Chullin

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,1 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 gush2 from rendering seeds susceptible to uncleanness. Our Rabbis taught: If a man while slaughtering splashed blood on to a pumpkin.3 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. 4 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.5 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.6 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.7 R. Simeon b. Lakish raised the following question: [If] the dry portion of a meal-offering8 [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],9 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?10 — 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,11 what need is there for the verse: ‘All food therein which may be eaten, [that on which water cometh]’? referring only to such blood as flows from the animal after it has been slain, i.e., after the life-blood has been run out, but not to the stream of blood which spurts out during the act of killing, at which time the animal is still alive. So Rashi Ker. 22a, q.v. and Tosaf. here s.v. osu. But see Rashi here s.v. yrp. This ruling, says Tosaf., does not apply to the case of an animal ritually slaughtered. over the individual view of Rabbi. slaughtering and then the foodstuff came into contact with uncleanness, Terumah which has been rendered unclean, may not be eaten, has has to be burnt. must not be eaten nor must it be burnt’. These words are an obvious addition and are unnecessary and Rashi also declares them to be without purpose. or not consecrated food, not moistened by water or any other liquid but rendered susceptible to uncleanness by reason of sacred esteem, is on all fours with ordinary food rendered susceptible to uncleanness by means of water or other liquids.