1) “CHULIN” TREATED LIKE “TERUMAH” OR “KODESH”

(a) (R. Yonason): If one eats Terumah that is a Shelishi, he becomes disqualified to eat Terumah, but may touch it.
(b) We must hear both laws (Ula’s and R. Yonason’s).
1. If we only heard Ula’s law, one might have thought, one who eats a Shelishi of Chulin Al Taharas Terumah becomes disqualified to eat Terumah, but he may touch it, but one who eats a Shelishi of Terumah may not even touch Terumah;
2. If we only heard R. Yonason’s law, one might have thought that one who eats a Shelishi of Terumah is disqualified to eat Terumah, but one who eats such Chulin Al Taharas Terumah may eat it.
(c) (R. Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa): If one eats a Shelishi of Chulin Al Taharas Kodesh, he is allowed to eat Kodesh, for a Revi’i (fourth-degree) l’Tumah of Kodesh can only come from a Shelishi of Kodesh.
(d) Question (Rami bar Chama – Mishnah): If one eats a Shelishi of Chulin Al Taharas Terumah, he becomes a Sheni regarding Kodesh, but not regarding Terumah.
1. Even though this Shelishi is not Kodesh, it disqualifies (a person regarding) Kodesh!
(e) Answer (R. Yitzchak): That is because Terumah, even Tehorah, is considered Teme’ah regarding Kodesh!
1. (Mishnah): The clothes of a ignoramus are Metamei a Parush (someone who eats Chulin in Taharah); the clothes of a Parush are Metamei someone who eats Terumah; the clothes of one who eats Terumah are Metamei someone who eats Kodesh.
(f) Objection (Rava): One cannot bring a proof from clothing – there, we are considered lest his wife sat on his clothing when she was Nidah, but we have no such concern about produce!
35b—————————————35b

(g) R. Yitzchak holds that the same stringencies apply to produce.
(h) Question (R. Yirmeyah mi’Difti): We do not have such stringencies by produce!
1. (Mishnah): If an ignoramus says ‘I put a Revi’is of Kodesh in this vessel’, he is also believed about Terumah in the vessel (that it is Tahor).
2. We do not say that the ignoramus’ Terumah is considered Teme’ah, and it makes the Kodesh Tamei – this refutes R. Yitzchak!
(i) Answer (R. Yitzchak): The law is different when both are in the same vessel – since he is believed about the Kodesh, he is also believed about the Terumah.
(j) Question (Rav Huna bar Noson – Mishnah): A Sheni of Chulin is Metamei Chulin liquids (makes them Rishonim), and is Posel Terumah (solid) foods; a Shelishi (of Chulin Al Taharas Kodesh) is Metamei liquids of Kodesh, and is Posel Kodesh foods.
(k) Answer: Tana’im argue about R. Yitzchak’s law (he holds like Chachamim).
1. (Beraisa): Chulin Al Taharas Kodesh has the law of regular Chulin;
2. R. Eliezer b’Rebbi Tzadok says, it is like Terumah – it is Metamei two Kodesh foods (i.e. if it touched one, and that food touched a second Kodesh food), and is Posel a third (if the third food touches the second).
2) IS BLOOD “MACHSHIR”
(a) (Mishnah): R. Shimon says, the meat is Huchshar (prepared to become Tamei) on account of the slaughter.
(b) (Rav Asi): R. Shimon holds that slaughter is Machshir, blood is not.
(c) Suggestion: The Mishnah supports Rav Asi.
1. (Mishnah – R. Shimon): The meat is Huchshar due to the slaughter.
2. (Inference: Slaughter is Machshir the meat, but blood would not.
(d) Rejection: No – he means, even slaughter can Machshir the meat.
(e) Support (Beraisa – R. Shimon to Chachamim): Blood does not Machshir, slaughter does!
(f) Rejection: He means, not only blood is Machshir, also slaughter is!
(g) (Beraisa – R. Shimon): Blood of a dead animal (Rashi; Tosfos – person) is not Machshir.
1. Suggestion: We infer, but blood of slaughter is Machshir!
2. Rejection: No – rather, we infer that blood of a corpse (that was killed) is Machshir.
3. Question: If blood of slaughter is not Machshir, the Beraisa should teach this, we would know that all the more so, blood of a dead body is not Machshir!
4. Answer: It had to teach about a dead body – if not, we might have thought that there is no difference if it died naturally or was killed.
(h) (Beraisa – R. Shimon): Blood from a wound (Rashi – of an animal; Tosfos – of a person) is not Machshir.
1. Suggestion: We infer, but blood of slaughter is Machshir!
2. Rejection: No – rather, we infer that blood of a corpse (that was killed) is Machshir.
3. Question: If blood of slaughter is not Machshir, the Beraisa should teach this, all the more so blood of a wound is not Machshir!
4. Answer: It had to teach about a wound – if not, we might have thought that there is no difference if it died fully or partially (i.e. was only wounded).
(i) Question: Why would R. Shimon say that blood of a corpse is Machshir, but not blood of slaughter?
1. Just like a verse teaches that blood of a corpse is considered a drink – “He will drink the blood of corpses” – also, a verse teaches that blood of slaughter is a drink!
i. “You will pour (the blood) on the ground like water” – this equates blood to water!
(j) Answer: No, that verse teaches that just like one may benefit from water, also from blood of blemished Korbanos;
1. One might have thought, just like one may not shear or work with blemished Korbanos, also one may not benefit from their blood – the verse teaches, this is not so.