Chullin Daf 35 (חולין דף ל״ה)
Daf: 35 | Amudim: 35a – 35b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (35a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Completing Ulla’s reply to Rav Hamnuna from daf 34: the נזיד הדמע stew is dilute enough not to count.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּלֵיכָּא כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס.
English Translation:
as there is not an olive-bulk of teruma in the amount of stew that he eats in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Therefore, one need not treat the mixture with the level of purity required of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens mid-reply, completing Ulla’s answer to Rav Hamnuna at the end of 34b. Ulla’s ruling that eating שלישי-food disqualifies one from teruma did not contradict the mishna permitting a kohen to eat the נזיד הדמע. In that stew the teruma is so dilute that one does not consume a כזית (olive-bulk) of teruma within כדי אכילת פרס (the time it takes to eat a half-loaf). Below that threshold the teruma component is halachically negligible, so eating the stew does not trigger the disqualification.
Key Terms:
- כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס = “An olive-bulk within the time of eating a half-loaf” — the standard rate threshold for halachic consumption
- נְזִיד הַדֶּמַע = A stew containing only a trace amount of teruma spices, mixed into non-sacred food
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yonatan in Rebbi’s name extends the parallel ruling to one who eats actual teruma.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה עַצְמָהּ – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל, וּמוּתָּר לִיגַּע.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yonatan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For one who partakes of actual teruma that is impure with third-degree impurity, it is prohibited to partake of other teruma, but it is permitted to come into contact with teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yonatan in the name of Rebbi extends the principle from Ulla’s case (teruma-level חולין) to actual teruma. One who eats שלישי-level teruma is barred from eating other teruma — but he may still touch teruma. He becomes a שלישי himself: enough to be disqualified from partaking, but not enough to defile teruma onward by contact (a שלישי does not generate a רביעי in teruma).
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי = Rabbi Yonatan transmitting in the name of Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi)
- אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל, וּמוּתָּר לִיגַּע = “Forbidden to eat, permitted to touch” — the classic profile of a שלישי vis-à-vis teruma
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Both rulings — Ulla’s and Rabbi Yonatan’s — are necessary; neither can be derived from the other.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּעוּלָּא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, דְּאִי מִדְּעוּלָּא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה – בִּנְגִיעָה נָמֵי אָסוּר, אִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וְאִי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל חוּלִּין – בַּאֲכִילָה נָמֵי שְׁרֵי, צְרִיכִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that the statement of Ulla was necessary and the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. As, if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Ulla, I would say: This statement applies with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, but with regard to teruma itself perhaps contact is also prohibited. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. And if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Rabbi Yonatan, I would say: This statement applies with regard to teruma, but with regard to non-sacred food that was prepared with purity of teruma, perhaps eating it is also permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The standard צריכי (“both are necessary”) demonstration. From Ulla alone (about teruma-level חולין) one might think actual teruma is stricter and even mere contact is forbidden — so Rabbi Yonatan teaches that touching is permitted. From Rabbi Yonatan alone (about real teruma) one might think eating-disqualification applies only to true teruma but not to the merely-elevated חולין — so Ulla teaches that the disqualification reaches even there. Each ruling rules out a different mistake.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכִי = “Both are required” — the formal Talmudic demonstration that neither of two related rulings is redundant
- אִיצְטְרִיךְ = “It was necessary [to teach]” — introducing why a given statement could not have been derived from another
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Yitzchak’s ruling: only true kodashim can produce a רביעי; elevated חולין cannot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – טָהוֹר לֶאֱכוֹל בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה רְבִיעִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ אֶלָּא קֹדֶשׁ מִקּוֹדֶשׁ בִּלְבַד.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and he was sitting and saying: With regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and these items had become impure with third-degree impurity, he is ritually pure in terms of the right to partake of sacrificial food, as you have nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta states a sharply limiting principle. The exclusive chain of kodashim — extending to a fourth degree — only operates when the chain starts in consecrated food. קודש מקודש: only kodashim can transmit a רביעי to kodashim. Therefore one who eats kodashim-level חולין that carry a שלישי remains pure regarding actual kodashim, since this חולין is not “real” kodashim and cannot generate that fourth-degree status.
