Talmud - Hullin 35b חולין ל״ה ב׳

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

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak: And do we say with regard to produce that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥagiga 24b): It is not permitted for a priest to accept teruma wine from an am ha’aretz, but if an am ha’aretz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma wine a quarter-log of sacrificial wine, he is deemed credible? And this indicates that teruma does not render the sacrificial food impure. And if you say with regard to teruma that its state of purity is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, let the teruma render the sacrificial food impure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 35b examines how teruma prepared with special purity standards may affect sacrificial food, using cases of wine mixtures and layered ritual impurity levels.