Chullin Daf 36 (חולין דף ל״ו)
Daf: 36 | Amudim: 36a – 36b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (36a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Completing 35b: why the “pour it like water” verse is needed to permit benefit from blood of פסולי המוקדשין.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וַאֲסִירִי בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, דָּמָן לִבְעֵי קְבוּרָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
It could enter your mind to say: Since benefit from disqualified consecrated animals is forbidden with regard to their fleece and labor, perhaps benefit from their blood is also forbidden, and let it require burial. Therefore, the verse teaches us that benefit from their blood is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by completing the explanation from the end of 35b: why the verse “you shall pour it upon the earth like water” was needed at all to permit benefit from the blood of פסולי המוקדשין. One might have thought: since these disqualified consecrated animals are forbidden in הנאה for their wool (גיזה) and labor (עבודה), surely their blood should also be forbidden and require burial. The verse comes precisely to dispel that intuition: their blood is permitted in benefit and may be poured like water.
Key Terms:
- פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = Animals consecrated as offerings but disqualified for the altar
- גִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה = “Shearing and labor” — two forms of הנאה (benefit) explicitly forbidden from these animals
- קְבוּרָה = Burial — the disposal required of items forbidden in benefit
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The school of Rabbi Yishmael narrows “blood of carcasses” — excluding the initial arterial spurt of slaughter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״ – פְּרָט לְדַם קִילּוּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים.
English Translation:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “And drinks the blood of carcasses,” from which it is derived that the blood of an animal that was killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity, serves to exclude blood that emerges in a surge due to arterial pressure at the moment of slaughter while the animal is still alive that does not render seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael narrows the very verse — “ודם חללים ישתה” — that was just shown (on 35b) to establish דם חללים as a מכשיר. The word חללים restricts the category: it excludes דם קילוח, the initial surge of blood that spurts under arterial pressure while the animal is still alive. That blood, although emerging during slaughter, does not render seeds susceptible to impurity, because the animal at that instant is not yet a חלל (slain).
Key Terms:
- דַּם קִילּוּחַ = “Surging blood” — the initial pressurized arterial spurt at the start of slaughter, while the animal is still alive
- תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = “It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael” — citing a Tannaitic tradition from his beit midrash
- זְרָעִים = Seeds — the standard testing case for הכשר susceptibility (per Leviticus 11:38)
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
A new baraita: blood splashing on a gourd during slaughter — does it make הכשר?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז דָּם עַל הַדַּלַּעַת – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: תּוֹלִין.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces the central scenario of the daf: a person slaughtering an animal and blood splashing onto a nearby gourd of teruma. Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) rules that the gourd has been rendered susceptible (הוכשר) to impurity. Rabbi Chiyya rules תולין — the matter is suspended in uncertainty. The disagreement turns on whether the blood mid-slaughter qualifies as דם שחיטה (which is מכשיר) or as דם מכה (a mere wound, not מכשיר).
Key Terms:
- הִתִּיז דָּם עַל הַדַּלַּעַת = “Splashed blood on the gourd” — the practical scenario at the heart of the dispute
- תּוֹלִין = “One suspends [the matter]” — a halachic verdict of unresolved uncertainty, neither eaten nor burned
- דַּלַּעַת = Gourd — used here as the food item potentially receiving הכשר
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Oshaya proposes resorting to Rabbi Shimon, who eliminates blood as מכשיר altogether.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מֵאַחַר שֶׁרַבִּי אוֹמֵר הוּכְשַׁר, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר תּוֹלִין, אָנוּ עַל מִי נִסְמוֹךְ? בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Faced with two giant authorities — Rebbi and Rabbi Chiyya — split between susceptible and suspended, Rabbi Oshaya proposes a third path: rely on Rabbi Shimon, whose exclusive reading (per Rav Asi on 35b) says it is שחיטה, not blood, that produces הכשר. On Rabbi Shimon’s view, blood never makes הכשר at all, so the gourd is not susceptible. The next segments analyze how Rabbi Oshaya’s appeal fits each of the two views.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא = An Eretz Yisrael Amora of the first generation, often invoked for practical halachic resolutions
- עַל מִי נִסְמוֹךְ = “On whom shall we rely?” — the formula introducing a practical halachic decision among disputing views
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa frames the dispute around the case where the blood was wiped off mid-slaughter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְדָם מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמַכְשַׁיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ הַדָּם בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, רַבִּי סָבַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa frames the Rebbi-Chiyya dispute precisely. If blood is on the gourd from the very start until the end of slaughter, all agree it is מכשיר (both Reish Lakish’s “end-only” definition of slaughter and Rabbi Yochanan’s “start-to-finish” definition yield mekhasher in that scenario). The dispute is when the blood was wiped off between the cutting of the first siman and the second. Rebbi holds that שחיטה is defined from start to finish — so the wiped-off blood was already דם שחיטה and the gourd remains susceptible.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן = “Between one siman and the other” — the gap between cutting the windpipe and the gullet
- יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף = “Slaughter exists from start to finish” — Rebbi’s view: every moment of the act is reckoned as שחיטה
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Chiyya’s side: שחיטה is only at the end; mid-slaughter blood is mere wound-blood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי חִיָּיא סָבַר: אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם מַכָּה הוּא, וּמַאי ״תּוֹלִין״? תּוֹלִין הַדָּבָר עַד גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה – אִי אִיתֵיהּ לְדָם בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר, וְאִי לָא – לֹא מַכְשִׁיר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chiyya’s side: שחיטה is constituted only at its final moment, so blood spilled mid-act is merely דם מכה — wound-blood — not yet דם שחיטה. תולין here means: wait and see. If blood is still on the gourd at the conclusion of slaughter, it retroactively counts as דם שחיטה and makes הכשר; if it was wiped off before completion, no הכשר was ever effected. So the verdict is suspended at the time of the spill but ultimately resolvable.
Key Terms:
- אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף = “Slaughter exists only at the end” — Rabbi Chiyya’s view: only the final moment counts
- דַּם מַכָּה = “Blood of a wound” — blood produced before the slaughter is complete, not classed as דם שחיטה
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
A challenge to Rabbi Oshaya: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Chiyya disagree, so how does relying on Rabbi Shimon help?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי ״בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר, לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מַכְשִׁיר!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses Rabbi Oshaya. He proposed siding with Rabbi Shimon as a tiebreaker — but Rabbi Shimon (who eliminates blood entirely) and Rabbi Chiyya (for whom blood does make הכשר when present at slaughter’s end) flatly disagree. If anything, this is now a three-way dispute, not a tiebreaker. The next segment answers by zooming in on the specific case Rav Pappa just identified.
Key Terms:
- לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר = For Rabbi Shimon, blood never makes הכשר at all
- לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מַכְשִׁיר = For Rabbi Chiyya, blood does make הכשר (if present at slaughter’s end)
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
In the wiped-off case, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Chiyya align — making Rebbi a lone view against two.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ מִיהוּ אַשְׁווֹ לַהֲדָדֵי, מָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, וּמָר לָא מַכְשִׁיר, הֲוָה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers Rabbi Oshaya’s strategy precisely. In the specific case where the blood was wiped off mid-slaughter, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Chiyya effectively agree — both rule “not מכשיר” (Rabbi Shimon because he never grants blood that power, Rabbi Chiyya because the blood is no longer present at the end). That leaves Rebbi as a lone voice against two — and “the words of one have no standing against two.” Halacha follows the majority: the gourd is not susceptible.
Key Terms:
- בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ = “In a case where it was wiped off” — the specific scenario producing the alignment
- אֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם = The principle that a single opinion does not stand against a majority of two
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ashi’s alternative reading: תולין means permanent uncertainty — neither eaten nor burned.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״תּוֹלִין״ לְעוֹלָם מַשְׁמַע, וְנִתְקַנֵּחַ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, אִי יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, אוֹ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וּמַאי ״תּוֹלִין״? לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi reads Rabbi Chiyya differently. תולין does not mean “wait and see at slaughter’s end” — it means a permanent suspension. Rabbi Chiyya himself is unsure whether שחיטה is defined start-to-finish or only at the end. The verdict: לא אוכלין ולא שורפין — one may neither eat the gourd (perhaps it is impure teruma) nor burn it (perhaps it is pure). It hangs in halachic limbo.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם מַשְׁמַע = “[The term implies] forever” — Rav Ashi’s reading: not provisional but permanent suspension
- לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין = “We do not eat and do not burn” — the practical verdict of suspended teruma in unresolvable doubt
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
On Rav Ashi’s reading too, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Chiyya align — at least on the question of burning.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי ״בֹּאוּ וְנִסְמוֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַכְשִׁיר, לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא סְפֵיקָא, לְעִנְיַן שְׂרֵיפָה מִיהוּ שָׁווּ לַהֲדָדֵי: (ומר) [וּלְמָר] לָא שָׂרְפִינַן, (ומר) [וּלְמָר] לָא שָׂרְפִינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara repeats the structural question on Rav Ashi’s reading: Rabbi Shimon (not susceptible) and Rabbi Chiyya (uncertain) don’t really agree. But for the specific practical question of שריפה (burning the gourd), they yield the same outcome — neither would burn. For Rabbi Shimon there’s no susceptibility to begin with; for Rabbi Chiyya, the doubt forbids burning a possibly-pure teruma. So on this sub-question they align.
