Talmud Bavli Hullin 35a-b - translation by Tzvee

B.            He said to him, “Put aside [the objection from] the pottage of heave-offering [with food unclean in the third remove mixed in it]. [35a] For in that mixture there is not an olive's bulk [of heave-offering] in the portion that he will eat in the time it takes to eat half-a-loaf of bread. [That is, he will not consume the minimum in the specified time.]”

II.4

A.            Said R. Jonathan, said Rabbi, “He who eats heave-offering itself unclean in the third remove, he is forbidden to eat [thereafter any heave-offering] but he is permitted to come in contact with it.”

B.            And it is necessary to teach both the rule of Ulla [II.2 A] and that of R. Jonathan. For if we had only Ulla's rule I would have reasoned these matters pertain only to unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering. But as to heave-offering itself, it would render unclean even through contact. We needed therefore the rule of R. Jonathan.

C.            And if we had only R. Jonathan's rule I would have reasoned these matters pertain only to heave-offering [itself unclean in the third remove] but unconsecrated things [prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering] he is even permitted to eat. We need both rules.

II.5

A.            R. Yitzhak bar Samuel bar Marta sat before R. Nahman and he sat and said, “He who eats foods unclean in the third remove of unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things, he is deemed clean enough to eat consecrated things. For there is no such thing as a fourth remove of uncleanness in consecrated things [in such an instance] but only in [uncleanness transmitted] from consecrated foods [themselves] to other consecrated foods [but not from unconsecrated foods prepared as if they were consecrated].”

B.            Rami bar Hama objected: [Above at II.2 A we learned], [One who is unclean] in the third remove is deemed to be unclean in the second remove with regard to consecrated things and not deemed unclean in the second remove with regard to heave-offering. This pertains to unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions appropriate to heave-offering. Now why is this the case? This is not an instance of consecrated foods [themselves] transmitting to other consecrated foods.

C.            He said to him, “Leave aside the issue of heave-offering. Because what is deemed clean for it is deemed unclean for consecrated things.”

D.            And based on what source do I make this assertion? For it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, The clothing of ordinary folk is in the status of midras uncleanness for abstainers [who eat unconsecrated food in a state of cultic cleanness]. The clothing of abstainers is in the status of midras uncleanness for those who eat heave-offering [priests]. The clothing of those who eat heave-offering is in the status of midras uncleanness for those who eat Holy Things [officiating priests] [M. Hag. 2:7 A-C].

E.            Said Raba, “You speak of midras uncleanness. Midras uncleanness is subject to a different rule. [35b] [For clothing we fear] lest his wife will sit upon them while she is menstruating. But for produce we do not say [this is a concern].” But R. Yitzhak [says] that we say this is a concern also for produce [lest it become unclean].

F.             R. Jeremiah of Difti objected: and do we say this [is also a concern] for produce? But lo it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, If he said to him [i.e, if the am ha'ares tells the priest regarding a jug of heave-offering], “I set apart in this jug of wine a quarter-log which is in the status of Holy Things,” then he is deemed trustworthy [and the jug is accepted] [M. Hag. 3:4 E]. And this heave-offering would not render unclean consecrated [wine if they became mixed].

G.            And if you say that even when in a state of cleanness this [produce of heave-offering] should be deemed unclean vis à vis consecrated foods, this heave-offering should render unclean the consecrated [produce that it mixes with].

H.           He said to him, “You speak of a case where the unclean produce is connected [with the clean produce]. And [the rule] is different for unclean produce connected [with clean produce]. [We apply the principle of overlapping credibility.] Since he is credible in what he says regarding the consecrated produce [in the mixture] he is credible also regarding the heave-offering [in the mixture].”

II.6

A.            R. Huna bar Nathan objected: Unconsecrated food: in the second remove renders unconsecrated liquid unclean and renders foods of heave-offering unfit. Heave-offering: at the third remove renders unclean liquid of Holy Things and renders unfit foods of Holy Things, if it [the heave-offering] was prepared in conditions of cleanness pertaining to Holy Things [M. Toh. 2:6 A]. [This contradicts Yitzhak.]

B.            This is a Tannaite dispute. [Yitzhak has the support of one of the disputants, Eleazar b. Zadok]. As it was taught on Tannaite authority, Unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate for consecrated things, lo they are like unconsecrated things. R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok says, “Lo they are like heave-offering. They render unclean at two removes and they render unfit at one additional remove.”

III.1

A.            R. Simeon says, “They are rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the act of slaughter itself [M. 2:5 E].” Said R. Assi, R. Simeon used to say, “The act of slaughter renders it susceptible to uncleanness and not the presence of blood.”

B.            Let us say that this supports him. R. Simeon says, “They are rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the act of slaughter itself.” What does this mean? Through the act of slaughter but not because of the blood? No, it means even through the act of slaughter [without the presence of blood].

C.            Come and take note: Said to them R. Simeon, “And does the presence of blood render it susceptible to uncleanness? The act of slaughter itself renders it susceptible.” This is what he said to them, “And does the blood alone render it susceptible? Even the act of slaughter [itself] also renders it susceptible.”

D.            Come and take note: R. Simeon says, “The blood of the corpse [Rashi: of an animal; Tosafot: of a human] does not render [produce] susceptible to uncleanness. What then [does this imply]? Lo the blood of an act of slaughter does render susceptible. No, lo, [it means] the blood of a killed animal renders susceptible. But what of the blood from an act of slaughter? Does it not render susceptible? Then he [Simeon] should have taught us the rule for blood from an act of slaughter and surely [we would have known to deduce the rule for] the blood from a killed animal. But you need to state the rule for the blood of a killed animal. For you might have thought it makes sense to say that what difference does it make whether he killed it [through an act of slaughter] or the angel of death killed it? It comes to make the novel point.

E.            Come and take note: R. Simeon says, “The blood from a wound does not render susceptible to uncleanness. What then? Does it not imply that blood from a slaughtered animal renders susceptible? No, blood from a killed animal renders susceptible. But what about blood from an act of slaughter? Does it not render susceptible? Then he [Simeon] should have taught us the rule for blood from an act of slaughter and surely [we would have known to deduce the rule for] the blood from a wound. But you need to state the rule for the blood from a wound. For you might have thought it makes sense to say that what difference does it make whether he killed the animal entirely or whether he killed it partially [i.e., wounded it]? [It comes to make the novel point.]”

F.             And what is the difference that blood from a killed animal should render susceptible to uncleanness? As it is written, “[Behold, a people! As a lioness it rises up and as a lion it lifts itself; it does not lie down till it devours the prey], and drinks the blood of the slain” (Num. 23:24) [indicating that it is a liquid and can render susceptible]. But with regard to the blood of an act of slaughter it is also written, “[Only you shall not eat the blood]; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water” (Deut. 12:16) [indicating that it is poured like water]. This one [last verse] comes to permit for us the use of the blood of those sacrifices that become unfit.