מפת הסוגיא — חולין ל״וSugya map — Chullin 36

תנו רבנן: השוחט בהמה והתיז (שׁפך) דם השחיטה על דלעת של תרומה — רבי אומר: הוכשרה הדלעת לקבל טומאה; רבי חייא אומר: תולין (אם נגעה בטומאה — מסופקים, כי ספק אם הדם הכשירהּ).

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters an animal and splashed blood of the slaughter on a gourd of teruma, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Ḥiyya says: If the gourd came into contact with a source of impurity, one places the matter in abeyance, as there is uncertainty whether the blood rendered it susceptible to impurity.

אמר רבי אושעיא: מאחר שרבי אומר ׳הוכשר׳ ורבי חייא אומר ׳תולין׳, על מי נסמוך? בואו ונסמוך על דברי רבי שמעון, שהיה אומר: השחיטה מכשרת ולא הדם.

Rabbi Oshaya said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and Rabbi Ḥiyya says that one places the matter in abeyance, on whom shall we rely? Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon would say: It is slaughter that renders the animal susceptible, and not blood.

אמר רב פפא: הכל מודים שאם היה דם על הדלעת מתחילת השחיטה ועד סופה — לכולי עלמא מכשיר. נחלקו רק כשנתקנח (נמחה) הדם בין סימן לסימן: רבי סובר שהשחיטה נמשכת מתחילה ועד סוף, וזהו דם שחיטה (ולכן מכשיר).

Rav Pappa said in explanation: Everyone, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya, agrees that where there is blood on the gourd throughout the slaughter continuously from beginning to end, everyone, both Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: Slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: Slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, agrees that the blood renders the gourd susceptible to impurity, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. When they disagree is in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd between the cutting of one siman and the other siman. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the gourd is blood of slaughter.

אמר רב פפא: הכל מודים שאם היה דם על הדלעת מתחילת השחיטה ועד סופה — לכולי עלמא מכשיר. נחלקו רק כשנתקנח (נמחה) הדם בין סימן לסימן: רבי סובר שהשחיטה נמשכת מתחילה ועד סוף, וזהו דם שחיטה (ולכן מכשיר).

Rav Pappa said in explanation: Everyone, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya, agrees that where there is blood on the gourd throughout the slaughter continuously from beginning to end, everyone, both Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: Slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: Slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, agrees that the blood renders the gourd susceptible to impurity, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. When they disagree is in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd between the cutting of one siman and the other siman. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the gourd is blood of slaughter.

רבי חייא סובר: שם ׳שחיטה׳ חל רק בסוף, והדם הזה (שלפני סוף השחיטה) הוא דם מכה (שאינו מכשיר). ומהו ׳תולין׳? תולין את הדבר עד גמר השחיטה: אם נשאר דם בסוף השחיטה — מכשיר; ואם לא — אינו מכשיר.

Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and this is blood of a wound, which does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. And what is the meaning of the ruling of Rabbi Ḥiyya that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that one places the matter in abeyance until the conclusion of the slaughter. If there is blood remaining on the gourd at the conclusion of the slaughter the blood renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, and if not, the blood does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.

ומהו ׳בואו ונסמוך על דברי רבי שמעון׳ (לפי רב פפא)? הרי לרבי שמעון הדם אינו מכשיר כלל, ואילו לרבי חייא הוא כן מכשיר (כשנשאר עד הסוף)!

The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi Ḥiyya the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.

כשנתקנח הדם — לכל הפחות רבי שמעון ורבי חייא מסכימים: זה אינו מכשיר וזה אינו מכשיר. נמצא שרבי הוא יחיד מול שניים, ואין דברי האחד (רבי) במקום שניים.

The Gemara answers that in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of slaughter, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Ḥiyya correspond to each other: One Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and the other Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity. The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages.

רב אשי אמר: ׳תולין׳ משמעו לעולם (ספק שאין לו הכרעה). ובנתקנח — רבי חייא מסופק אם השחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף או רק בסוף; ומהו ׳תולין׳? לא אוכלין (שמא טמא) ולא שורפין (שמא טהור).