Key Terms:
- שָׁווּ לַהֲדָדֵי = “They align with each other” — different reasoning, same practical verdict
- שְׂרֵיפָה = Burning — the standard disposal of confirmed-impure teruma; not done in doubt
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of Rav Ashi’s account: Rebbi is one against two, and the practical verdict is permanent suspension.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָוֵה לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּגוֹן זֹאת תּוֹלִין – לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi’s account is now complete. Rebbi (who would burn the susceptible gourd) is left as one against the combined practical agreement of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Chiyya — and one against two does not prevail. The bottom-line verdict expressed by Rabbi Chiyya’s תולין: in a case like this, the gourd is permanently suspended — neither eaten nor burned. A perfectly preserved halachic standoff.
Key Terms:
- כְּגוֹן זֹאת תּוֹלִין = “In a case such as this, we suspend” — the formal Tannaitic verdict in unresolvable doubt
- רַבִּי חַד = “Rebbi is one [against two]” — the standard counting that decides the majority
Segment 12
TYPE: בעיא
Reish Lakish’s new dilemma: does חיבת הקודש produce only susceptibility, or also descending impurity-levels?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: צָרִיד שֶׁל מְנָחוֹת, מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אוֹ אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי? כִּי מַהְנְיָא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאִפְּסוֹלֵי גּוּפֵיהּ, לְמִימְנֵא בֵּיהּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish opens a new sugya with a sharp dilemma about חיבת הקודש (the principle that consecrated items become susceptible to impurity by virtue of their sanctity, without needing a liquid). His test case is צריד של מנחות — a dry portion of meal-offering flour that hasn’t been mixed with oil. Such flour is susceptible to impurity by חיבת הקודש. The question: does that susceptibility just disqualify the flour itself, or does it also generate the full chain of descending impurity-levels (ראשון, שני)?
Key Terms:
- צָרִיד שֶׁל מְנָחוֹת = “A dry portion of meal-offerings” — flour not yet wetted by oil but consecrated as kodashim
- חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ = “Regard for sanctity” — the principle that sacrificial food is susceptible to impurity by its very sanctity
- מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי = “We count first-degree and second-degree from it” — i.e., the impurity propagates onward to other items
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar offers a proof from Vayikra 11:34 — only food touched by water counts in the chain.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְגוֹ׳״ – אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם – הוּכְשַׁר, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּמַיִם – לֹא הוּכְשַׁר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar offers a proof from Vayikra 11:34 — “of all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, it shall be impure.” Only food that has actually touched water is brought into the impurity-chain. By inference, dry flour rendered susceptible only by חיבת הקודש (not by water) is excluded from that chain — its susceptibility is real only for the item itself, not for propagating onward. The dilemma is resolved against Reish Lakish.
Key Terms:
- ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ = “Of all food that may be eaten” (Leviticus 11:34) — the source verse for hekhsher okhlin
- אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם = “Food that has come into contact with water” — the qualifying condition for the full impurity-chain
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara refines Reish Lakish’s question — was חיבת הקודש meant to function exactly like water?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַטּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֵית לֵיהּ אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּאוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defends Reish Lakish from an obvious objection. He knew Rabbi Elazar’s verse perfectly well — his question wasn’t naive. The real dilemma was conceptual: is חיבת הקודש a parallel mechanism to “food that comes into contact with water,” fully equivalent in its effects (so the chain extends), or is it a unique mode of susceptibility that does only what it does — disqualifying the item but not propagating? Rabbi Elazar’s verse alone does not settle that.
