G. [36a] You might have thought that it makes sense to say that since they are prohibited in the use of their shearings and in working with them, their blood must be buried [and not used for any benefit]; it makes the novel point [that you may use the blood].
III.2
A. It was taught by the House of R. Ishmael: “And drinks the blood of the slain” (Num. 23:24) — this excludes the blood that spurts out [at the time of slaughter] for it does not render seeds susceptible to uncleanness.
B. Our rabbis taught: He who slaughters and spurts blood on the gourd [of heave-offering] — Rabbi says, “It is rendered susceptible to uncleanness.” R. Hiyya says, “We suspend judgment.”
C. Said R. Oshaia, “After [we have this dispute where] Rabbi says, `It is rendered susceptible to uncleanness' and R. Hiyya says, `We suspend judgment,' on whom should we rely? Come and let us rely on the words of R. Simeon.”
D. For R. Simeon used to say, “The act of slaughter renders it susceptible to uncleanness and not [the presence of] the blood.”
E. Said R. Pappa, “All agree where there is blood present [on the gourd] from the beginning to the end, no one disputes that it renders it susceptible to uncleanness. Where do they dispute? [In the case] where the blood was wiped off between [the slaughter of] one organ and the other.”
F. Rabbi would reason, “We call it `slaughtering' from the start to the finish.” And this blood [on the gourd] derives from an act of slaughtering. R. Hiyya would reason, “We do not call it `slaughtering' until the finish [of the act].” And this blood derives from a wound. [Cf. M. 2:1 X.1 A, b. ul. 29b, above.]
G. And what does it mean, “We suspend judgment?” We suspend judgment of the matter until the completion of the act of slaughter. If there is blood [on the gourd] at the end of the act of slaughter, then it renders it susceptible to uncleanness. And if there is no [blood on the gourd at the end of the act of slaughter] it does not render it susceptible.
H. And what does it mean, “Come and let us rely on the words of R. Simeon?” [There remains a difference of views.] According to the view of R. Simeon [the blood] does not render it susceptible. According to the view of R. Hiyya it does render it susceptible.
I. [In a case] where he wiped [the blood off the gourd] in any case they are in agreement. This master says it does not render it susceptible and this master says it does not render it susceptible. And Rabbi is the single [authority who does not agree]. And the view of a single authority does not [stand up] in the presence of two [dissenting views].
J. R. Ashi says, “We suspend judgment” implies that [they suspend it] forever. [And] where they wiped [the blood off the gourd] according to R. Hiyya he is in doubt whether, “We call it `slaughtering' from the start to the finish” or “We do not call it `slaughtering' until the finish [of the act].”
K. And what does it mean, “We suspend judgment?” We do not eat it and we do not burn it [as unclean heave-offering].
L. And what does it mean, “Come and let us rely on the words of R. Simeon?” [There remains a difference of views.] According to the view of R. Simeon [the blood] does not render it susceptible. According to the view of R. Hiyya we have a doubt.
M. As far as burning it they are in agreement. This master says they do not burn it. And this master says they do not burn it. And Rabbi is the single [authority who does not agree]. And the view of a single authority does not [stand up] in the presence of two [dissenting views].
N. So this is how you should state matters: In a case like this we suspend judgment. We do not eat it and we do not burn it. [Rashi: omit this last paragraph.]
III.3
A. R. Simeon b. Laqish posed the question: The dry part of a meal-offering — [if it becomes unclean] do they reckon for it [the ability to transmit uncleanness] of the first [remove] and second [remove] or do they not reckon for it [uncleanness] of the first [remove] and second [remove]? Does the veneration due sancta [enable the offering] itself to become invalid, but [we should] not reckon for it [the ability to transmit uncleanness] in the first or second degree? Or does it make no difference?
B. Said R. Eleazar, “Come and take note. `Any food in it which may be eaten, upon which water may come, shall be unclean; and all drink which may be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean' (Lev. 11:34). [This makes it clear that:] Food that comes into contact with water is rendered susceptible to uncleanness. Food that does not come into contact with water does not become susceptible to uncleanness.
C. Is it possible that R. Simeon b. Laqish does not hold [the principle of] “food that comes into contact with water?”
D. R. Simeon b. Laqish here is how he posed the question. [Does] the veneration due sancta [render foods susceptible to uncleanness] like “food that comes into contact with water” or not?
E. R. Eleazar also stated [an answer to this question] based on an extra verse in Scripture. Since it is written, “But if water is put on the seed and any part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you” (Lev. 11:38). Why then do I need [the other verse], “Any food in it which may be eaten, upon which water may come, shall be unclean; and all drink which may be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean” (Lev. 11:34)?
