Chullin 72

Chapter 72

א לאו למעוטי חיבת הקדש
1 It serves, does it not, to exclude sacred esteem?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it does not render consecrated food susceptible to uncleanness to the same extent as water does but only in so far as to render it invalid.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב לא חד בטומאת מת וחד בטומאת שרץ
2 - Not at all.
ג וצריכי דאי אשמעינן טומאת מת התם הוא דבעי הכשר משום דלא מטמא בכעדשה אבל שרץ דמטמא בכעדשה אימא לא ליבעי הכשר
3 One verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Verse 38. Actually this verse also speaks of the uncleanness of a reptile, but as it is unnecessary for this purpose, in view of v. 34, it is taken to refer to the uncleanness of a corpse.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד ואי אשמעינן שרץ משום דלא מטמא טומאת שבעה אבל מת דמטמא טומאת שבעה אימא לא ליבעי הכשר צריכא
4 states the rule with reference to uncleanness emanating from a corpse, the other verse with reference to uncleanness emanating from a dead reptile.
ה מתיב רב יוסף רבי שמעון אומר
5 And it is necessary to have both verses.
ו הוכשרו בשחיטה
6 For if the rule were stated only with reference to uncleanness emanating from a corpse.
ז הוכשרו ואפילו למימני בהו ראשון ושני אמאי
7 [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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is here stated nevertheless that by the mere slaughtering, without moistening by water or other liquid, food can 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.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ח והא לאו אוכל הבא במים הוא
8 might have said that it was not necessary for the food to be first moistened by water.
ט א"ל אביי
9 And on the other hand, if the rule were stated only with reference to uncleanness emanating from a reptile.
י עשאוהו כהכשר מים מדרבנן
10 [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.
יא אמר רבי זירא ת"ש
11 I might have said it was not necessary for the food to be moistened by water.
יב הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר
12 Both verses are therefore necessary.
יג הוכשר הלל אומר
13 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.
יד לא הוכשר ושתיק ליה הלל לשמאי
14 But why?
טו אמאי
15 It is not food moistened by water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is here stated nevertheless that by the mere slaughtering, without moistening by water or other liquid, food can 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.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
טז והא לאו אוכל הבא במים הוא
16 - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consecrated meat, however, in this condition would not be condemned to be burnt, for it is unclean merely by Rabbinic and not by Biblical law.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
יז אמר ליה אביי
17 R'Zera said: Come and hear: [It was taught:] If a man gathered grapes for the wine press.
יח עשאוהו כהכשר מים מדרבנן
18 Shammai says, they are susceptible to uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the grapes have been moistened by the juice which oozed from them. Strictly this juice should not render 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.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יט א"ל רב יוסף
19 but Hillel says, they are not.
כ אמינא לך אנא הוכשרו בשחיטה ואת אמרת לי
20 Eventually Hillel acquiesced in the view of Shammai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 25a.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כא עשאוהו כהכשר מים
21 But why?
כב ואמר לך רבי זירא ואמרת ליה
22 It is not food mo<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 25a.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כג עשאוהו כהכשר מים
23 stened by water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the juice since it is undesirable cannot be said to have satisfied the requirement of the law.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
כד לר"ש בן לקיש נמי עשאוהו כהכשר מים
24 - 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.
כה אמר ליה
25 R'Joseph thereupon said to Abaye.'
כו אטו ר' שמעון בן לקיש לתלות קמיבעיא ליה
26 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.
כז כי קא מיבעיא ליה לשרוף
27 [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 it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. consecrated fond which came into contact with this unclean consecrated food which had been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by sacred esteem.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
כח מכלל דחיבת הקדש דאורייתא
28 was to be held in a state of doubt or not?
כט מנא לן
29 He raised the question as to whether it was to be committed to the flames or not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other words R. Simeon b. Lakish desired to know whether by biblical law sacred esteem enabled consecrated food to transmit uncleanness, so that the food so rendered unclean would be condemned to be burnt.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ל אילימא מדכתיב
30 It follows that the conception of sacred esteem is indicated in the Torah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R Simeon b. Lakish has no doubt at all that consecrated food which was unclean, having been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by sacred esteem, must be burnt.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
לא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא האי בשר דאתכשר במאי
31 where?
לב אילימא דאתכשר בדם והאמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן
32 Shall I say in the verse: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
לג מנין לדם קדשים שאינו מכשיר
33 Now what rendered this flesh susceptible to uncleanness?
לד שנאמר
34 Shall I say it was the blood?
לה לא תאכלנו על הארץ תשפכנו כמים דם הנשפך כמים מכשיר שאינו נשפך כמים אינו מכשיר
35 [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?
לו אלא דאיתכשר במשקי בית מטבחיא והא א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא
36 From the verse: Thou shalt not eat it, thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut, XII, 24.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
לז משקי בית מטבחיא לא דיין שהן דכן אלא שאין מכשירין
37 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the blood of consecrated animals is required for sprinkling upon the altar.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
לח וכי תימא תרגמא אדם והא משקי קאמר
38 Was it then the other liquid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. water,');"><sup>14</sup></span>
לט לא לאו דאתכשר בחבת הקדש
39 found in the slaughter-house that rendered the flesh susceptible to uncleanness?
מ ודלמא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל
40 [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.
מא כגון שהיתה לו פרה של זבחי שלמים והעבירה בנחל שחטה ועדיין משקה טופח עליה
41 Moreover you cannot suggest that this passage refers to the blood only, for it speaks of liquids!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the plural, referring to blood and water.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
מב אלא מסיפא
42 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 stream<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was usually done in order that the hide of the animal be the more easily flayed.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
מג והבשר לרבות עצים ולבונה
43 and slaughtered immediately after, so that the water was still dripping from it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh was thus rendered susceptible to uncleanness in the ordinary way, i.e., by water.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
מד עצים ולבונה בני אכילה נינהו
44 Rather it is to be proved from the latter part of the verse: And as for the flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מה אלא חבת הקדש מכשרא להו ומשויא להו אוכל הכא נמי חבת הקדש מכשרתה
45 which serves to include wood and frankincense.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That each is capable of being rendered unclean like ordinary foodstuffs,');"><sup>19</sup></span> 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.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter