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?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Chullin 36
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וַאֲסִירִי בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, דָּמָן לִבְעֵי קְבוּרָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״ – פְּרָט לְדַם קִילּוּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “And drinks the blood of carcasses,” 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז דָּם עַל הַדַּלַּעַת – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: תּוֹלִין.
§ 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 Ḥiyya 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מֵאַחַר שֶׁרַבִּי אוֹמֵר הוּכְשַׁר, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר תּוֹלִין, אָנוּ עַל מִי נִסְמוֹךְ? בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם.
Rabbi Oshaya said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְדָם מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמַכְשַׁיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ הַדָּם בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, רַבִּי סָבַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא.
Rav Pappa said in explanation: Everyone, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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 Yoḥanan, 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.
רַבִּי חִיָּיא סָבַר: אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם מַכָּה הוּא, וּמַאי ״תּוֹלִין״? תּוֹלִין הַדָּבָר עַד גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה – אִי אִיתֵיהּ לְדָם בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר, וְאִי לָא – לֹא מַכְשִׁיר.
Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya 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.
וּמַאי ״בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר, לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מַכְשִׁיר!
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 Ḥiyya the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.
בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ מִיהוּ אַשְׁווֹ לַהֲדָדֵי, מָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, וּמָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, הֲוָה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.
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 Ḥiyya 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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״תּוֹלִין״ לְעוֹלָם מַשְׁמַע, וְנִתְקַנֵּחַ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, אִי יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, אוֹ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וּמַאי ״תּוֹלִין״? לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
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 Ḥiyya 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.
וּמַאי ״בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר, לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא סְפֵיקָא, לְעִנְיַן שְׂרֵיפָה מִיהוּ שָׁווּ לַהֲדָדֵי: (ומר) [וּלְמָר] לָא שָׂרְפִינַן, (ומר) [וּלְמָר] לָא שָׂרְפִינַן.
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 Ḥiyya, 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 Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya, does not burn the gourd, due to the uncertainty.
הָוֵה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּגוֹן זֹאת תּוֹלִין – לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
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 Ḥiyya is saying: In a case such as this, one places the matter in abeyance; one may neither eat the gourd nor burn it.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: צָרִיד שֶׁל מְנָחוֹת, מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אוֹ אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי? כִּי מַהְנְיָא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאִפְּסוֹלֵי גּוּפֵיהּ, לְמִימְנֵא בֵּיהּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְגוֹ׳״ – אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם – הוּכְשַׁר, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּמַיִם – לֹא הוּכְשַׁר.
Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear proof from a baraita. It is written: “Of 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” (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.
אַטּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֵית לֵיהּ אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּאוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?
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?
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר נָמֵי מִיִּתּוּרֵי קְרָאֵי קָאָמַר, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ לְמָה לִּי?
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: “But when water is placed upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), why do I need the verse: “Of all food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34)?
לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ? לָא: חַד בְּטוּמְאַת מֵת וְחַד בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ.
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.
וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן טוּמְאַת מֵת – הָתָם הוּא דְּבָעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אֲבָל שֶׁרֶץ דִּמְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.
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.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שֶׁרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, אֲבָל מֵת דִּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, צְרִיכָא.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. הוּכְשְׁרוּ – וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמִימְנֵי בְּהוּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.
Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna (33a) to Rabbi Elazar’s 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.
אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, הַבּוֹצֵר לְגַת – שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשַׁר, וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s 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’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם, וְאָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי זֵירָא, וַאֲמַרְתְּ לֵיהּ עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ נָמֵי עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם!
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לִתְלוֹת קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לִשְׂרוֹף.
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.
מִכְּלָל דְּחִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְנָא לַן? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא״, הַאי בָּשָׂר דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר, בְּמַאי?
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: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 7:19), then it must be ascertained: This flesh that was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, by what means was it rendered susceptible?
אִילֵּימָא דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר בְּדָם, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לְדַם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״ – דָּם הַנִּשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר!
If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by means of the blood of the animal, this is difficult. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (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.
אֶלָּא דְּאִיתַּכְשַׁר בְּמַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא, וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא לֹא דַּיָּין שֶׁהֵן דְּכַן, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין מַכְשִׁירִין, וְכִי תֵּימָא תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַדָּם, וְהָא ״מַשְׁקֵי״ קָאָמַר! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר בְּחִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ?
Rather, perhaps say that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the liquids of the Temple abattoir. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina, as referring exclusively to blood, and the other liquids render food susceptible, but doesn’t he say: Liquids, in the plural? Rather, is it not that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity via regard for sanctity?
וְדִלְמָא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְהֶעֱבִירָהּ בַּנַּחַל, שְׁחָטָהּ וַעֲדַיִין מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ עָלֶיהָ.
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.
אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״, לְרַבּוֹת עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה. עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשְׁרָא לְהוּ, וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ אוֹכֶל. הָכָא נָמֵי, חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.
