## Chullin Daf 36b

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

לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ? לָא: חַד בְּטוּמְאַת מֵת וְחַד בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ.

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


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

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן טוּמְאַת מֵת – הָתָם הוּא דְּבָעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אֲבָל שֶׁרֶץ דִּמְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.

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


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

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שֶׁרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, אֲבָל מֵת דִּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, צְרִיכָא.

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


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

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. הוּכְשְׁרוּ – וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמִימְנֵי בְּהוּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.

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


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

אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

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


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

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.

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


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

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!

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


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לִתְלוֹת קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לִשְׂרוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מִכְּלָל דְּחִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְנָא לַן? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא״, הַאי בָּשָׂר דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר, בְּמַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


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

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!

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


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

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?

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


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

וְדִלְמָא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְהֶעֱבִירָהּ בַּנַּחַל, שְׁחָטָהּ וַעֲדַיִין מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״, לְרַבּוֹת עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה. עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשְׁרָא לְהוּ, וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ אוֹכֶל. הָכָא נָמֵי, חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.

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