Chullin

for it is feared that his wife when in a menstruous condition sat upon these clothes;1 with regard to produce, however, the rule2 does not apply.3 — R. Isaac on the other hand says that the rule2 applies to the case of produce too. R. Jeremiah of Difti raised this objection: Do you say that the rule applies to the case of produce too? Surely we have learnt: If [an ‘am ha-arez] said: ‘I have set aside in this [barrel of terumah w1 ne] one quarter log for a consecrated purpose’, he is believed, and the terumah does not render the consecrated wine unclean.4 Now if you are right in saying that [the rule that] what is considered clean for terumah may yet be considered unclean for consecrated things [applies to the case of produce too], should not the terumah [in this barrel] render the consecrated wine unclean? — He replied: You are dealing, are you not, where the unclean is together [with the clean]? But in such cases the law is exceptional, for since he is believed with regard to the consecrated portion he is to be believed also with regard to the terumah portion. R. Huna b. Nathan raised this objection: [We have learnt:] Common food which is unclean in the second degree renders [by contact] common liquids unclean [in the first degree], and renders those who eat terumah unfit. If it is unclean in the third degree. It renders consecrated liquids unclean [in the first degree], and renders those who eat consecrated food unfit. This applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things!5 — This is a subject of dispute between Tannaim.6 For it was taught: Common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated food is treated as common food.7 R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok says. It is treated as terumah, that is, two stages are unclean and one stage invalid.8 R. SIMEON SAYS, IT HAS BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY THE SLAUGHTERING. R. Assi said that R. Simeon was of the opinion that only the slaughtering renders an animal susceptible to uncleanness but not the blood.9 Shall we say that the following interpretation supports his view? [We have learnt:] R. SIMEON SAYS. IT HAS BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY THE SLAUGHTERING. It means, does it not, by the slaughtering and not by the blood? — No, it means, even by the slaughtering. Come and hear: R. Simeon said to the Rabbis, ‘Is it the blood that renders the animal susceptible to uncleanness? Surely it is the slaughtering’! — This is what he said to them: ‘Is it only the blood which renders the animal susceptible to uncleanness? Surely the slaughtering also renders it susceptible to uncleanness!’ Come and hear: [We have learnt:] R. Simeon says: The blood of a dead [animal]10 does not render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness.11 Now it is to be inferred from this, is it not, that the blood of a slaughtered animal will render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness? — No, the inference to be drawn is that the blood of a slain12 animal will render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness. Then what is the law with regard to the blood of a slaughtered animal? [Will you say that] it does not render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness? If so, he [R. Simeon] should rather have stated his view with regard to the blood of a slaughtered animal,13 and it would have been self-evident with regard to the blood of a dead animal! — It was necessary for him to state his view with regard to the blood of a dead animal,13 for I might have argued: What is the difference whether a human being or the angel of death slays it?14 It was therefore necessary to state it. Come and hear: [It was taught:] R. Simeon says: The blood from a wound [in an animal] does not render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness. Is not the inference from this that the blood of a slaughtered animal renders susceptible? — No, the inference to be drawn is that the blood of a slain animal renders susceptible. Then what is the law with regard to the blood of a slaughtered animal? [Will you say that] it will not render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness? If so, he should rather have stated his view13 with regard to the blood of a slaughtered animal, and it would have been self-evident with regard to the blood from a wound! — It was necessary for him to state his view with regard to the blood from a wound, for I might have argued: What difference can there be [with regard to the blood] whether the animal was slain completely or partially? 15 Why is it that the blood of a slain [animal] will render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness? Because it is written: And drink the blood of the slain.16 Then the same should be the case with the blood of a slaughtered animal, for it is written: Thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water?17 — The latter verse is stated in order to permit for general use the blood of consecrated animals which were rendered unfit [for sacrifice].18 consecrated things, so that clothes which are deemed clean for terumah may yet be deemed unclean for consecrated purposes. wine at all times of the year, but with regard to the cleanness of terumah wine only at special seasons in the year. Where however consecrated wine is mixed together with terumah wine (as here), the ‘am ha-arez is believed with regard to the cleanness of the entire barrel at all times of the year. (and not only real consecrated food) which was unclean in the third degree renders consecrated food unclean in the fourth degree, contra R. Isaac. third degree is only invalid for it cannot pass on its uncleanness. uncleanness then he would surely hold the same with the blood of an animal that died a natural death, in other words, slain by the angel of death. or partially slain, i.e., wounded. and therefore will render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness. put to general use like water, except that it may not be eaten.