Rather the proof is from the latter portion of that verse: “And 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” (Leviticus 7:19). The Gemara explains: The second mention of the term “and the flesh” 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: “Of all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (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.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Chullin 36
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וַאֲסִירִי בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, דָּמָן לִבְעֵי קְבוּרָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״ – פְּרָט לְדַם קִילּוּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “And drinks the blood of carcasses,” 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז דָּם עַל הַדַּלַּעַת – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: תּוֹלִין.
§ 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 Ḥiyya 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מֵאַחַר שֶׁרַבִּי אוֹמֵר הוּכְשַׁר, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר תּוֹלִין, אָנוּ עַל מִי נִסְמוֹךְ? בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם.
Rabbi Oshaya said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְדָם מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמַכְשַׁיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ הַדָּם בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, רַבִּי סָבַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא.
Rav Pappa said in explanation: Everyone, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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 Yoḥanan, 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.
רַבִּי חִיָּיא סָבַר: אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם מַכָּה הוּא, וּמַאי ״תּוֹלִין״? תּוֹלִין הַדָּבָר עַד גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה – אִי אִיתֵיהּ לְדָם בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר, וְאִי לָא – לֹא מַכְשִׁיר.
Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya 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.
וּמַאי ״בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר, לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מַכְשִׁיר!
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 Ḥiyya the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.
בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ מִיהוּ אַשְׁווֹ לַהֲדָדֵי, מָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, וּמָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, הֲוָה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.
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 Ḥiyya 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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״תּוֹלִין״ לְעוֹלָם מַשְׁמַע, וְנִתְקַנֵּחַ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, אִי יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, אוֹ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וּמַאי ״תּוֹלִין״? לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
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 Ḥiyya 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.
וּמַאי ״בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר, לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא סְפֵיקָא, לְעִנְיַן שְׂרֵיפָה מִיהוּ שָׁווּ לַהֲדָדֵי: (ומר) [וּלְמָר] לָא שָׂרְפִינַן, (ומר) [וּלְמָר] לָא שָׂרְפִינַן.
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 Ḥiyya, 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 Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya, does not burn the gourd, due to the uncertainty.
הָוֵה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּגוֹן זֹאת תּוֹלִין – לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
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 Ḥiyya is saying: In a case such as this, one places the matter in abeyance; one may neither eat the gourd nor burn it.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: צָרִיד שֶׁל מְנָחוֹת, מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אוֹ אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי? כִּי מַהְנְיָא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאִפְּסוֹלֵי גּוּפֵיהּ, לְמִימְנֵא בֵּיהּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְגוֹ׳״ – אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם – הוּכְשַׁר, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּמַיִם – לֹא הוּכְשַׁר.
Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear proof from a baraita. It is written: “Of 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” (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.
אַטּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֵית לֵיהּ אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּאוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?
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?
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר נָמֵי מִיִּתּוּרֵי קְרָאֵי קָאָמַר, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ לְמָה לִּי?
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: “But when water is placed upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), why do I need the verse: “Of all food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34)?
לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ? לָא: חַד בְּטוּמְאַת מֵת וְחַד בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ.
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.
וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן טוּמְאַת מֵת – הָתָם הוּא דְּבָעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אֲבָל שֶׁרֶץ דִּמְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.
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.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שֶׁרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, אֲבָל מֵת דִּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, צְרִיכָא.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. הוּכְשְׁרוּ – וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמִימְנֵי בְּהוּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.
Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna (33a) to Rabbi Elazar’s 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.
אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, הַבּוֹצֵר לְגַת – שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשַׁר, וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s 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’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם, וְאָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי זֵירָא, וַאֲמַרְתְּ לֵיהּ עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ נָמֵי עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם!
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לִתְלוֹת קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לִשְׂרוֹף.
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.
מִכְּלָל דְּחִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְנָא לַן? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא״, הַאי בָּשָׂר דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר, בְּמַאי?
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: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 7:19), then it must be ascertained: This flesh that was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, by what means was it rendered susceptible?
אִילֵּימָא דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר בְּדָם, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לְדַם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״ – דָּם הַנִּשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר!
If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by means of the blood of the animal, this is difficult. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (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.
אֶלָּא דְּאִיתַּכְשַׁר בְּמַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא, וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא לֹא דַּיָּין שֶׁהֵן דְּכַן, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין מַכְשִׁירִין, וְכִי תֵּימָא תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַדָּם, וְהָא ״מַשְׁקֵי״ קָאָמַר! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר בְּחִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ?
Rather, perhaps say that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the liquids of the Temple abattoir. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina, as referring exclusively to blood, and the other liquids render food susceptible, but doesn’t he say: Liquids, in the plural? Rather, is it not that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity via regard for sanctity?
וְדִלְמָא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְהֶעֱבִירָהּ בַּנַּחַל, שְׁחָטָהּ וַעֲדַיִין מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ עָלֶיהָ.
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.
אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״, לְרַבּוֹת עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה. עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשְׁרָא לְהוּ, וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ אוֹכֶל. הָכָא נָמֵי, חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.
Rather the proof is from the latter portion of that verse: “And 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” (Leviticus 7:19). The Gemara explains: The second mention of the term “and the flesh” 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: “Of all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (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.
Follow