Rav Ashi said that the term: One places the matter in abeyance, indicates that it remains in abeyance forever. It is a fundamental halakhic uncertainty for which there is no resolution. And in the case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of the slaughter, the halakha is unclear. This is because Rabbi Ḥiyya is uncertain whether slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance or whether slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance. And what is the meaning of his ruling that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that if a source of impurity comes into contact with the gourd after the blood was wiped off the gourd, one may neither eat the gourd, as perhaps it is impure teruma, nor may one burn it, as perhaps it is pure.

ומהו ׳בואו ונסמוך על דברי רבי שמעון׳ (לפי רב אשי)? הרי לרבי שמעון אינו מכשיר ולרבי חייא ספק! אלא לעניין שריפה הם שווים: לזה (רבי שמעון) לא שורפים, ולזה (רבי חייא) לא שורפים.

The Gemara asks: And according to this explanation, what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, there is uncertainty with regard to the status of the gourd. The Gemara answers that with regard to the matter of burning, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Ḥiyya correspond to each other: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, does not burn the gourd, because it was not rendered susceptible to impurity, and the other Sage, Rabbi Ḥiyya, does not burn the gourd, due to the uncertainty.

נמצא שרבי הוא יחיד מול שניים, ואין דברי האחד במקום שניים. וכך אמר רבי חייא: כגון זה — תולין; לא אוכלין ולא שורפין.

The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one burns the gourd since the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and contact with a source of impurity renders it impure, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages. And this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya is saying: In a case such as this, one places the matter in abeyance; one may neither eat the gourd nor burn it.

בעי ריש לקיש: צָריד של מנחות (סולת קודש יבשה שלא נילושה בשמן) — מונין בו ראשון ושני (כסדר דרגות הטומאה) או לא? כלומר: כשחיבת הקודש מכשירה — האם רק לפסול את עצמו, אבל לא למנות בו ראשון ושני; או שאין הבדל, וכמו הכשר מים?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises a dilemma: With regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, does one count the descending levels of impurity characteristic of other foods that come into contact with a primary source of impurity, i.e., that food assumes first-degree impurity, and food that comes into contact with that food assumes second-degree impurity; or does one not count the descending levels of first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity? The Gemara elaborates: When regard for sanctity is effective in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it effective only to disqualify that item itself, but to count the descending levels of first-degree and second-degree impurity it is not effective? Or perhaps once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there is no difference whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids.

אמר רבי אלעזר: תא שמע — ׳מכל האוכל אשר יֵאכל וגו׳׳: אוכל שבא במים — הוכשר; אוכל שלא בא במים — לא הוכשר. ומכאן שצריד שלא בא במים אינו מונה ראשון ושני.

Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear proof from a baraita. It is written: “Of all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, it shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk it shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). From that verse it is derived: Food that comes into contact with water is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and to count the descending levels of impurity, but food that does not come into contact with water is not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Apparently, for the dry portion of flour that did not come into contact with a liquid but was rendered susceptible by regard for sanctity, one does not count the descending levels of impurity.

וכי ריש לקיש אינו יודע את דין ׳אוכל הבא במים׳?! אלא כך הסתפק: האם חיבת הקודש דינה כאוכל הבא במים (שאז אין מונים בו), או לא (ודינה מיוחד)?

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish does not have knowledge of the halakha that only food that comes into contact with water is susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: This is the dilemma that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is raising: Is the halakhic status of consecrated food that is subject to regard for sanctity like that of food that comes into contact with water, and one does not count the descending levels of impurity for items that come into contact with it, or no, its halakhic status is unique?

וגם רבי אלעזר אינו מביא ראיה מן הדין עצמו אלא מייתור הכתובים: הרי כבר נאמר ׳וכי יֻתן מים על זרע׳ — אם כן ׳מכל האוכל אשר יֵאכל׳ למה לי?

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar, who cited the verse to resolve the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, is not merely citing a verse that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish knows. Rather, he too is stating his proof from the extraneous formulation of the verses. Since it is written: “But when water is placed upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), why do I need the verse: “Of all food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34)?

האם אין הייתור בא למעט חיבת הקודש (שאינה מונה)? ודוחים: לא — שני הכתובים נצרכים: אחד בטומאת מת ואחד בטומאת שרץ (ללמד שבשניהם צריך הכשר).