Key Terms:
- אַטּוּ… לֵית לֵיהּ = “Is it that he doesn’t know?” — a defense of a sage against a charge of ignorance
- כְּאוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם דָּמֵי = “Like food that has touched water” — the conceptual equation Reish Lakish was testing
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar’s proof refined: it rests on the redundancy between Vayikra 11:34 and 11:38.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר נָמֵי מִיִּתּוּרֵי קְרָאֵי קָאָמַר, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״, ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ לְמָה לִּי?
English Translation:
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)?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar’s proof is actually subtler than it first appeared. He is not just citing the water-verse but pointing to the redundancy: Vayikra 11:38 already says “וכי יתן מים על זרע” — so why does the Torah additionally write 11:34 (“מכל האכל אשר יאכל … אשר יבוא עליו מים”)? The extra verse must be teaching something — namely, to exclude items rendered susceptible by means other than water (like חיבת הקודש) from generating the full impurity-chain. The next amud picks this up.
Key Terms:
- יִתּוּרֵי קְרָאֵי = “Extraneous verses” — the Talmudic principle that a redundant verse must be teaching an additional point
- ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״ = “And when water is placed upon the seed” (Leviticus 11:38) — the parallel hekhsher verse
Amud Bet (36b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar’s “extraneous verse” proof is rejected: the two verses serve two distinct impurity contexts.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ? לָא: חַד בְּטוּמְאַת מֵת וְחַד בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects Rabbi Elazar’s redundancy-based proof. The two verses (Vayikra 11:34 and 11:38) are not actually redundant: one is needed for impurity imparted by a corpse (טומאת מת), the other for impurity imparted by a sheretz (creeping animal). Both impurity-sources require the food first to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids — but neither verse is “extra.” So no inference can be drawn against חיבת הקודש extending the chain.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת מֵת = Impurity imparted by a human corpse — the highest level (אבי אבות הטומאה)
- טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ = Impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal — a primary source (אב הטומאה)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
First half of the necessity-proof: had only מת been taught, we’d think שרץ is too stringent to need הכשר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן טוּמְאַת מֵת – הָתָם הוּא דְּבָעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אֲבָל שֶׁרֶץ דִּמְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara formally demonstrates that both verses are necessary (צריכי). If only the corpse-verse had been written, one would have said: a corpse-portion the size of a lentil (כעדשה) does not defile people or vessels, so corpse-impurity is less stringent — perhaps it requires הכשר. But sheretz, which defiles with a mere lentil-bulk, is more stringent — perhaps that severity bypasses the requirement of הכשר entirely. The Torah needed the sheretz-verse independently.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכִי = “Both [verses] are necessary” — the Talmudic demonstration that neither verse is redundant
- כַּעֲדָשָׁה = “A lentil-bulk” — the minimum-quantity threshold for sheretz to convey impurity
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Mirror half: had only שרץ been taught, we’d think מת’s seven-day impurity is too stringent for הכשר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שֶׁרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, אֲבָל מֵת דִּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה – אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, צְרִיכָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror case completes the צריכותא. Had only the sheretz-verse been written, one would say: sheretz is less stringent because it doesn’t impose the dreaded seven-day impurity, so its requirement of הכשר is plausible. But מת, which does impose שבעת ימים of impurity, might bypass the הכשר requirement entirely. Each verse needed to be stated independently, and neither serves as the “extra” verse Rabbi Elazar wanted for his proof.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה = “Seven-day impurity” — the long impurity period imposed by contact with a corpse
- אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר = “Say it does not require הכשר” — the conjecture each side of the צריכותא is needed to rule out
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Yosef challenges Rabbi Elazar from Rabbi Shimon’s mishna — slaughter-induced הכשר propagates fully.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. הוּכְשְׁרוּ – וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמִימְנֵי בְּהוּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef objects to Rabbi Elazar from Rabbi Shimon’s mishna on 33a. There it says “הוכשרו בשחיטה” — meat is rendered susceptible by slaughter itself, even without blood. The word הוכשרו (in its absolute form) implies full susceptibility: even to count ראשון and שני downstream. But slaughter is not water — so on Rabbi Elazar’s principle the chain should not extend. Apparently susceptibility via non-water means does generate the full chain.
