Chullin 36a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

that

verse was said with regard to consecrated animals that developed a blemish, and

to permit [to permit]

them

their blood of animals disqualified from consecration for benefit it came ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise page location")

it might enter your mind to say:

Although the Torah permitted eating their flesh as ordinary nonconsecrated meat,

since

no prohibition was removed from them,

and they are forbidden with regard to shearing and labor, their blood

is also forbidden for benefit , and

it would require burial; it teaches us

that its law is like that of water.

Now the Gemara brings a homiletic exposition teaching that even according to the Rabbis, who hold that slaughtering blood prepares, not all blood that emerges prepares, but only the blood with which the soul departs, and not the blood that flows at the beginning.

The tannay of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

It is written in the Torah

“And he shall drink the blood of the slain.”

The verse teaches that the blood of the soul of an animal is what prepares,

excluding flowing blood,

which does not prepare the seeds.

The Sages taught: One who slaughters

one siman

and projected blood

from it

onto a gourd. Rabbi says: It was prepared

by slaughtering blood, and the gourd becomes susceptible to impurity; and if it is teruma and became impure, its law is that it must be burned.

Rabbi Hiyya says:

In a case of uncertainty,

we suspend.

The Gemara below explains Rabbi Hiyya's words.

Rabbi Oshaya said: Since Rabbi says: It was prepared, and Rabbi Hiyya says: We suspend, upon whose words shall we rely

and according to whom shall we decide the halakha?

Come and let us rely on the words of Rabbi Shimon, for Rabbi Shimon would say: Slaughtering prepares, but not blood

of slaughtering, and he joins Rabbi Hiyya to be lenient, even though Rabbi Hiyya holds that slaughtering blood prepares.

Rav Pappa said:

The explanation of the words of Rabbi, Rabbi Hiyya, and Rabbi Oshaya is as follows:

Everyone agrees where the blood is present [in the place where the blood of the first siman is found] on the gourd

on the gourd, from the first סימן,

from the beginning to the end

of the slaughtering, and it was not wiped in the meantime,

everyone does not dispute that it prepares

the gourd from now on, even though the blood of the second siman was not projected onto the gourd;

they dispute where the blood was wiped

from the gourd

between

the slaughtering of

one siman and the other,

whether the blood receives the designation “slaughtering blood” before the slaughtering has been completed.

Rabbi holds: Slaughtering exists from the beginning to the end

and from the beginning of the slaughtering it is called slaughtering;

and this

blood of the first siman

is slaughtering blood

when it was on the gourd.

Rabbi Hiyya holds: Slaughtering does not exist

so that it may be called by the name slaughtering

except at the end

of the slaughtering;

and this

blood of the first siman

is wound blood

as long as the slaughtering has not been completed.

And what does “we suspend” mean

that Rabbi Hiyya said?

We suspend the matter

in uncertainty

until the completion of the slaughtering: if the blood is present

on the gourd

at the end of the slaughtering—

it prepares

because at the end of the slaughtering it receives the designation “slaughtering blood” ;

and if not

it was then the blood on the gourd—

it does not prepare.

And what does “Come and let us rely on the words of Rabbi Shimon” mean

that Rabbi Oshaya said?

According to Rabbi Shimon—

slaughtering blood

does not prepare.

According to Rabbi Hiyya—

slaughtering blood

prepares.

In the dispute that exists

where it was wiped

the blood,

however, they are equal to one another

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Hiyya.

One does not prepare

for his reason,

and the other does not prepare

for his reason.

It follows that Rabbi is one, and the words of one do not stand in the place of two.

And the halakha follows Rabbi Hiyya .

Rav Ashi said:

From the wording

“we suspend”

it does not imply that the entire uncertainty continues only until it is clarified at the end—in the completion of the slaughtering—but “we suspend”

implies forever.

Therefore, the matter must be explained somewhat differently.

And Rav Ashi explains: In truth, if the blood is still found on the gourd at the end of the slaughtering, Rabbi and Rabbi Hiyya do not dispute that it prepares.

And

the dispute is where

the blood was wiped

away.

According to Rabbi, the blood prepares, because he holds that slaughtering exists from the beginning to the end, as Rav Pappa explained.

According to Rabbi Hiyya, it is uncertain to him whether slaughtering exists from the beginning to the end

and the blood prepared,

or

that

it exists only at the end

and the blood did not prepare.

And what does “we suspend” mean?

If the gourd belongs to teruma and touched something impure,

we do not eat

it, lest it was prepared and became impure,

and we do not burn

it, lest it was not prepared and is pure, and it is forbidden to burn it .

And what does “Come and let us rely on the words of Rabbi Shimon” mean?

According to Rabbi Shimon—

it does not prepare

the blood, and we eat the gourd.

According to Rabbi Hiyya—

it is an uncertainty

and we do not eat it.

With regard to burning, however, they are equal to one another

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Hiyya.

One did not burn it, and the other did not burn it.

It follows that Rabbi is one, and the words of one do not stand in the place of two.

And this is what he means

Rabbi Hiyya:

In a case like this, we suspend; we neither eat nor burn.

The Gemara brings a doubt of Resh Lakish concerning the laws of preparation, which they sought to resolve from the words of Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked:

Consecrated offerings that were not prepared to receive impurity through liquid, such as

the dry remainder of meal-offerings

which is flour that was not mixed with the oil of the meal-offering and remained dry , and an impure object touched it: do they

count in it a first and a second degree

of impurity, like anything that receives impurity,

or do they not count in it a first and a second degree

and the dry remainder is disqualified and does not impart impurity to others even if it touched a primary source of impurity?

And we explain the question: There is a novelty in the fact that the affection of the Sanctuary prepares consecrated offerings, but it may be asked:

Since the affection of the Sanctuary is effective to disqualify its body, [what the affection of the Sanctuary accomplishes is only to disqualify it itself] and prohibit it from being eaten, but to impart impurity to others, and that it should be necessary

that is, what the special status of consecrated food accomplishes is only to disqualify it itself and prohibit it from being eaten; but to transmit impurity to others, so that one must

to count in it a first and a second degree—no,

we have not heard.

Or perhaps it is no different [or there is no difference],

and since it receives impurity, it also imparts impurity to others?

Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear:

It is written in the Torah

“From all food that may be eaten

that water may come upon it, it shall become impure” [Leviticus 11:34]. The Torah teaches:

Food that comes in water—

it was prepared; food that does not come in water—

it was not prepared.

And we wonder:

Is it so that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish does not have

an explicit verse that food does not receive impurity until it is

food that comes in water?

But surely

this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was asking:

Whether

the affection of the Sanctuary,

which prepares it, has the law

of food that comes in water, or not?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar also

did not come to resolve it from the plain meaning of the verse. Rather,

he said it from the surplus verses [from the surplus verse he said] that it can be resolved.

that the question can be resolved.

Now,

surely

it is written

at the end of the section on the impurity of creeping animals

“And when water is placed upon seed” [Leviticus 11:38]. If so, what do we need

[Leviticus 11:38]. If so, what need is there for what is written:

“From all food that may be eaten,

that water may come upon it,”

for?