Chullin 35

Today’s daf takes us back to a mishnah from Chullin 33a and, in particular, the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Here’s the mishnah:

In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them during the slaughter, all of these are permitted for consumption and do not require the ritual washing of the hands as they may be eaten with ritually impure hands, because they were not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with blood (which is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity). 

Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself.

Leviticus 11:34 states that food that comes into contact with water becomes impure. The rabbis understand “water” to mean one of seven liquids, also including wine, oil, milk, honey, dew, and blood. And they understand the verse to mean that food that comes in contact with any of these liquids is not necessarily impure, but it does become susceptible to impurity.

Normally, when an animal is slaughtered, blood pours out. According to the majority position in this mishnah, the blood pouring out renders the meat susceptible to impurity because blood is one of these seven liquids. In the unusual situation that blood does not pour forth at the time of slaughter, the rabbis hold that the meat of the animal is not rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon demurs — for him, the slaughter itself renders the meat susceptible to impurity, even if no blood emerges. 

The Talmud on today’s daf attempts to suss out what exactly is behind Rabbi Shimon’s approach. Rav Asi makes a statement that drives the discussion:

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Shimon would say: It is its slaughter that renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, and not the blood.

This is subtle but important. Rav Asi is saying that Rabbi Shimon’s approach is all-or-nothing: It is only slaughter that renders an animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Contra the majority of his colleagues, Rabbi Shimon holds that blood, even when it pours out freely upon slaughter, never renders the meat susceptible to impurity. This is different from another possible interpretation of Rabbi Shimon’s view: That both blood and slaughter render a slaughtered animal susceptible to impurity.

Assuming we accept Rav Asi’s interpretation of Rabbi Shimon’s view, what is the practical difference between Rabbi Shimon and his colleagues? Rashi provides a helpful example: Suppose blood of a slaughtered animal fell onto some seeds. According to Rav Asi’s interpretation of Rabbi Shimon, those seeds would not become susceptible to impurity. His colleagues, on the other hand, say those seeds would be rendered susceptible to impurity. If we don’t accept Rav Asi’s interpretation, all would agree that the seeds are now susceptible to impurity. This means that how we interpret Rabbi Shimon has practical implications.

The Talmud goes back and forth about whether or not we can prove Rav Asi’s all-or-nothing interpretation of Rabbi Shimon to be correct. The discussion hinges on quotes from Rabbi Shimon himself. For example:

Come and hear a beraita in 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? 

At first glance, this appears to be a slam-dunk proof. Rabbi Shimon appears outraged that blood could render something susceptible to ritual impurity. It is the slaughter that does that! The Talmud, though, rejects this too-good-to-be-true proof:

This is what Rabbi Shimon is (actually) saying to the rabbis: Is it blood alone that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? Slaughter too renders it susceptible.

Perhaps, muses the Gemara, Rabbi Shimon means to say that it isn’t only blood that can render something susceptible to ritual impurity. Slaughter can do that as well. 

This continues for a while. Another quote from Rabbi Shimon is brought to prove Rav Asi’s interpretation, and ultimately rejected. Then more quotes from Rabbi Shimon are brought to disprove Rav Asi’s interpretation, and those are also rejected. 

So where do we land? The Gemara ultimately decides that Rabbi Shimon’s position is as follows: A slain animal’s blood renders items susceptible to ritual impurity, but a slaughtered animal’s blood does not. Note that slain here does not mean ritually slaughtered — it means killed in another way. No other type of blood, neither blood from a wound nor blood from ritual slaughter, renders it susceptible to impurity.

Some of these pages of the Talmud can be difficult to fully understand, since the laws of ritual purity and impurity feel so foreign to the way we live our lives. We don’t think so much about whether or not our ritual status means we can, for instance, eat sacrificial meat or not. These discussions do, however, offer us a tantalizing glimpse into this part of the rabbinic world in which purity and impurity are real concerns that pervade everyday life, and operate according to a complex set of rules.

Read all of Chullin 35 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 4, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.