## Chullin Daf 36a

###### Chullin 36a:1
[Chullin 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:1)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וַאֲסִירִי בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, דָּמָן לִבְעֵי קְבוּרָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 36a:2
[Chullin 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:2)

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״ – פְּרָט לְדַם קִילּוּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים.

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


###### Chullin 36a:3
[Chullin 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז דָּם עַל הַדַּלַּעַת – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: תּוֹלִין.

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


###### Chullin 36a:4
[Chullin 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:4)

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.

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


###### Chullin 36a:5
[Chullin 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:5)

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.

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


###### Chullin 36a:6
[Chullin 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:6)

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.

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


###### Chullin 36a:7
[Chullin 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:7)

וּמַאי ״בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר, לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מַכְשִׁיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 36a:8
[Chullin 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:8)

בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ מִיהוּ אַשְׁווֹ לַהֲדָדֵי, מָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, וּמָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, הֲוָה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 36a:9
[Chullin 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:9)

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.

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


###### Chullin 36a:10
[Chullin 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 36a:11
[Chullin 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:11)

הָוֵה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּגוֹן זֹאת תּוֹלִין – לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 36a:12
[Chullin 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:12)

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?

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


###### Chullin 36a:13
[Chullin 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְגוֹ׳״ – אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם – הוּכְשַׁר, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּמַיִם – לֹא הוּכְשַׁר.

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


###### Chullin 36a:14
[Chullin 36a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:14)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 36a:15
[Chullin 36a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/36a:15)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר נָמֵי מִיִּתּוּרֵי קְרָאֵי קָאָמַר, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ לְמָה לִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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)?