Key Terms:
- רְבִיעִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ = “A fourth-degree in kodashim” — the unique status that only sacrificial food can extend to
- קֹדֶשׁ מִקּוֹדֶשׁ בִּלְבַד = “Only kodashim from kodashim” — only consecrated food can produce the special fourth-degree level in other consecrated food
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Rami bar Chama objects from Rabbi Yehoshua: how can teruma-level חולין produce a שני for kodashim?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: שְׁלִישִׁי – שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה. בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. אַמַּאי? הָא לָאו קֹדֶשׁ מִקּוֹדֶשׁ הוּא!
English Translation:
Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection from the mishna cited earlier (33b): One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, and he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. Eating an item with third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred items, as partaking of impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma. According to the statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta, why does this food assume second-degree impurity? It is not sacrificial food, which is sanctified.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rami bar Chama presses Rav Yitzchak from Rabbi Yehoshua’s well-known ruling (Teharot 2:2, on 33b): one who eats teruma-level חולין bearing a שלישי does become a שני for kodashim. But teruma-level חולין are also not “real” kodashim — קודש מקודש — so by Rav Yitzchak’s logic they should be unable to affect kodashim at all. The objection threatens to collapse Rav Yitzchak’s whole principle.
Key Terms:
- מֵתִיב = “He raises an objection” — a challenge from a recognized source
- רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא = A Babylonian Amora known for sharp dialectical objections
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yitzchak’s reply: teruma’s own “purity” counts as impurity relative to kodashim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִתְרוּמָה, שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
English Translation:
Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to him: Leave teruma alone; its state of purity is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. Therefore, non-sacred food that was prepared with the purity of teruma renders sacrificial food impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yitzchak invokes the same conceptual move Rabbi Yehoshua had made on 34b: the very “purity” of teruma is reckoned as impurity from kodashim’s vantage point. So teruma-level חולין naturally affect kodashim, not via the קודש מקודש pathway he just restricted, but via the independent teruma → kodashim downgrade. The next segment supplies a textual source.
Key Terms:
- הַנַּח לִתְרוּמָה = “Leave teruma alone” — set aside this case as a separate category not governed by the principle just stated
- טׇהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ = “Its purity is impurity vis-à-vis kodashim” — teruma standards are insufficient when measured against the higher kodashim standard
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Source: the Chagiga mishna’s tiered hierarchy of garments, where each lower group’s clothes defile the next.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרַאּ? דִּתְנַן: בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לִפְרוּשִׁין, בִּגְדֵי פְרוּשִׁין מִדְרָס לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, בִּגְדֵי אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that the purity of teruma is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food? It is from a mishna (Ḥagiga 18b), as we learned: The halakhic status of the garments of an am ha’aretz, who does not scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity, is like that of items rendered impure by treading, e.g., items designated for sitting or lying upon which a zav or a menstruating woman sits or lies, which are rendered a primary source of ritual impurity for individuals who scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity [perushin] and eat their non-sacred food in a state of purity. In other words, it is considered a primary level of impurity for them. The halakhic status of the garments of perushin is like that of items rendered impure by treading for priests who partake of teruma. In addition, the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the famous Chagiga mishna depicting four ascending levels of purity-scrupulosity: am ha’aretz, פרושים (those who eat חולין in purity), kohanim who eat teruma, and those who eat kodashim. The garments of each lower tier count as מדרס (impurity through treading, a primary source of impurity) for the tier above. Critically: the garments of teruma-eaters — fully clean by teruma’s standards — are still מדרס for kodashim-eaters. This proves the principle that teruma-level purity is impurity vis-à-vis kodashim.
Key Terms:
- מִדְרָס = Impurity through treading — a primary level of impurity transmitted by sitting/lying objects of a zav or niddah
- פְרוּשִׁין = “Separatists” — those who scrupulously eat ordinary חולין in a state of ritual purity
- עַם הָאָרֶץ = “Common folk” — one who does not maintain rabbinic standards of purity in handling food
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Rava objects: the midras case is a special concern about garments, not a general principle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מִדְרָסוֹת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי מִדְרָסוֹת,
English Translation:
Rava said: Are you saying that one can cite proof from the halakha of items rendered impure by treading that the state of purity of teruma is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food? No proof may be cited from there, as the decree that the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food is different,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava rejects the proof. The Chagiga מדרסות hierarchy is no source for a general principle — it is a special concern unique to garments, the reason for which the amud ends mid-sentence and continues on 35b.
