Is it not to exclude items rendered susceptible to impurity due to regard for sanctity? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, both verses teach that food becomes impure only after it is rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids. One verse is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse, and one verse is referring to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal.

And both verses are necessary, as had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, one would have concluded that it is there that food requires being rendered susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a corpse is less stringent, as a portion of a corpse the size of a lentil-bulk does not render people or vessels impure. But in the case of impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, which is more stringent, as the creeping animal renders people or vessels impure with a portion of it the size of a lentil-bulk, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure.

And had the Torah taught us the requirement of being rendered susceptible to impurity only with regard to impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, one would have concluded that it is there that food must be rendered susceptible to impurity, due to the fact that the impurity imparted by a creeping animal is less stringent, as a creeping animal does not render people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days. But with regard to a corpse, which renders people or vessels impure with impurity that lasts seven days, say that food does not require to be rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids in order to become impure from it. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to teach both verses.

Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna (33a) to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion that only with regard to food rendered susceptible by one of the seven liquids does one count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity: Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rabbi Shimon is saying they were rendered susceptible in every sense, and even to count the descending levels of impurity, first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity.

Why is the animal rendered susceptible to impurity in every sense; but the slaughtered animal is not food that comes into contact with water? Apparently, even items that did not come into contact with water are susceptible to impurity in every sense. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Rabbi Shimon holds that it is not susceptible by Torah law. Rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law.

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the winepress, Shammai says: The grapes are rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the liquid that seeps from them, and Hillel says: They are not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity; and ultimately, Hillel was silent and did not respond to Shammai, accepting his opinion. Why does that liquid render the grapes susceptible to impurity; but the grapes are not food that comes into contact with water? Contact with liquid renders food susceptible to impurity only if the contact was with the intent of the owner, and here, the liquid did not seep out of the grapes of one’s own volition. Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: Hillel does not hold that the grapes are susceptible by Torah law; rather, the Sages accorded susceptibility via the liquid a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I said to you an objection from the statement of Rabbi Shimon: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself, and you said to me: It was the Sages who accorded susceptibility via slaughter of the animal a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. And Rabbi Zeira said to you an objection from the case of one who harvests grapes, and you said to him: It is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the liquid from the grapes a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water. If so, will you also say in response to the dilemma of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to a dry portion of consecrated flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings that it is the Sages who accorded susceptibility via the regard for sanctity of the flour a status like that of susceptibility rendered by means of water, by rabbinic law, to count the descending levels of impurity, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity?

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was raising a dilemma with regard to placing the matter in abeyance, and one may neither eat the consecrated flour nor may one burn it, which would be the case for impurity by rabbinic law? When Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raises the dilemma it is with regard to whether to burn the gourd, which is the case when the impurity is by Torah law.

The Gemara notes that it may be learned by inference that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that regard for sanctity renders sacred items subject to ritual impurity by Torah law, as his dilemma was limited to whether one counts the descending levels of impurity from those susceptible items, i.e., first-degree impurity, second-degree impurity, not the impurity of the sacred item itself. From where do we derive this halakha? If we say that it is derived from that which is written: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 7:19), then it must be ascertained: This flesh that was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, by what means was it rendered susceptible?

If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by means of the blood of the animal, this is difficult. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived with regard to blood of sacrificial animals that it does not render food susceptible to impurity? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood of a non-sacred animal, which is poured like water when it is slaughtered, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, blood of a sacrificial animal, which is not poured like water but is presented on the altar, does not render food susceptible to impurity.

Rather, perhaps say that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the liquids of the Temple abattoir. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say: With regard to the liquids of the Temple abattoir, not only are they ritually pure, but they do not even render food susceptible to impurity. And if you would say that one should explain the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as referring exclusively to blood, and the other liquids render food susceptible, but doesn’t he say: Liquids, in the plural? Rather, is it not that the flesh was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity via regard for sanctity?

The Gemara responds: And perhaps the verse can be explained in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The verse is referring to a case where one had a cow that was to be sacrificed as a peace offering, and since the owner is entitled to the meat and the hide of the animal, in order to improve their quality he conveyed it through the river and slaughtered the animal while the liquid was still upon it and the animal was damp. That liquid rendered the meat susceptible to impurity.

Rather the proof is from the latter portion of that verse: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And the flesh, every pure person may eat flesh” (Leviticus 7:19). The Gemara explains: The second mention of the term “and the flesh” in the verse is superfluous and serves to include the halakha that with regard to sacred wood and frankincense, impurity disqualifies them from being burned on the altar. Are wood and frankincense edible and therefore included in the verse: “Of all food that may be eaten, on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34)? Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish derived from this that regard for sanctity renders them susceptible to ritual impurity and renders their status like that of food. Here too, in the case of a dry portion of flour that was not mixed with the oil of meal offerings, regard for sanctity renders it susceptible to ritual impurity.