Is it not to exclude items rendered susceptible to impurity due to regard for sanctity? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, both verses teach that food becomes impure only after it is rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids. One verse is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse, and one verse is referring to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal.

וצריכים שניהם: אילו לימד רק בטומאת מת — היינו אומרים שדווקא שם צריך הכשר, כי מת אינו מטמא בכעדשה; אבל שרץ, שמטמא בכעדשה (חמור) — אולי לא יצטרך הכשר.

And both verses are necessary, as had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, one would have concluded that it is there that food requires being rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a corpse is less stringent, as a portion of a corpse the size of a lentil-bulk does not render people or vessels impure. But in the case of impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, which is more stringent, as the creeping animal renders people or vessels impure with a portion of it the size of a lentil-bulk, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure.

ואילו לימד רק בשרץ — היינו אומרים שדווקא שם, כי שרץ אינו מטמא טומאת שבעה; אבל מת, שמטמא טומאת שבעה — אולי לא יצטרך הכשר. לכן צריכא (שניהם נצרכים).

And had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, one would have concluded that it is there that food must be rendered susceptible to impurity, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a creeping animal is less stringent, as a creeping animal does not render people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days. But with regard to a corpse, which renders people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure from it. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to teach both verses.

מתיב רב יוסף ממשנתנו (חולין לג): רבי שמעון אומר ׳הוכשרו בשחיטה׳ — ׳הוכשרו׳ אפילו למנות בהם ראשון ושני; ואם כן חיבת הקודש (כמו שחיטה) כן מונה!

Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna (33a) to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion that only with regard to food rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids does one count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity: Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rabbi Shimon is saying they were rendered susceptible in every sense, and even to count the descending levels of impurity, first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity.

הקושיא: אמאי מונה? הרי בשר השחיטה אינו אוכל הבא במים! אמר לו אביי: עשאוהו חכמים כהכשר מים מדרבנן (ולכן מונה — אך לא ראיה לחיבת הקודש דאורייתא).

Why is the animal rendered susceptible to impurity in every sense; but the slaughtered animal is not food that comes into contact with water? Apparently, even items that did not come into contact with water are susceptible to impurity in every sense. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not susceptible by Torah law. Rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law.

אמר רבי זירא: תא שמע — הבוצר ענבים לגת: שמאי אומר הוכשר, הלל אומר לא הוכשר, ושתק לו הלל לשמאי (קיבל דעתו). אמאי הוכשר? והרי אינו אוכל הבא במים! אמר לו אביי: עשאוהו כהכשר מים מדרבנן.

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the winepress, Shammai says: The grapes are rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the liquid that seeps from them, and Hillel says: They are not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity; and ultimately, Hillel was silent and did not respond to Shammai, accepting his opinion. Why does that liquid render the grapes susceptible to impurity; but the grapes are not food that comes into contact with water? Contact with liquid renders food susceptible to impurity only if the contact was with the intent of the owner, and here, the liquid did not seep out of the grapes of one’s own volition. Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: Hillel does not hold that the grapes are susceptible by Torah law; rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via the liquid a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity.

אמר לו רב יוסף לאביי: אני הקשיתי לך מ׳הוכשרו בשחיטה׳ ואמרת ׳עשאוהו כהכשר מים׳; ורבי זירא הקשה ואמרת לו ׳עשאוהו כהכשר מים׳ — אם כן גם לספק ריש לקיש (צריד) תאמר ׳עשאוהו כהכשר מים מדרבנן׳ (ושוב אין כאן ספק)!

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I said to you an objection from the statement of Rabbi Shimon: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself, and you said to me: It was the Sages who accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. And Rabbi Zeira said to you an objection from the case of one who harvests grapes, and you said to him: It is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the liquid from the grapes a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. If so, will you also say in response to the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings that it is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the regard for sanctity of the flour a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity?

אמר לו אביי: וכי ריש לקיש הסתפק לעניין ׳לתלות׳ (איסור דרבנן)? הוא הסתפק לעניין ׳לשרוף׳ — דין דאורייתא (ולכן אין לתרץ ׳מדרבנן׳).

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was raising a dilemma with regard to placing the matter in abeyance, and one may neither eat the consecrated flour nor may one burn it, which would be the case for impurity by rabbinic law? When Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises the dilemma it is with regard to whether to burn the gourd, which is the case when the impurity is by Torah law.

