Chullin — Daf 36b

לאו למעוטי חיבת הקדש לא חד בטומאת מת וחד בטומאת שרץ

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן טומאת מת התם הוא דבעי הכשר משום דלא מטמא בכעדשה אבל שרץ דמטמא בכעדשה אימא לא ליבעי הכשר

ואי אשמעינן שרץ משום דלא מטמא טומאת שבעה אבל מת דמטמא טומאת שבעה אימא לא ליבעי הכשר צריכא

מתיב רב יוסף רבי שמעון אומר הוכשרו בשחיטה הוכשרו ואפילו למימני בהו ראשון ושני

אמאי והא לאו אוכל הבא במים הוא א"ל אביי עשאוהו כהכשר מים מדרבנן

אמר רבי זירא ת"ש הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר הוכשר הלל אומר לא הוכשר ושתיק ליה הלל לשמאי אמאי והא לאו אוכל הבא במים הוא אמר ליה אביי עשאוהו כהכשר מים מדרבנן

א"ל רב יוסף אמינא לך אנא הוכשרו בשחיטה ואת אמרת לי עשאוהו כהכשר מים ואמר לך רבי זירא ואמרת ליה עשאוהו כהכשר מים לר"ש בן לקיש נמי עשאוהו כהכשר מים

אמר ליה אטו ר' שמעון בן לקיש לתלות קמיבעיא ליה כי קא מיבעיא ליה לשרוף

מכלל דחיבת הקדש דאורייתא מנא לן אילימא מדכתיב (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא האי בשר דאתכשר במאי

אילימא דאתכשר בדם והאמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מנין לדם קדשים שאינו מכשיר שנאמר לא תאכלנו על הארץ תשפכנו כמים דם הנשפך כמים מכשיר שאינו נשפך כמים אינו מכשיר

אלא דאיתכשר במשקי בית מטבחיא והא א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא משקי בית מטבחיא לא דיין שהן דכן אלא שאין מכשירין וכי תימא תרגמא אדם והא משקי קאמר אלא לאו דאתכשר בחבת הקדש

ודלמא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כגון שהיתה לו פרה של זבחי שלמים והעבירה בנחל שחטה ועדיין משקה טופח עליה

אלא מסיפא והבשר לרבות עצים ולבונה עצים ולבונה בני אכילה נינהו אלא חבת הקדש מכשרא להו ומשויא להו אוכל הכא נמי חבת הקדש מכשרתה

It serves, does it not, to exclude sacred esteem?1 — Not at all. One verse2 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,3 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?3 — 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.4 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;5 but Hillel says, they are not. Eventually Hillel acquiesced in the view of Shammai.6 But why? It is not food mo6 stened by water?7 — 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 it8 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! 9 It follows that the conception of sacred esteem is indicated in the Torah;10 where? Shall I say in the verse: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten?11 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,12 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.13 Was it then the other liquid14 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!15 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 stream16 and slaughtered immediately after, so that the water was still dripping from it!17 Rather it is to be proved from the latter part of the verse: And as for the flesh,18 which serves to include wood and frankincense.19 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. far as to render it invalid. view of v. 34, it is taken to refer to the uncleanness of a corpse. transmit uncleanness to the first and second degrees; the same, it is suggested, is the case with sacred esteem, thus providing the answer to the question raised by R. Simeon b. Lakish. Rabbinic and not by Biblical law. anything susceptible to uncleanness, for the owner had no desire nor did he look forward with eagerness for it; Shammai, however, as a precautionary measure, puts this case on a par with the case where the juice was acceptable to the owner, when it is agreed by all that the juice would certainly render food suscept1ble to uncleanness. susceptible to uncleanness by sacred esteem. to transmit uncleanness, so that the food so rendered unclean would be condemned to be burnt. susceptible to uncleanness by sacred esteem, must be burnt.