Parallel
חולין 36
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
For I might have argued that since it is forbidden to shear the wool [of these consecrated animals] or to put them to any work, the blood would have to be buried [and not be used for any purpose]; we are therefore taught that it is not so. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: The verse: ‘And drink the blood of the slain’, excludes blood which comes out in a gush from rendering seeds susceptible to uncleanness. Our Rabbis taught: If a man while slaughtering splashed blood on to a pumpkin. Rabbi says: It becomes thereby susceptible to uncleanness. R. Hiyya says: It is a matter of doubt. R. Oshaia remarked: Since Rabbi says that it is susceptible to uncleanness and R. Hiyya says that it is a matter of doubt, on whose view should we rely? Let us then rely upon the view of R. Simeon who has stated that only slaughtering will render [an animal] susceptible to uncleanness but not the blood. R. Papa said: It is agreed by all that where the blood remained [on the pumpkin] from the beginning [of the slaughtering] unto the end there is no dispute, for all hold it is rendered thereby susceptible to uncleanness. The dispute arises only where the blood was wiped off between the cutting of the first and second organs; Rabbi holds that the term shechitah applies to the entire process of slaughtering from beginning to end, so that here the blood [upon the pumpkin] is considered as the blood of a slaughtered animal; R. Hiyya, however, holds that the term shechitah applies to the last act of the slaughtering only, so that here the blood [upon the pumpkin] is considered as blood from a wound. And what did he mean by saying: ‘It is a matter of doubt’? He meant, The matter hangs in doubt until the end of the slaughtering, that is to say, if the blood is still upon the pumpkin at the end of the slaughtering it will render it susceptible to uncleanness, otherwise it will not. But then what did R. Oshaia mean by saying: ‘Let us then rely upon the view of R. Simeon’? [Are they not at variance, for] according to R. Simeon blood does not render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness and according to R. Hiyya it does? — They are nevertheless in agreement where the blood was wiped off [during the slaughtering] for according to this Master it will not render susceptible to uncleanness and so too according to the other Master. The opinion therefore of Rabbi on this point stands alone, and [it is established that] the opinion of one [authority] does not prevail over the [agreed] opinion of two. R. Ashi said: The expression, ‘It is a matter of doubt’, means that it will never be settled; for R. Hiyya was in doubt, in the case where the blood was wiped off during ‘the slaughtering, whether the term shechitah applies to the entire process of slaughtering from beginning to end or only to the last act of slaughtering, so that by saying: ‘It is a matter of doubt’, he meant that it must not be eaten and yet it must not be burnt. But then what is meant by the suggestion, ‘Let us then rely upon the view of R. Simeon’? [Are they not at variance, for] R. Simeon holds that blood does not render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness, whereas R. Hiyya is in doubt about it? — They are nevertheless in agreement in their views regarding ‘burning’, for they are both of the opinion that it is not to be burnt. The opinion of Rabbi therefore on this point stands alone, and the opinion of one Rabbi will not prevail over the [agreed] opinion of two. R. Simeon b. Lakish raised the following question: [If] the dry portion of a meal-offering [were to become unclean], would it transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees or not? Is the conception of sacred esteem effectual only to the extent of rendering it invalid but not of enabling it to transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees or is there no such distinction? R. Eleazar said: Come and hear: [It is written]. All food therein which may be eaten, [that on which water cometh, shall be unclean], that is to say, food which has been moistened by water is susceptible to uncleanness, but food which has not been moistened by water is not. — Are you suggesting then that R. Simeon b. Lakish does not accept the rule that food must first be moistened by water? — Indeed the question that R. Simeon b. Lakish raised was as ‘follows: Is [food rendered susceptible to uncleanness by] sacred esteem on the same footing as food moistened by water or not? And R. Eleazar suggested an answer on the basis of the superfluous verses, arguing thus: Since it is written: But if water be put upon the seed, what need is there for the verse: ‘All food therein which may be eaten, [that on which water cometh]’?
