Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A braita states that if blood spurts onto a gourd during slaughter, Rebbi holds it is susceptible to impurity, while Rabbi Chiya holds we suspend judgment (tolin). Rabbi Oshaya says that since they argue, we should rely on Rabbi Shimon’s view that shechita makes an animal susceptible, not blood. Two different explanations are brought by Rav Papa and Rav Ashi to explain Rabbi Chiya’s position, the point on which he disagrees with Rebbi, and how Rabbi Shimon’s view helps determine that the halakha follows Rabbi Chiya. Rav Papa explains that both Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya agree that blood makes items susceptible if it remains from the beginning to the end of the slaughter, and they only argue if the blood was wiped away between cutting the two simanim. Rebbi holds slaughter is continuous from beginning to end, so it is considered slaughter blood. Rabbi Chiya holds slaughter only occurs at the very end, so the earlier blood is just wound blood, and tolin means we wait to see if blood remains at the end of the slaughter. Rav Ashi argues that for Rabbi Chiya, it is a doubt whether or not slaughter is continuous, so tolin means we neither eat it nor burn it. Both explanations show that Rabbi Oshaya aligned Rabbi Chiya with Rabbi Shimon to make Rebbi a minority opinion of one against two; even though he did not agree with Rabbi Chiya in theory, in practice, they hold the same position.
Reish Lakish asks whether the endearment of sacred items (chibat hakodesh) allows the dry crumbs of a meal offering to pass on impurity to other items, or if it only functions to disqualify the item itself. Rabbi Eleazar attempts to prove from a verse that water is always required for susceptibility to pass on impurity to other items, and therefore it is clear that chibat hakodesh would not be able to pass on impurity, but the Gemara rejects his suggestion as it is inconclusive.
Rav Yosef challenges Rabbi Elazar’s position from Rabbi Shimon’s statement that shechita makes an animal susceptible to impurity even to pass on impurity, and Rabbi Zeira brings a similar challenge from a different case. Abaye resolves both challenges by explaining that in those particular cases, the rabbis rabbinically treated them like a regular susceptibility by water, but by Torah law they are not susceptible to impurity at all. The Gemara then proves that chibat hakodesh operates on a Torah level, and therefore Reish Lakish’s question is still in place.
What is the source in the Torah for chibat hakodesh being a Torah law? The first attempted answer is rejected, but they bring a second answer, which is accepted. Reish Lakish’s question regarding whether it can pass on impurity remains unresolved (teiku).
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Tzippy and Mark Wolkenfeld in loving memory of “our sweet Kiki Schwartz, Yakira Leeba bat Avrohom Yosef Yehuda v’Sara Gita on her 3rd yahrzeit.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark and Laura Warshawsky in honor of the recent marriage of their daughter, Sarah, to Zach Terner of Richmond, VA.
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.
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.
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
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!
Riverdale, NY, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Tel Aviv, 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!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
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.
Brookline, 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.