Key Terms:
- רַב יוֹסֵף = A leading Babylonian Amora of the third generation; head of Pumbedita
- לְמִימְנֵי בְּהוּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי = “To count from them ראשון and שני” — the full downstream impurity chain
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye’s solution: slaughter-induced הכשר is only rabbinic, modeled on water by decree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye defends Rabbi Elazar elegantly. Rabbi Shimon’s “הוכשרו בשחיטה” is not Torah-level הכשר but a rabbinic decree: the Sages assigned slaughter the same status as water-הכשר. By Torah law the meat is not even susceptible; the full chain follows from the rabbinic equation. So Rabbi Elazar’s principle holds: only true (water-)הכשר Torah-derives the chain.
Key Terms:
- עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן = “The Sages made it like water-הכשר rabbinically” — Abaye’s recurring move to defuse non-water cases of full susceptibility
- אַבָּיֵי = A leading fourth-generation Babylonian Amora, often paired in dispute with Rava
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Zeira challenges from the Shammai-Hillel grape case — same Abaye answer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, הַבּוֹצֵר לְגַת – שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשַׁר, וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו אוֹכֶל הַבָּא בְּמַיִם הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira presses Rabbi Elazar from another angle: the Shammai-Hillel dispute about “one who harvests grapes for the winepress” (הבוצר לגת). Hillel originally said the grapes are not הוכשר — but in the end Hillel was silent and conceded to Shammai (a famous incident). The juice that seeped from the grapes during harvest renders them susceptible — but the owner did not actively wet them, so it isn’t really “water with intent.” Abaye gives the same answer as before: rabbinic decree, not Torah law.
Key Terms:
- הַבּוֹצֵר לְגַת = “One who harvests grapes for the winepress” — the classic Shammai/Hillel case of involuntary wetting
- שְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי = “Hillel was silent to Shammai” — the rare incident where Hillel conceded mid-debate
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Yosef turns Abaye’s recurring answer back on him — why not apply it to Reish Lakish’s case too?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם, וְאָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי זֵירָא, וַאֲמַרְתְּ לֵיהּ עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ נָמֵי עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef counter-attacks. Abaye keeps deploying the same move — “the Sages decreed it like water-הכשר rabbinically.” But Rav Yosef wonders whether the move can be sustained: should we also say so for Reish Lakish’s dilemma about צריד של מנחות? If חיבת הקודש is also just a rabbinic equation with water, the entire chain of אבל-may-not-eat questions Reish Lakish was wrestling with collapses into a different category.
Key Terms:
- אָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא… וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי = “I said to you… and you said to me” — the rhetorical structure of an internal Talmudic critique
- נָמֵי עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם = “Will you also say [the same]?” — testing the consistency of a recurring solution
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye’s distinction: Reish Lakish was asking about burning — only Torah-level impurity warrants burning.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לִתְלוֹת קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לִשְׂרוֹף.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye’s defense is sharp. Reish Lakish’s dilemma was framed in terms of burning the impure item — not merely suspending it. Burning is the response to Torah-level impurity. If Reish Lakish were only asking about rabbinic-level חיבת הקודש, the question would be about תליה (suspension), not שריפה. The very framing shows חיבת הקודש must be Torah-level — and the recurring “rabbinic” defense is unavailable here.
Key Terms:
- לִתְלוֹת / לִשְׂרוֹף = “To suspend / to burn” — the two different outcomes that distinguish rabbinic from Torah-level impurity
- קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ = “It was his dilemma” — what Reish Lakish was actually asking
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Where is the Torah source for חיבת הקודש being d’Oraita? A first candidate verse is tested.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דְּחִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְנָא לַן? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא״, הַאי בָּשָׂר דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר, בְּמַאי?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having shown that Reish Lakish’s dilemma assumes חיבת הקודש is Torah-level (not rabbinic), the Gemara asks: what is the actual Torah source? A first candidate: the verse “והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא” (Vayikra 7:19) — sacrificial flesh that touched a טמא must be burned. But before this verse can prove anything, we must ask: by what mechanism was this flesh first rendered susceptible to impurity, so that contact with טמא could make it impure?
