It could enter your mind to say: Since benefit from disqualified consecrated animals is forbidden with regard to their fleece and labor, perhaps benefit from their blood is also forbidden, and let it require burial. Therefore, the verse teaches us that benefit from their blood is permitted.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “And drinks the blood of carcasses,” from which it is derived that the blood of an animal that was killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity, serves to exclude blood that emerges in a surge due to arterial pressure at the moment of slaughter while the animal is still alive that does not render seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters an animal and splashed blood of the slaughter on a gourd of teruma, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Ḥiyya says: If the gourd came into contact with a source of impurity, one places the matter in abeyance, as there is uncertainty whether the blood rendered it susceptible to impurity.

Rabbi Oshaya said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the gourd is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and Rabbi Ḥiyya says that one places the matter in abeyance, on whom shall we rely? Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon would say: It is slaughter that renders the animal susceptible, and not blood.

Rav Pappa said in explanation: Everyone, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya, agrees that where there is blood on the gourd throughout the slaughter continuously from beginning to end, everyone, both Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: Slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: Slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, agrees that the blood renders the gourd susceptible to impurity, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. When they disagree is in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd between the cutting of one siman and the other siman. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the gourd is blood of slaughter.

Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and this is blood of a wound, which does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. And what is the meaning of the ruling of Rabbi Ḥiyya that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that one places the matter in abeyance until the conclusion of the slaughter. If there is blood remaining on the gourd at the conclusion of the slaughter the blood renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, and if not, the blood does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi Ḥiyya the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara answers that in a case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of slaughter, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Ḥiyya correspond to each other: One Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and the other Sage holds that the blood of slaughter does not render the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity. The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages.

Rav Ashi said that the term: One places the matter in abeyance, indicates that it remains in abeyance forever. It is a fundamental halakhic uncertainty for which there is no resolution. And in the case where the blood is wiped off the gourd prior to the conclusion of the slaughter, the halakha is unclear. This is because Rabbi Ḥiyya is uncertain whether slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance or whether slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance. And what is the meaning of his ruling that one places the matter in abeyance? It means that if a source of impurity comes into contact with the gourd after the blood was wiped off the gourd, one may neither eat the gourd, as perhaps it is impure teruma, nor may one burn it, as perhaps it is pure.

The Gemara asks: And according to this explanation, what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Oshaya: Come and let us rely on the statement of Rabbi Shimon? According to Rabbi Shimon the blood of slaughter does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, while according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, there is uncertainty with regard to the status of the gourd. The Gemara answers that with regard to the matter of burning, in any event, the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Ḥiyya correspond to each other: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, does not burn the gourd, because it was not rendered susceptible to impurity, and the other Sage, Rabbi Ḥiyya, does not burn the gourd, due to the uncertainty.

The result is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one burns the gourd since the blood of slaughter renders the gourd susceptible to ritual impurity and contact with a source of impurity renders it impure, is one Sage stating an individual opinion, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is disputed by two Sages. And this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya is saying: In a case such as this, one places the matter in abeyance; one may neither eat the gourd nor burn it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises a dilemma: With regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, does one count the descending levels of impurity characteristic of other foods that come into contact with a primary source of impurity, i.e., that food assumes first-degree impurity, and food that comes into contact with that food assumes second-degree impurity; or does one not count the descending levels of first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity? The Gemara elaborates: When regard for sanctity is effective in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it effective 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 once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there is no difference whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids.

Rabbi Elazar said: Come and hear proof from a baraita. It is written: “Of all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, it shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk it shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). From that verse it is derived: Food that comes into contact with water is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity and to count the descending levels of impurity, but food that does not come into contact with water is not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Apparently, for the dry portion of flour that did not come into contact with a liquid but was rendered susceptible by regard for sanctity, one does not count the descending levels of impurity.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish does not have knowledge of the halakha that only food that comes into contact with water is susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: This is the dilemma that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is raising: Is the halakhic status of consecrated food that is subject to regard for sanctity like that of food that comes into contact with water, and one does not count the descending levels of impurity for items that come into contact with it, or no, its halakhic status is unique?

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar, who cited the verse to resolve the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, is not merely citing a verse that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish knows. Rather, he too is stating his proof from the extraneous formulation of the verses. Since it is written: “But when water is placed upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), why do I need the verse: “Of all food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34)?