## Chullin Daf 35b

###### Chullin 35b:1
[Chullin 35b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:1)

שֶׁמָּא תֵּשֵׁב עֲלֵיהֶן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, אֲבָל בְּפֵירֵי לָא אָמְרִינַן. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּפֵירֵי נָמֵי אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 35b:2
[Chullin 35b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:2)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן בְּפֵירֵי? וְהָתְנַן: אִם אָמַר ״הִפְרַשְׁתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית קֹדֶשׁ״ – נֶאֱמָן, וְלָא קָא (מטמא) [מְטַמְּיָא] לֵיהּ תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: טׇהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ – תְּטַמֵּא תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 35b:3
[Chullin 35b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין קָאָמְרַתְּ? טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין שָׁאנֵי, דְּמִגּוֹ דִּמְהֵימַן אַקֹּדֶשׁ – מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 35b:4
[Chullin 35b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:4)

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן: הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה חוּלִּין, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 35b:5
[Chullin 35b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:5)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 35b:6
[Chullin 35b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:6)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְרוּמָה, לְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם, וְלִפְסוֹל אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 35b:7
[Chullin 35b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:7)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chullin 35b:8
[Chullin 35b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:8)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. מַאי לָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלָא בְּדָם? לָא, אַף בִּשְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 35b:9
[Chullin 35b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי הַדָּם מַכְשִׁיר? וַהֲלֹא שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת! הָכִי קָאָמַר לָהֶן: וְכִי דָם בִּלְבַד מַכְשִׁיר? אַף שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי מַכְשֶׁרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* is 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.**


###### Chullin 35b:10
[Chullin 35b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר, אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי – לָא מַכְשִׁיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 35b:11
[Chullin 35b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:11)

לַישְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם הַמֵּת! דַּם הַמֵּת אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ אִיהוּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 35b:12
[Chullin 35b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר. אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי, לָא מַכְשִׁיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 35b:13
[Chullin 35b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:13)

לַשְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ! דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּהּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ פַּלְגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 35b:14
[Chullin 35b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:14)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא דַּם חֲלָלִים דְּמַכְשַׁיר? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 35b:15
[Chullin 35b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/35b:15)

דַּם שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״! הָהוּא לְמִישְׁרֵי דָּמָן דִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בַּהֲנָאָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.