—
It serves, does it not, to exclude sacred esteem? — Not at all. One verse states the rule with reference to uncleanness emanating from a corpse, the other verse with reference to uncleanness emanating from a dead reptile. And it is necessary to have both verses. For if the rule were stated only with reference to uncleanness emanating from a corpse. [I should have said that] in that case only was it necessary for the food to be first moistened by water, [for the law regarding corpse uncleanness is not so rigorous], inasmuch as a lentil's bulk of a corpse will not convey uncleanness; but with regard to reptile uncleanness, inasmuch as a lentil's bulk of a dead reptile will convey uncleanness, might have said that it was not necessary for the food to be first moistened by water. And on the other hand, if the rule were stated only with reference to uncleanness emanating from a reptile. [I should have said that] in that case only was it necessary for the food to be first moistened by water, [for the law regarding reptile uncleanness is not so rigorous], inasmuch as a reptile does not render a person unclean for seven days; but with regard to corpse uncleanness, inasmuch as a corpse will render a person unclean for seven days. I might have said it was not necessary for the food to be moistened by water. Both verses are therefore necessary. R. Joseph raised this objection: R. SIMEON SAYS, IT HAS BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY THE SLAUGHTERING, presumably SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS means that [when unclean] it would transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees. But why? It is not food moistened by water? — Abaye replied: It was ordained by the Rabbis that it [the slaughtering] shall have the same effect [upon the animal] as though it had been moistened by water. R. Zera said: Come and hear: [It was taught:] If a man gathered grapes for the wine press. Shammai says, they are susceptible to uncleanness; but Hillel says, they are not. Eventually Hillel acquiesced in the view of Shammai. But why? It is not food mo stened by water? — Abaye replied: It was ordained by the Rabbis that it [the grape juice] shall have the same effect [upon the grapes] as though they had been moistened by water. R. Joseph thereupon said to Abaye. ‘When I cited our Mishnah, IT HAS BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY THE SLAUGHTERING, you replied that it was ordained that it [the slaughtering] shall have the same effect as though there was a moistening by water, and when R. Zera cited another case you also replied that it was ordained that it [the grape juice] shall have the same effect as though there was a moistening by water. [You might then just as well answer] the question raised by R. Simeon b. Lakish and say that it was ordained that it [sacred esteem] shall have the same effect as though there was a moistening by water!’ — He replied: Do you think that R. Simeon b. Lakish raised the question as to whether it was to be held in a state of doubt or not? He raised the question as to whether it was to be committed to the flames or not! It follows that the conception of sacred esteem is indicated in the Torah; where? Shall I say in the verse: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten? Now what rendered this flesh susceptible to uncleanness? Shall I say it was the blood? [But this cannot be] for R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan: Whence do we know that the blood of a consecrated animal does not render food susceptible to uncleanness? From the verse: Thou shalt not eat it, thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water, which teaches that blood which is poured out as water renders food susceptible to uncleanness, but blood which is not poured out as water does not. Was it then the other liquid found in the slaughter-house that rendered the flesh susceptible to uncleanness? [But this also cannot be the case] for R. Jose b. Hanina taught that the liquids in the slaughterhouse [of the Temple court] are not only clean but will not even render any food susceptible to uncleanness. Moreover you cannot suggest that this passage refers to the blood only, for it speaks of liquids! You must therefore say that [this verse proves that] the flesh was rendered susceptible to uncleanness by sacred esteem! But perhaps the verse is to be explained as suggested by Rab Judah in the name of Samuel! For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It might refer to the case where a cow consecrated for a peace-offering was passed through a stream and slaughtered immediately after, so that the water was still dripping from it! Rather it is to be proved from the latter part of the verse: And as for the flesh, which serves to include wood and frankincense. Now are wood and frankincense edible [so as to be in the same category as foodstuffs]? It must therefore be that sacred esteem puts them in the same category as foodstuffs and renders them susceptible to uncleanness. So in all cases sacred esteem will render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness.
—