Key Terms:
- חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = “חיבת הקודש is from the Torah” — i.e., Torah-derived, not merely a rabbinic decree
- ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא״ = “And the flesh that touches any impurity” (Leviticus 7:19) — the candidate source verse
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
First candidate ruled out: sacrificial blood is not מכשיר (per Rabbi Yochanan from Devarim 12:24).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִילֵּימָא דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר בְּדָם, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לְדַם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״ – דָּם הַנִּשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first candidate is ruled out. Could “the flesh that touched טמא” verse be talking about flesh made susceptible by its own blood at slaughter? No: Rabbi Yochanan (via Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba) derived from Devarim 12:24 (“you shall pour it on the earth like water”) that דם קדשים — sacrificial blood, which is dashed on the altar rather than poured on the ground — does not make הכשר at all. So the flesh of a קרבן was not made susceptible by its own slaughter-blood.
Key Terms:
- דַּם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר = “Sacrificial blood that does not make הכשר” — a key principle distinguishing sacrificial from non-sacred blood
- דָּם הַנִּשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם = “Blood that is poured like water” — only ordinary blood, not sacrificial blood
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Second candidate ruled out too: Temple-abattoir liquids in general don’t make הכשר. So it must be חיבת הקודש.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא דְּאִיתַּכְשַׁר בְּמַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא, וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא לֹא דַּיָּין שֶׁהֵן דְּכַן, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין מַכְשִׁירִין, וְכִי תֵּימָא תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַדָּם, וְהָא ״מַשְׁקֵי״ קָאָמַר! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאִתַּכְשַׁר בְּחִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The second candidate — that the flesh was rendered susceptible by general Temple-abattoir liquids — also fails. Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina ruled that משקי בית מטבחיא (Temple-abattoir liquids) are not only pure but also do not make הכשר. One might try to restrict that ruling to blood alone — but Rabbi Yosei explicitly said משקי (plural). So the only remaining mechanism by which the flesh of Vayikra 7:19 was susceptible must be חיבת הקודש — yielding the Torah source Reish Lakish needs.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא = “Liquids of the Temple-abattoir” — fluids generated during sacrificial slaughter; both ritually pure and non-מכשיר
- לֹא דַּיָּין שֶׁהֵן דְּכַן = “Not only are they pure” — a formula highlighting that the leniency extends further
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
A third escape route: Rav Yehuda/Shmuel’s case of a cow passed through a river right before slaughter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְהֶעֱבִירָהּ בַּנַּחַל, שְׁחָטָהּ וַעֲדַיִין מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ עָלֶיהָ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises one more escape route, drawing on a teaching by Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. Perhaps the verse is talking about a specific case: someone owned a cow designated as a peace offering (a שלמים — where the owner gets to eat the meat and use the hide). To improve the quality of the meat and hide, he walked the cow through a river right before slaughter, and slaughtered it while it was still dripping wet. The water on the animal made הכשר in the standard, water-based way — no need to invoke חיבת הקודש.
Key Terms:
- זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים = Peace-offerings — sacrifices whose meat is shared between owner and altar
- מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ עָלֶיהָ = “Liquid still dripping on it” — the minimum amount of moisture sufficient to make הכשר
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
The decisive proof: the verse extends to wood and frankincense — inedible items rendered like food only by חיבת הקודש.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״, לְרַבּוֹת עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה. עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשְׁרָא לְהוּ, וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ אוֹכֶל. הָכָא נָמֵי, חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The decisive proof — and the daf’s conclusion. The verse Vayikra 7:19 says “והבשר” twice, and the repetition serves to include consecrated wood and frankincense (used on the altar) — items that can be disqualified by impurity even though they are inedible. Wood and frankincense cannot be made susceptible by water (they are not food at all). The only mechanism that brings them into the impurity-system is חיבת הקודש, which “renders them like food.” This forces the conclusion: חיבת הקודש is Torah-level, and Reish Lakish was right to ask about burning.
Key Terms:
- עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה = Wood and frankincense — non-food sacrificial items brought into the impurity system through חיבת הקודש
- מְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ אוֹכֶל = “It renders them like food” — חיבת הקודש grants non-food sacred items the halachic standing of food for purity purposes