Key Terms:
- שָׁאנֵי מִדְרָסוֹת = “Midrasot are different” — the formula isolating a special case that cannot be generalized
- רָבָא = A leading fourth-generation Babylonian Amora, known for incisive analysis of premises
Amud Bet (35b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rava completes his objection: the decree on garments has a unique rationale unrelated to produce.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁמָּא תֵּשֵׁב עֲלֵיהֶן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, אֲבָל בְּפֵירֵי לָא אָמְרִינַן. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּפֵירֵי נָמֵי אָמַר.
English Translation:
as with regard to garments there is concern lest his wife sit upon them when she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. But with regard to produce, we do not say that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure, and Rabbi Yitzḥak states his halakha with regard to produce as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava completes the thought from the end of 35a. The garments of teruma-eaters were decreed מדרס for kodashim-eaters because of a specific suspicion: that the man’s wife — possibly in a state of niddah impurity — may have sat on them. This is a precautionary fence about household garments, not a statement about the relative purity grades of teruma and kodashim foods. Rav Yitzchak’s principle applies to actual produce, so the מדרס mishna proves nothing for him.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמָּא תֵּשֵׁב עֲלֵיהֶן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה = “Lest his wife in niddah sit on them” — the specific rabbinic concern motivating the garment-מדרס decree
- נִדָּה = A menstruating woman, who is a primary source of ritual impurity
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yirmeya from Difti objects from a mishna where am ha’aretz’s teruma wine doesn’t defile mingled kodashim wine.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן בְּפֵירֵי? וְהָתְנַן: אִם אָמַר ״הִפְרַשְׁתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית קֹדֶשׁ״ – נֶאֱמָן, וְלָא קָא (מטמא) [מְטַמְּיָא] לֵיהּ תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: טׇהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ – תְּטַמֵּא תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak: And do we say with regard to produce that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥagiga 24b): It is not permitted for a priest to accept teruma wine from an am ha’aretz, but if an am ha’aretz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma wine a quarter-log of sacrificial wine, he is deemed credible? And this indicates that teruma does not render the sacrificial food impure. And if you say with regard to teruma that its state of purity is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, let the teruma render the sacrificial food impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya from Difti raises a powerful objection. The Chagiga mishna permits a kohen to accept a barrel of teruma wine from an am ha’aretz if the latter claims to have separated a רביעית of kodashim wine into it — meaning the kodashim mingled with the teruma is not regarded as defiled. But if teruma’s “purity” is really impurity for kodashim, the teruma should have defiled the kodashim sitting alongside it in the barrel.