מכלל הדברים — שריש לקיש מניח שחיבת הקודש מכשירה מן התורה; ומניין לנו זה? אם נאמר מן הכתוב ׳והבשר אשר יִגַע בכל טמא׳ — בשר זה שהוכשר, במה הוכשר?

The Gemara notes that it may be learned by inference that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that regard for sanctity renders sacred items subject to ritual impurity by Torah law, as his dilemma was limited to whether one counts the descending levels of impurity from those susceptible items, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity, not the impurity of the sacred item itself. From where do we derive this halakha? If we say that it is derived from that which is written: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 7:19), then it must be ascertained: This flesh that was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, by what means was it rendered susceptible?

אם נאמר שהוכשר בדם — והרי אמר רבי חייא בר אבא בשם רבי יוחנן: מניין שדם קדשים אינו מכשיר? שנאמר ׳על הארץ תשפכנו כמים׳ — דם הנשפך כמים (חולין) מכשיר, ושאינו נשפך כמים (קדשים, שעל המזבח) אינו מכשיר.

If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by means of the blood of the animal, this is difficult. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived with regard to blood of sacrificial animals that it does not render food susceptible to impurity? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood of a non-sacred animal, which is poured like water when it is slaughtered, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, blood of a sacrificial animal, which is not poured like water but is presented on the altar, does not render food susceptible to impurity.

אלא נאמר שהוכשר במשקי בית המטבחיים (הדם והמים שבמקדש) — והרי אמר רבי יוסי בר׳ חנינא: משקי בית המטבחיים לא די שהם טהורים, אלא שאינם מכשירים. ואם תאמר שכוונתו רק לדם — והרי ׳משקין׳ (לשון רבים) אמר! אלא לאו — שהוכשר בחיבת הקודש?

Rather, perhaps say that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the liquids of the Temple abattoir. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say: With regard to the liquids of the Temple abattoir, not only are they ritually pure, but they do not even render food susceptible to impurity. And if you would say that one should explain the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as referring exclusively to blood, and the other liquids render food susceptible, but doesn’t he say: Liquids, in the plural? Rather, is it not that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity via regard for sanctity?

ודוחים: ושמא הכתוב כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל — כגון שהיתה לו פרה של זבחי שלמים, והעבירהּ בנחל (להרטיבהּ) ושחטהּ ועדיין משקה טופֵח עליה (ואז הוכשר במים ממש, לא בחיבת הקודש).

The Gemara responds: And perhaps the verse can be explained in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The verse is referring to a case where one had a cow that was to be sacrificed as a peace offering, and since the owner is entitled to the meat and the hide of the animal, in order to improve their quality he conveyed it through the river and slaughtered the animal while the liquid was still upon it and the animal was damp. That liquid rendered the meat susceptible to impurity.

אלא הראיה מסוף הכתוב: ׳והבשר׳ (השני, מיותר) — לרבות עצים ולבונה. וכי עצים ולבונה בני אכילה הם (שייכללו ב׳אוכל׳)? אלא חיבת הקודש מכשרתם ועושה אותם כאוכל; הכא נמי (בצריד) — חיבת הקודש מכשרתו.

Rather the proof is from the latter portion of that verse: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And the flesh, every pure person may eat flesh” (Leviticus 7:19). The Gemara explains: The second mention of the term “and the flesh” in the verse is superfluous and serves to include the halakha that with regard to sacred wood and frankincense, impurity disqualifies them from being burned on the altar. Are wood and frankincense edible and therefore included in the verse: “Of all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34)? Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish derived from this that regard for sanctity renders them susceptible to ritual impurity and renders their status like that of food. Here too, in the case of a dry portion of flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, regard for sanctity renders it susceptible to ritual impurity.

ומה בסוף עם ספיקו של ריש לקיש? כשחיבת הקודש מועילה — לפסול את גופו, אבל למנות בו ראשון ושני לא; או דילמא אין הבדל? תיקו (נשאר בלא הכרעה).

The Gemara asks: What is the resolution of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: When regard for sanctity is effective in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it only to disqualify that item itself, but to count the descending levels of first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity, it is not effective; or perhaps once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there is no difference whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids? The Gemara answers: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.