F. [36b] Is it not to specify [rendering susceptible by virtue of] the veneration due sancta [is not identical to rendering food susceptible by coming into actual contact with water]?
G. No. One verse refers to corpse-uncleanness and one verse refers to dead creature-uncleanness. And it is necessary to teach both. For if I had heard only about [the need for water to render food susceptible to] corpse-uncleanness, [I might have supposed that] there you need to render it susceptible because [a bit of corpse-matter] does not render unclean in as little as a lentil's bulk. But a [bit of matter from a] dead creature does render unclean in the size of a lentil's bulk [and so because it is a different form of uncleanness] it would make sense to say that you do not need to render [food] susceptible [for it to have the capacity to render it unclean].
H. And if I had heard only about [the need for water to render food susceptible to] dead creature-uncleanness [I might have supposed that there you need to render it susceptible] because [contact with a bit of dead creature-matter] does not render a person unclean for seven days. But [a bit of] corpse-matter renders [a person who comes in contact with it] unclean for seven days [and so because it is a different form of uncleanness] it would make sense to say that you do not need to render [food] susceptible [for it to have the capacity to render it unclean]. We need both verses.
III.4
A. R. Joseph objected: R. Simeon says, “They are rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the act of slaughter itself [M. 2:5 E].” “They are rendered susceptible” and even to reckon for it [uncleanness] of the first [remove] and second [remove]. Why is this the case? It is not a food that has come into contact with water.
B. Said to him Abayye, “They considered it as if [the presence of the blood] had rendered it susceptible with water on the authority of the rabbis.”
III.5
A. Said R. Zira, Come and take note: He who gathered grapes for the wine-press — Shammai says, “They are rendered susceptible.” Hillel says, “They are not rendered susceptible.”And Hillel silently accepted the view of Shammai.
B. And why is this the case? Lo [the grapes] are not food that has come into contact with water.
C. Said to him Abayye, “They considered it as if [the presence of juice] had rendered it susceptible with water on the authority of the rabbis.”
D. Said to him R. Joseph, “When I brought up [our Mishnah, above at III.4], They are rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the act of slaughter itself [M. 2:5 E], and you said to me, `They considered it as if [the liquid] had rendered it susceptible,' and R. Zira said to you [his piece] and you said to him, `They considered it as if [the liquid] had rendered it susceptible' then according to R. Simeon b. Laqish also [in III.3, regarding the dry part of a meal-offering, why not say], `They considered it as if [the veneration due sancta] had rendered it susceptible?'”
E. He said to him, “Do you think R. Simeon b. Laqish posed a question about suspending judgment [regarding its uncleanness on the basis of a rabbinic injunction regarding this meal-offering]? He posed a question about whether to burn it [because of its uncleanness on the authority of the Torah].”
F. In general what is the source of our assertion that veneration due sancta renders foods susceptible to uncleanness on the authority of the Torah?
G. If you say it is that which is written, “Flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten; [it shall be burned with fire. All who are clean may eat flesh]” (Lev. 7:19). This flesh, how is it rendered susceptible [to uncleanness]? If you say it is rendered susceptible with blood, lo, said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, “Based on what do we say that the blood of a consecrated thing does not [alone] render it susceptible? As it says, `[Only you shall not eat the blood]; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water' (Deut. 12:16).” Blood that flows like water, renders objects susceptible [to uncleanness]. Blood that does not flow like water, does not render objects susceptible [to uncleanness] [M. 2:5 I.1 D].
H. Rather it must be that it was rendered susceptible with the liquids from the slaughterhouse. But lo, said R. Yosé b. R. Hanina, “The liquids in the slaughterhouse are not only pure themselves, but they also do not render food susceptible to uncleanness.”
I. And if you wish to say that you must interpret [that Yosé b. Hanina] refers to blood [only], lo, he says `liquids'. Rather must it not then be that it was rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the veneration due sancta? And perhaps this accords with what R. Judah said in the name of Samuel.
J. For said R. Judah in the name of Samuel, “For instance: he had a cow from among the peace-offerings and he took her through the stream. He slaughtered her while she was still dripping wet.”
K. Rather let us consider the end of the text, “Flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten; [it shall be burned with fire. All who are clean may eat flesh]” (Lev. 7:19). This serves to subsume under the rule [of susceptibility to uncleanness] the wood and the frankincense. Now are the wood and the frankincense foods [that they be susceptible to the uncleanness of foods]? Rather, the veneration due sancta renders them susceptible to uncleanness and makes them like `food.'
L. Here too the veneration due sancta renders it [the cow and other consecrated things] susceptible to uncleanness.
No comments:
Post a Comment