Key Terms:
- רְבִיעִית = A quarter-log — the volume of kodashim wine separated into the teruma barrel
- רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי = Rabbi Yirmeya from Difti, a town near Pumbedita
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yitzchak: the wine case is “impurity in conjunction,” resolved by a credibility migo.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין קָאָמְרַתְּ? טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין שָׁאנֵי, דְּמִגּוֹ דִּמְהֵימַן אַקֹּדֶשׁ – מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַתְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti: Are you are saying that there is an objection to my opinion based on the case of impurity in a case of food items, the teruma wine and the sacrificial wine, that are attached in one barrel? Impurity in a case of food items that are attached is different, as, since the am ha’aretz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food, he is deemed credible with regard to the teruma as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yitzchak deflects the objection by classifying the Chagiga case as טומאה בחיבורין — impurity acting on food that is physically joined together in a single container. Here a special migo argument applies: since the am ha’aretz is believed about the kodashim portion (a stringent matter), he is also believed about the teruma — that he handled it in purity. The case turns on credibility for a joined mixture, not on whether teruma normally defiles kodashim.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין = “Impurity in a state of attachment” — when foods or liquids are joined in one vessel, treated as a unit for impurity purposes
- מִגּוֹ = A halachic argument from “since” — credibility about one matter extends to a related matter
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Huna bar Natan objects from a baraita: kodashim-level שלישי-חולין does disqualify kodashim food.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן: הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה חוּלִּין, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
English Translation:
Rav Huna bar Natan raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak with regard to rendering sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity: Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity renders impure through contact a non-sacred liquid, which assumes first-degree impurity, and disqualifies teruma foods, in the sense that those foods are impure but do not transmit impurity to other food. And non-sacred food that is impure with third-degree impurity renders impure through contact a sacrificial liquid and disqualifies sacrificial foods, in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said that there is nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but not non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna bar Natan cites a baraita that directly contradicts Rav Yitzchak. It teaches that a שלישי in kodashim-level חולין does defile a kodashim liquid and disqualify kodashim food — meaning kodashim-level חולין can produce a רביעי in kodashim. This baraita refuses to accept the קודש מקודש limitation, and demands a response.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ = A liquid that has been consecrated as kodashim; uniquely susceptible to elevated impurity
- אוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ = Sacrificial food items — the foods Rav Yitzchak said could only be defiled by other true kodashim
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
The Gemara resolves the contradiction by identifying a Tannaitic dispute on the very point.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that this matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of non-sacred foods, and they are incapable of assuming third-degree impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the conflict by attributing it to a Tannaitic dispute. According to one baraita, kodashim-level חולין retain the status of plain חולין — they cannot even contract a שלישי. This is the most lenient position, and aligns with Rav Yitzchak’s spirit.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּאֵי הִיא = “It is [a dispute among] Tannaim” — the standard resolution attributing conflicting sources to differing Tannaitic schools
- הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין = “They are [treated] as ordinary חולין” — voluntary elevation doesn’t change halachic status
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
The middle position: Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Tzadok treats kodashim-level חולין like teruma.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְרוּמָה, לְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם, וְלִפְסוֹל אֶחָד.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of teruma. Accordingly, a primary source of ritual impurity is able to render two items impure: The food item with which it comes into contact assumes first-degree impurity, and the food item with which that came into contact assumes second-degree impurity. And that item is able to disqualify one further item, which assumes third-degree impurity but will not render sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree impurity. According to both opinions in this baraita, non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not disqualify sacrificial food. According to the mishna in Teharot, it does disqualify sacrificial food.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Tzadok takes the middle position: kodashim-level חולין are like teruma. From an אב הטומאה, two further levels become impure (a ראשון and a שני), and one further item is disqualified (a שלישי) — but no רביעי extends to actual kodashim. Both opinions in this baraita agree that kodashim-level חולין do not extend to a רביעי, supporting Rav Yitzchak. The Teharot baraita that does extend to a רביעי represents the third (most stringent) Tannaitic view.
Key Terms:
- לְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם וְלִפְסוֹל אֶחָד = “To make two impure and disqualify one” — teruma’s profile: ראשון, שני (impure), then שלישי (disqualified, not transmitting further)
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק = A late Tanna of the fifth generation, known for purity-law rulings
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
A new sugya returns to Rabbi Shimon’s mishna; Rav Asi makes it exclusive: slaughter, not blood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states (33a): In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them, Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Shimon would say: It is its slaughter that renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, and not the blood that emerges during the slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now returns to Rabbi Shimon’s position from the original Chullin mishna (33a). Rabbi Shimon held that slaughter itself renders the animal susceptible (הכשר) to impurity, even without blood. Rav Asi pushes this further into an exclusive claim: for Rabbi Shimon, it is the act of slaughter and only slaughter that produces הכשר — blood does not. This is a radical reading, since the Tanna Kamma assumed blood was one of the seven liquids that creates הכשר.
