Chullin 71

Chapter 71

א ס"ד אמינא

1 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

ב הואיל ואסירי בגיזה ועבודה דמן לבעי קבורה קמשמע לן

2 the blood would have to be buried [and not be used for any purpose]; we are therefore taught that it is not so.

ג תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

3 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the life-blood which spurts out during the killing of the animal. The phrase, 'blood of the slain', is interpreted as 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 osu yrp during the act of killing, at which time the animal is still alive. So Rashi Ker. 22a, q.v. and Tosaf. here s.v. But see Rashi here s.v. This ruling, says Tosaf., does not apply to the case of an animal ritually slaughtered.');">2

ד (במדבר כג, כד) ודם חללים ישתה פרט לדם קילוח שאינו מכשיר את הזרעים

4 from rendering seeds susceptible to uncleanness.

ה ת"ר

5 Our Rabbis taught: If a man while slaughtering splashed blood on to a pumpkin.3

ו השוחט והתיז דם על הדלעת רבי אומר

6 Rabbi says: It becomes thereby susceptible to uncleanness.

ז הוכשר רבי חייא אומר

7 R'Hiyya says: It is a matter of doubt.

ח תולין

8 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?

ט א"ר אושעיא

9 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

י מאחר שרבי אומר הוכשר ור' חייא אומר תולין אנו על מי נסמוך

10 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

יא באו ונסמוך על דברי ר"ש שהיה ר"ש אומר

11 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.

יב שחיטה מכשרת ולא דם

12 And what did he mean by saying: 'It is a matter of doubt'?

יג אמר רב פפא

13 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 t uncleanness, otherwise it will not.

יד הכל מודים היכא דאיתיה לדם מתחלה ועד סוף כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמכשיר

14 But then what did R'Oshaia mean by saying: 'Let us then rely upon the view of R'Simeon'?

טו כי פליגי בנתקנח הדם בין סימן לסימן

15 [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.

טז רבי סבר

16 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.

יז ישנה לשחיטה מתחלה ועד סוף והאי דם שחיטה הוא

17 R'Ashi said: The expression, 'It is a matter of doubt', means that it will never be settled; for R'Hiyya w 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the blood had been wiped away from the terumah foodstuff (v. supra p. 192, n. 4) before the end of the 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.');">6

יח רבי חייא סבר

18 But then what is meant by the suggestion, 'Let us then rely upon the view of R'Simeon'?

יט אינה לשחיטה אלא בסוף והאי דם מכה הוא ומאי תולין

19 [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.

כ תולין הדבר עד גמר שחיטה אי איתיה לדם בסוף שחיטה מכשיר ואי לא לא מכשיר

20 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the ed. are added these words: 'This is what he means: In such a case as this it is a matter of doubt; therefore it 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.');">7

כא ומאי באו ונסמוך על דברי ר"ש

21 R'Simeon B'Lakish raised the following question: [If] the dry portion of a meal-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that part of the flour which was not moistened by the oil. The question raised by R. Simeon h. Lakish is whether 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.');">8

כב לר"ש לא מכשיר לרבי חייא מכשיר

22 [were to become unclean], would it transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees or not?

כג בנתקנח מיהו אשוו להדדי מר לא מכשיר ומר לא מכשיר

23 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?

כד הוה ליה רבי חד ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים

24 R'Eleazar said: Come and hear: [It is written].

כה רב אשי אמר

25 All food therein which may be eaten, [that on which water cometh, shall be unclean],9

כו תולין לעולם משמע ונתקנח לר' חייא ספוקי מספקא ליה אי ישנה לשחיטה מתחלה ועד סוף או אינה לשחיטה אלא בסוף ומאי תולין

26 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.

כז לא אוכלין ולא שורפין

27 - Are you suggesting then that R'Simeon B'Lakish does not accept the rule that food must first be moistened by water?10

כח ומאי באו ונסמוך על דברי ר"ש

28 - 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?

כט לר"ש לא מכשיר לרבי חייא ספיקא

29 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

ל לענין שריפה מיהו שוו להדדי מר לא שרפיה ומר לא שרפיה

30 what need is there for the verse: 'All food therein which may be eaten, [that on which water cometh]'?

לא הוה ליה רבי חד ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים והכי קאמר

לב כגון זאת תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין

לג בעי ר"ש בן לקיש

לד צריד של מנחות מונין בו ראשון ושני או אין מונין בו ראשון ושני

לה כי מהניא חבת הקדש לאפסולי גופיה למימנא ביה ראשון ושני לא או דלמא לא שנא

לו א"ר אלעזר ת"ש

לז (ויקרא יא, לד) מכל האוכל אשר יאכל וגו' אוכל הבא במים הוכשר אוכל שאינו בא במים לא הוכשר

לח אטו רבי שמעון בן לקיש לית ליה אוכל הבא במים

לט רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכי קמיבעיא ליה

מ חבת הקדש כאוכל הבא במים דמי או לא

מא רבי אלעזר נמי מיתורי קראי קאמר מכדי כתיב

מב (ויקרא יא, לח) וכי יותן מים על זרע מכל האוכל אשר יאכל למה לי

Previous Chapter Next Chapter