Chullin 36

The Gemara has recently detoured into a lengthy discussion regarding impurity in food items. And, as we’ve already seen, it gets complicated quickly.

Here’s a concept that’s helpful for understanding today’s daf and purity rules in general: descending levels of impurity. There are certain items that are considered an av hatumah, literally a “father of impurity.” These items cause other items to become impure through contact or proximity (depending on the items in question). An item that contracts impurity from an av hatumah is rishon letumah, an item with first-degree impurity. This is a slightly lower level of impurity than av hatumah. An item that comes into contact with a rishon letumah typically becomes sheni letumah, an item with second-degree impurity — another notch down the scale. And so forth. Each descending level of impurity is “weaker” — which is to say, it has overall less ability to convey impurity to other objects. But the details always matter: Circumstances of contagion vary greatly depending on the objects involved and the nature of the contact. 

The discussion on today’s daf concerns non-sanctified food, which includes chullin (meat obtained through kosher slaughter), which is generally not capable of contracting third-degree impurity. That is, if it comes in contact with an object that is sheni letumah, in a state of second degree impurity, it is not affected. Reish Lakish asks:

A dry portion of consecrated flour of meal offerings, does one count (from it) first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity? Or does one not count first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity? 

We learned recently that food must come into contact with a liquid to be susceptible to impurity. Reish Lakish is talking specifically about the flour of a meal offering that has not come into contact with oil — and therefore, we might expect, is not susceptible to impurity. But the rules are different for sacred foods.

A few pages ago we encountered the notion of chibat hakodesh, regard for sanctity. The idea is that even though most foods which have not come into contact with liquid cannot receive impurity, dry sacred items are capable of receiving impurity even when dry, because we are more stringent on account of their sanctity. 

But how “much” impurity? Reish Lakish wonders whether dry flour of a meal offering that comes into contact with a source of impurity is simply rendered impure itself, or if it is then capable of transferring that impurity to other objects. The Gemara elaborates: 

When regard for sanctity is effective (in rendering an item susceptible to impurity), is it 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 there is no difference (whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids).

So Reish Lakish’s question is this: Are dry sacred items, like flour set aside for a grain offering, just like wet chullin in terms of contraction of impurity? Or do they operate by a different set of rules?

This leads to an extensive discussion. In the end, the Gemara comes away with no answer for Reish Lakish’s dilemma. The response is teyku — we don’t know. Though everyone agrees on the principle that sacred items are held to a higher standard in matters of purity, they can’t definitively determine whether this means treating them identically to any other item susceptible to impurity, or treating them as a case unto themselves.

Read all of Chullin 36 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 5, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.