Key Terms:
- הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה = “They were rendered susceptible through slaughter” — Rabbi Shimon’s view that shechita itself activates susceptibility
- שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם = “His slaughter makes it susceptible, not blood” — Rav Asi’s exclusive reading: blood alone never creates הכשר for Rabbi Shimon
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
First attempt to support Rav Asi from the mishna’s wording — rejected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. מַאי לָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלָא בְּדָם? לָא, אַף בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rav Asi. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that Rabbi Shimon is saying: By means of the slaughter and not by means of the blood from the slaughter? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps Rabbi Shimon is saying: The animal can be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of blood and also by means of slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks textual support for Rav Asi. Rabbi Shimon’s mishna says הוכשרו בשחיטה — perhaps that means specifically “by slaughter, not by blood”? But the Gemara rejects: “by slaughter” could equally mean “by slaughter as well” — i.e., in addition to blood, slaughter is also מכשיר. The mishna’s wording is ambiguous and proves nothing.
Key Terms:
- לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ = “Shall we say it supports him?” — a standard formula proposing textual support for a stated position
- אַף בִּשְׁחִיטָה = “Even/also by slaughter” — the inclusive reading: slaughter adds to blood, not replaces it
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Second attempt: a baraita where Rabbi Shimon seems to deny blood’s role — also rejected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי הַדָּם מַכְשִׁיר? וַהֲלֹא שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת! הָכִי קָאָמַר לָהֶן: וְכִי דָם בִּלְבַד מַכְשִׁיר? אַף שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי מַכְשֶׁרֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita is support of Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: Is it blood that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? But isn’t it slaughter that renders it susceptible? This indicates that Rabbi Shimon holds that it is specifically the slaughter and not the blood that renders the flesh susceptible to impurity. The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the Rabbis: Is it blood alone that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? Slaughter too renders it susceptible.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second proposed support: a baraita where Rabbi Shimon rhetorically asks the Rabbis “Is it blood that is מכשיר? Isn’t it slaughter?” — apparently denying blood’s role outright. But again the Gemara rejects: Rabbi Shimon was asking “is it blood alone?” — meaning slaughter is also מכשיר, alongside blood. The inclusive reading still works.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = “Come and hear” — introducing a fresh baraita brought as potential support
- דָם בִּלְבַד = “Blood alone” — the inclusive rereading that defangs Rav Asi’s proof
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Now a baraita appears to refute Rav Asi: דם המת doesn’t make הכשר, implying דם שחיטה does.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר, אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי – לָא מַכְשִׁיר?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita contrary to Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the animal that is dead of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what then is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now seeks a refutation of Rav Asi. A baraita says Rabbi Shimon ruled דם המת (blood of an animal dead of natural causes) is not מכשיר — implying that other blood, including דם שחיטה, IS מכשיר. That would falsify Rav Asi. The Gemara rebuts: perhaps the implied contrast is דם חללים (blood of an animal that was killed, e.g., by stabbing), not שחיטה. So דם שחיטה might still not be מכשיר. The next segment pushes this further.
Key Terms:
- דַּם הַמֵּת = Blood of an animal that died of natural causes
- דַּם חֲלָלִים = Blood of animals that were killed/slain (e.g., by stabbing rather than proper slaughter)
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Defending Rav Asi: דם המת had to be stated explicitly to forestall a tempting equivalence with דם חללים.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לַישְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם הַמֵּת! דַּם הַמֵּת אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ אִיהוּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach the halakha of blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the animal himself, and what difference is there to me if the animal was killed by the angel of death? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that unlike blood of an animal that was killed, blood of an animal that is dead as a result of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses: if דם שחיטה were truly not מכשיר, the baraita should have said so, since דם המת would then follow a fortiori. The reply: דם המת needed its own statement to dispel an intuitive equivalence — one might think “what does it matter who killed it, the slaughterer or the angel of death” (i.e., natural death should be like שחיטה for this purpose). The baraita rules out that comparison: only דם חללים is מכשיר; דם המת is not. דם שחיטה’s status remains genuinely unclear from this source.
Key Terms:
- מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת = “The angel of death” — vivid Talmudic personification of natural death, contrasted here with active slaying
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = “It teaches us [this novelty]” — pinpointing why a seemingly redundant statement is actually necessary
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Another baraita: דם מגפתו (wound-blood) doesn’t make הכשר — same back-and-forth.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר. אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי, לָא מַכְשִׁיר?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita contrary to Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the wound of an animal does not render other items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?
