Chullin 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

that

verse is stated with regard to consecrated animals that developed a blemish, and it comes

to permit [to permit]

them

their blood, which belongs to animals disqualified from consecration, for benefit

It might enter your mind to say:

Although the Torah permitted eating the meat of animals disqualified from consecration as non-sacred meat,

since

not every prohibition was removed from them,

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

is also prohibited for benefit and

it would require burial, this teaches us

that its status is like that of water.

Now the Gemara cites an exposition teaching that even according to the Rabbis, who maintain that slaughtering blood effects hekhshere, not all blood that emerges effects hekhshere; only the blood with which the soul departs does so, but not the blood that spurts out initially.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

The Torah states

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

The verse teaches that the blood of the animal’s soul effects hekhshere,

excluding spurting blood,

which does not effect hekhshere for seeds.

The Sages taught: If one slaughtered

one of the two סימנים

The Sages taught: If one slaughters

one of the two simanim

and blood spurted

from it onto a gourd. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It has been rendered susceptible to impurity

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

Rabbi Hiyya says:

It is suspended

as a matter of uncertainty. The Gemara below explains Rabbi Hiyya’s statement.

Rabbiושעיא said: Since Rabbi says: “It has been rendered susceptible,” and Rabbi Hiyya says: “It is suspended,” on whose ruling shall we rely

and according to whom shall we decide the halakha?

Come, let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon, for Rabbi Shimon would say: Slaughtering effects susceptibility, but blood does not

of slaughtering; and he joins Rabbi Hiyya in ruling leniently, although Rabbi Hiyya maintains that slaughtering blood effects hekhshere.

Rav Pappa said:

The explanation of the statements of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Hiyya, and Rabbiושעיא is as follows:

Everyone agrees that where the blood is present [in the place where the blood]

of the first siman is found on the gourd

from beginning to end

of the slaughter, and it was not wiped away in the interim,

everyone agrees that it effects susceptibility

the blood now renders the gourd susceptible, even though the blood of the second siman was not spattered onto the gourd.

They disagree when the blood was wiped away

from the gourd

between

the slaughter of

one siman and the other,

whether the blood receives the designation of slaughtering blood before the slaughter is completed.

Rabbi maintains: Slaughtering exists from beginning to end

and from the beginning of the slaughter it is called slaughtering.

And this

blood of the first siman

is slaughtering blood

when it was on the gourd.

Rabbi Hiyya maintains: Slaughtering does not exist

in order to be called slaughtering

until the end

of the slaughter.

And this

blood of the first siman

is blood from a wound

as long as the slaughter has not been completed.

And what does “it is suspended” mean

as stated by Rabbi Hiyya?

The matter is suspended

in uncertainty

until the completion of the slaughter: If the blood is present

on the gourd

at the end of the slaughter—

it effects susceptibility

because at the end of the slaughter it receives the designation of slaughtering blood ;

but if not

it was then on the gourd—

it does not effect susceptibility.

And what does “Come, let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon” mean

as stated by Rabbiושעיא?

According to Rabbi Shimon—

slaughtering blood

does not effect susceptibility.

According to Rabbi Hiyya—

slaughtering blood

does effect susceptibility.

In the disagreement that exists

when the blood was wiped away

the blood,

in any event, they are equivalent to one another

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Hiyya.

One does not render it susceptible

for his reason,

and the other does not render it susceptible

for his reason.

There is one Rabbi against them, and the statement of one cannot prevail where there are two.

The halakha follows Rabbi Hiyya .

Rav Ashi said:

From the wording

“it is suspended”

it does not follow that the entire uncertainty continues only until it is clarified at the end—that is, at the completion of the slaughter. Rather, “it is suspended”

indicates forever.

Therefore, the matter must be explained somewhat differently.

Rav Ashi explains: In truth, if the blood is still on the gourd at the end of the slaughter, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Hiyya do not disagree that it effects susceptibility.

And

the disagreement concerns

blood that was wiped away

the blood.

According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the blood effects susceptibility because he maintains that slaughtering exists from beginning to end, as Rav Pappa explained.

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

and the blood effected susceptibility,

or

whether

slaughtering exists only at the end

and the blood did not effect susceptibility.

And what does “it is suspended” mean?

If the gourd belongs to teruma and came into contact with something impure,

we do not eat

it, lest it had been rendered susceptible and became impure,

and we do not burn

it, lest it had not been rendered susceptible and is pure, in which case it is prohibited to burn it .

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

According to Rabbi Shimon—

it does not effect susceptibility,

and we eat the gourd.

According to Rabbi Hiyya—

it is uncertain,

and we do not eat it.

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

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Hiyya.

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

There is one Rabbi against them, and the statement of one cannot prevail where there are two.

And this is what

Rabbi Hiyya

said: In a case such as this, it is suspended; we neither eat it nor burn it.

The Gemara cites a question of Reish Lakish concerning the laws of hekhshere, which they sought to resolve from the statement of Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a question:

With regard to consecrated items that were not rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, such as

the dry portion of meal-offerings

which is flour that was not mixed with the oil of the offering and remained dry , and something impure touched it: Do we

count a first and a second degree of impurity with regard to it

as with anything susceptible to impurity,

or do we not count a first and a second degree of impurity with regard to it

and the dry portion becomes disqualified but does not render others impure, even if it comes into contact with a primary source of impurity?

And we explain the question: There is a novelty in the fact that the affection of the sacred renders consecrated items susceptible, but the question is:

Perhaps the affection of the sacred is effective only to disqualify the item itself, [what the affection of the sacred accomplishes is only to disqualify the item itself] and prohibit it from being eaten, but as for rendering others impure, so that one must

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

count a first and a second degree with regard to it, no,

we have not heard this.

Or perhaps it makes no difference [or perhaps there is no distinction], and since it is susceptible to impurity, it also renders others impure?

and, since it can contract impurity, it also transmits impurity to others?

Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear:

The Torah states

“Of every food that may be eaten

that comes into contact with water, it becomes impure” [Leviticus 11:34]. The Torah teaches:

Food that comes into contact with water—

has been rendered susceptible; food that does not come into contact with water—

has not been rendered susceptible.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? Does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish not have

the explicit verse stating that food does not become susceptible to impurity until it is

food that comes into contact with water?

But surely

this is precisely what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was asking:

Does

the affection of the sacred

which renders it susceptible have the status

of food that comes into contact with water, or not?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar, too,

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

he was speaking from redundant verses [he said, based on the redundant verse]

that the question can be resolved.

Now,

surely

it is written

at the end of the passage concerning the impurity of creeping animals,

“And when water is placed upon seed”

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

“Of every food that may be eaten,

that comes into contact with water,”

why do I need it?