitled to the meat and the hide of the animal, in order to improve their quality he conveyed it through the river and slaughtered the animal while the liquid was still upon it and the animal was damp. That liquid rendered the meat susceptible to impurity.


讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讜讛讘砖专 诇专讘讜转 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诪讻砖专讗 诇讛讜 讜诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诪讻砖专转讛


Rather the proof is from the latter portion of that verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And the flesh, every pure person may eat flesh鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). The Gemara explains: The second mention of the term 鈥渁nd the flesh鈥 in the verse is superfluous and serves to include the halakha that with regard to sacred wood and frankincense, impurity disqualifies them from being burned on the altar. Are wood and frankincense edible and therefore included in the verse: 鈥淥f all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34)? Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish derived from this that regard for sanctity renders them susceptible to ritual impurity and renders their status like that of food. Here too, in the case of a dry portion of flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, regard for sanctity renders it susceptible to ritual impurity.


Scroll To Top