קלאוד על הדף:
A parallel attempt to refute Rav Asi. Another baraita has Rabbi Shimon ruling that דם מגפתו — blood from a wound that didn’t kill the animal — is not מכשיר. The same proposed implication: דם שחיטה IS מכשיר, against Rav Asi. The same rebuttal: the implied contrast may be only דם חללים, not דם שחיטה.
Key Terms:
- דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ = “Blood of his wound” — blood from a non-fatal injury, as opposed to full slaughter or killing
- הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים = The contrast is with דם חללים, the blood of slain animals (full killing)
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Mirror defense: דם מגפתו also had to be stated to forestall the “killing half” equivalence.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לַשְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ! דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּהּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ פַּלְגָא.
English Translation:
If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of its wound. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach blood of its wound, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the entire animal, and what difference is there to me if one killed half of the animal, i.e., wounded it? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches that unlike the blood of an animal that was killed, the blood from an animal’s wound does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror defense: דם מגפתו had to be stated explicitly because one might intuitively equate “killing the whole animal” with “killing half” (a serious wound) — and assume both produce מכשיר blood. The baraita rules that out: only full killing (חללים) produces מכשיר blood; partial wounding doesn’t. Again, no inference about שחיטה can be drawn, so Rav Asi’s view survives.
Key Terms:
- קַטְלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּהּ / קַטְלֵיהּ פַּלְגָא = “Killed it entirely / killed it [in] part” — the tempting equivalence the baraita exists to refute
- אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ = “It was necessary for him [to state explicitly]” — explaining why a seemingly redundant ruling carries an independent novelty
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Scriptural source: דם חללים is “drunk” — categorized as a liquid that makes הכשר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא דַּם חֲלָלִים דְּמַכְשַׁיר? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to blood of animals that are killed that they render food items susceptible to ritual impurity? It is due to the fact that it is written: “Behold, they are a people that rises up as a lioness, and as a lion he lifts himself up; he shall not lie down until he eats of the prey and drinks blood of carcasses” (Numbers 23:24). The fact that the blood of a carcass, which in the context of the verse is referring to an animal that was killed, is mentioned in the context of drinking, indicates that it is a liquid that renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara grounds the privileged status of דם חללים in the verse “ודם חללים ישתה” (Numbers 23:24) — from Balaam’s prophecy. The phrase places the blood of slain animals in the category of something drunk, i.e., a liquid — and liquids are precisely what create הכשר. דם חללים therefore qualifies textually as one of the seven מכשירים, while דם המת and דם מגפתו do not.
Key Terms:
- ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״ = “And he shall drink the blood of carcasses” (Numbers 23:24) — the verse from Balaam’s parable that classifies דם חללים as a drinkable liquid
- בִּלְעָם = Balaam, the gentile prophet whose poetic oracles in Numbers supply this drasha-source
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
The closing parry: the “pour it like water” verse is redirected to permit benefit from disqualified-kodashim blood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּם שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״! הָהוּא לְמִישְׁרֵי דָּמָן דִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בַּהֲנָאָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
English Translation:
With regard to blood of slaughter it is also written: “Only, you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth as water” (Deuteronomy 12:16). The parallel to water ostensibly indicates that the blood of slaughter should also render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: That verse is not written with regard to susceptibility to impurity. The purpose for which it comes is to permit benefit from the blood of disqualified consecrated animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara closes the daf with a final parry on behalf of Rav Asi. The verse “you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Devarim 12:16) seems to equate דם שחיטה with water, hence make it מכשיר — and would refute Rav Asi for Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara redirects: that verse’s purpose is not הכשר at all, but to permit deriving benefit (הנאה) from the blood of פסולי המוקדשין (disqualified consecrated animals). With the verse re-purposed, Rav Asi’s reading — that for Rabbi Shimon only שחיטה (not blood) is מכשיר — remains tenable.
Key Terms:
- ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״ = “You shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:16) — invoked on 33a as מכשיר, here reread as a הנאה permission
- פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = Consecrated animals that became disqualified for the altar but are still treated with restrictions on benefit
- הֲנָאָה = Benefit/use — the kind of permission this verse is rerouted to grant