Chullin 35b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: You are speaking of madrasot

that they are a proof concerning the produce of teruma?

The case of madrasot is different,

for with regard to them there is reason for concern

lest the wife of a menstruant sit upon them,

since this is a common occurrence,

but with regard to produce

of teruma, with which it is not so common that they become impure,

we do not say

that they are subject to a concern of impurity, for we have not found that all pure teruma is impure with regard to sacred food!

And Rabbi Yitzhak

holds:

with regard to produce

of teruma

also he said

the tanna that we are concerned that they touched madras and are impure with regard to sacred food.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti raised an objection: Do we say with regard to produce

of teruma that they are impure with regard to sacred food?

And we learned:

Common people are trusted concerning the perushim, with regard to the purity of wine for sacred purposes, since if they do not offer their libations upon the altar, they will build a private altar for themselves. But concerning teruma they are not trusted, and a koen who is a haver, if a common person brings him a barrel of teruma, may not accept it from him. But

if he said,

the common person:

“I separated a quarter-log of sacred food into it,” he is

trusted

even concerning the teruma, since, as he is trusted concerning sacred food, he is trusted concerning teruma as well. [Mishna Hagiga 24b]. Mishna Hagiga 24b.

And

certainly

the teruma does not render the sacred food impure.

And Rabbi Yirmeya asks:

And if you say: Its purity

of teruma, even that of a haver,

is impurity with regard to sacred food, should the teruma become impure

that is in the barrel

with regard to the sacred food

that is in it!

He said to him,

Rabbi Yitzhak:

Impurity

with regard to teruma when it was always together with the sacred food,

are you speaking of impurity through contact,

so that it should be according to my view? But surely,

impurity through contact is different, for since he is trusted concerning sacred food, he is also trusted concerning teruma,

as all the safeguarding that was done for the sake of the sacred food was also done for the teruma.

Rav Huna bar Natan raised an objection

from a beraita against Rabbi Yitzhak:

A second-degree impurity among non-sacred food renders non-sacred liquid impure

and makes it a first-degree impurity,

and disqualifies those who eat teruma. And a third-degree impurity renders sacred liquid impure

for in this matter too they were stringent with liquids, since anything that disqualifies sacred food renders sacred liquid impure, making it first-degree,

and disqualifies those who eat sacred food.

And the third degree among non-sacred food exists

among non-sacred food prepared according to the purity of sacred food.

It is explicit in the beraita that non-sacred food prepared according to the purity of sacred food produces a fourth degree with regard to sacred food!

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim

who disagreed concerning non-sacred food prepared according to the purity of sacred food.

For it was taught: Non-sacred food prepared according to the purity of sacred food is like non-sacred food,

and it has no third degree.

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok says: It is like teruma,

for if a primary source of impurity touched one of them, it can

render two

of them impure and make them first and second degrees, and they can render others impure,

and disqualify one

and make it third degree, but it cannot disqualify another and make it fourth degree.

We have found in the words of the tannaim three opinions concerning non-sacred food prepared according to the purity of sacred food. According to the first tanna, their law is like that of non-sacred food; according to Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok, their law is like that of sacred food, except that they have no fourth degree, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzhak ; and according to the tanna of the first beraita, they produce a fourth degree with regard to sacred food.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: They became fit through slaughter.

Rav Asi said: Rabbi Shimon would say:

Anyone who slaughters—

his slaughter makes

the meat fit, because it permits it and thereby considers it food ,

but not blood;

the blood of slaughter renders nothing fit, and when it falls upon seeds it does not make them fit, because the blood that makes fit is specifically blood of the slain, as it is stated: “And he shall drink the blood of the slain” [Numbers 23:24], and the slaughtered animal is not called by the name “slain.”

Let us say that it supports him:

It is written in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: They became fit through slaughter.

What, is it not

[does this not imply] that all the fitness of the meat depends

on slaughter and not on blood?

And we reject this:

No,

this is not what the Mishna implies, and it is possible to explain that the fitness is

also through slaughter

when there is no blood that makes fit.

Come and hear

a proof for Rav Asi from a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon said to them: Does blood make

the meat fit?

But slaughter

itself

makes it fit.

It implies that according to Rabbi Shimon, blood does not make it fit.

And we reject this: It can be said that

this is what he said to them

Rabbi Shimon:

Does blood alone make fit? Slaughter too makes fit

when there is no blood of slaughter.

Come and hear

an objection to Rav Asi:

Rabbi Shimon says: The blood of the dead

of a living creature —

does not make fit. What, is it not—

the blood of slaughter

that is not blood of one that died on its own—

makes fit!

And we answer:

No,

Rabbi Shimon’s statement implies only:

This is the blood of the slain

which is the blood of a human being or animal that was killed—

it makes fit.

And we ask:

But the blood of slaughter—what

do you say, that it too

does not make fit?

If so,

let him teach us the blood of slaughter, and all the more so the blood of the dead,

which does not make fit !

And we answer:

The blood of the dead was needed for him

to teach a novelty concerning it that cannot be learned from the blood of slaughter;

it might enter your mind to say:

The blood of the dead is more suited to being called the blood of the slain, since

what difference is there whether he killed it, or whether the angel of death killed it? This teaches us

that the dead is not included in “slain,” whereas the slaughtered one certainly is not called by the name “slain,” but by the name “slaughtered.”

Come and hear

an objection to Rav Asi from a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: The blood of its wound

[its injury] of a living creature—

does not make fit. What, is it not—

the blood of slaughter

that kills it—

makes fit?

And we answer:

No,

it implies only:

This is the blood of the slain—

it makes fit.

And we ask:

But the blood of slaughter—what

do you say, that it too

does not make fit?

If so,

let him teach us the blood of slaughter

which contains a great novelty,

and all the more so the blood of its wound

which does not make fit!

And we answer:

The blood of its wound was needed for him,

and it cannot be learned from the blood of slaughter.

It might enter your mind to say

that the blood of the wound is considered more like the blood of the slain, since,

what difference is there whether he killed all of it or whether he killed half of it.

[What difference is there between killing the entire body and killing part of it].

And we ask against Rav Asi:

And what is different about the blood of the slain, that it makes fit

according to Rabbi Shimon,

because it is written, “And he shall drink the blood of the slain”; the blood of slaughter too

should make fit, for

it is written

“Only according to all the desire of your soul may you slaughter and eat meat. Only the blood you shall not eat;

upon the earth you shall pour it out like water”

[Deuteronomy 12:15–16].

The verse compared the blood of slaughter to water, to say that it makes fit like water!