Perek II Daf 34 Amud a

NOTES Th is is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat,N i.e., wheat that ִּב ׁ ְש ִל ָיק ָתא ּו ְמ ִא ָיס ָתא. ָה ִכי ַנ ִמי – Tosafot ex- one boiled and then placed in a repulsive area, in which case he : ׁ ְש ִל ָיק ָתא ּו ְמ ִא ָיס ָתא – Boiled and repulsive wheat ִּב ׁ ְש ִל ָיק ָתא ּו ְמ ִא ָיס ָתא. ְו ֵה ָיכא ִא ְּית ַמר plain that this refers to wheat that was boiled and placed in a ;need not be concerned that this wheat will accidentally be eaten ְ ּדַרב ַא ׁ ִשי? ַא ָהא, ְ ּד ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ָא ִבין ַּבר filthy area before it became impure. Others say that the wheat so too here, it is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat. Th e ַרב ַא ָחא ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ִי ְצ ָחק: ַא ָּבא ׁ ָש ּאול was boiled before it became impure but was left in a filthy place afterward (Tosefot Rid ). Others explain Rashi’s opinion, Gemara asks: Where was ’s explanation stated? It was stated with regard to this: As Rabbi Avin bar Rav Aĥa said that ַּג ָּבל ׁ ֶשל ֵּבית ַר ִּבי ָה ָיה, ְו ָה ּיו ְמ ַח ִּמין that one is permitted to boil the wheat and let it become filthy -Rabbi Yitzĥak said: Abba Shaul was the dough kneader of Rab לוֹ ַח ִּמין ְּב ִח ִּיטין ׁ ֶשל ְּת ּרו ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה even after it has become impure, in the following manner: The ,bi Yehuda HaNasi’s house,N and they would heat water for him ָל ּלו ׁש ָּב ֶהן ִﬠ ָּיסה ְּב ָט ֳהָרה. ַא ַּמאי? reason this is allowed is due to a principle derived from the halakhot of leavened bread that states that one who is acting to make dough, with wheat of ritually impure teruma, which was ֵנ ּיחו ׁש ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְּב ּהו ִל ֵידי ַּת ָּק ָלה! to remove a prohibited item is not likely to sin by improperly purchased from priests at a low price, in order to knead dough ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי: ִּב ׁ ְש ִל ָיק ָתא ּו ְמ ִא ָיס ָתא. .using the item at that time in ritual purity. Th e Gemara asks: Why did they do this? Let us -be concerned lest they encounter a stumbling block by acciden ַּג ָּבל – The dough kneader of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house :The early commentaries (see Tosafot) wonder : ׁ ֶשל ֵּבית ַר ִּבי How it was permitted for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was not tally eating this wheat. With regard to this Rav Ashi said that it a priest, to use teruma? Some explain that it was permitted to was only done when the wheat was boiled and repulsive and do this because there were priests who lived in Rabbi Yehuda could only be used for lighting a fi re. HaNasi’s house, and it was permitted to use their teruma to Aft er mentioning ways in which impure teruma was used, the ַא ַּבֵיי ַּבר ָא ִבין ְוַרב ֲח ַנ ְנָיא ַּבר ָא ִבין -prepare food for everyone. Others explain that deriving ben efit from impure teruma is a rabbinic prohibition, and the Gemara mentions other halakhot pertaining to this issue. ָּת ּנו ְּת ּרומוֹת ֵּבי ַר ָּבה, ָּפ ַגע ְּב ּהו ָר ָבא Sages permit the use of such teruma for communal purposes -bar Avin and Rav Ĥananya bar Avin taught the tractate of Teru ַּבר ַמ ָּת ָנה, ֲא ַמר ְל ּהו: ַמאי ָא ְמִר ּיתו even if there are no priests among those who will benefit from mot in the school of Rabba. bar Matt ana met them and ִּב ְת ּרומוֹת ְ ּד ֵבי ָמר? ֲא ַמ ּרו ֵל ּיה: ּו ַמאי teruma. Therefore, this teruma could in used in the household of Rabbi Yehuda, the leader of the community, since food said to them: What novel idea can you say has been taught with regard to Terumot in the school of our Master, Rabba? Th ey said ַק ׁ ְש ָיא ָל ְך? ֲא ַמר ְל ּהו: ְּת ַנן, ׁ ְש ִת ֵילי prepared there would be for the entire community (Tosefot to him: What is diffi cult for you? Th ere must be some issue ְת ּרומוֹת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו ּו ׁ ְש ָת ָלן – ְט ִהוֹרים .( Rid troubling you that has caused you to ask this question. He said to ִמ ְּל ַט ֵּמא ַו ֲא ּסוִרין ִמ ֶּל ֱאכוֹל ( ַּב ְּת ּרו ָמה). : ִא ּיס ּור ִּג ּיד ּו ֵלי ְת ּרו ָמה – The prohibition of growths of teruma them: Th e following statement that we learned in the mishna in ְו ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר ִ ּד ְט ִהוֹרין ִמ ְּל ַט ֵּמא ַא ַּמאי Some explain that the Sages declared produce that grew from teruma to be teruma because they did not want priests to be -Terumot is unclear: Saplings of teruma that became ritually im ֲא ּסוִרין ִמ ֶּל ֱאכוֹל? retain impure teruma while waiting to plant it. If a priest knows pure and were planted are pure such that they do not impart that whatever grows from the teruma will still be teruma, he ritual impurity once they have been planted, but they are pro- will be disinclined to put effort into planting it when he knows H that he will soon be given more teruma as a gift or will be able hibited to be eaten as teruma. Th e question arises: If they do to purchase it at a low price from another priest. Therefore, it not impart ritual impurity, why is it prohibited to eat them? If is not worth the effort for him to plant it, and he will burn it their impurity has been eliminated then it should be permitt ed to immediately (Tosefot Rid). eat them, like other ritually pure teruma.

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ĥananya bar Avin said to Rava bar ֲא ַמ ּרו ֵל ּיה, ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַר ָּבה: ַמאי Matt ana: Th is is what Rabba said in explaining this mishna: What ֲא ּסוִרין – ֲא ּסוִרין ְלָזִרים. ּו ַמאי ָקא : ְּת ּרו ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ׁ ֶש ִּנְזְר ָﬠה – Impure teruma that was planted Even though produce that grows from impure teruma is pure, does it mean that they are prohibited to be eaten? It means that ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – ִּג ּיד ּו ֵלי ְת ּרו ָמה ְּת ּרו ָמה, it is still prohibited to eat this teruma. This ruling is in accor- they are prohibited to be eaten by non-priests, but a priest ָּת ֵנ ָינא: ִּג ּיד ּו ֵלי ְת ּרו ָמה ְּת ּרו ָמה! dance with the mishna and the statements of Rav and Rav Oshaya (see Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Zera’im, may eat them. Once these saplings are planted, they lose their Hilkhot Terumot 11:23). ritual impurity but retain their status as teruma. Rava bar Matt ana challenged this answer: If this is the case, what is the mishna The Sages teaching us with this statement? Is it teaching us that growths of : ִּג ּיד ּו ֵלי ְת ּרו ָמה – Produce that grows from teruma decreed that produce that grows from teruma must be treated as though it were teruma, and it is prohibited to non-priests teruma are considered teruma? It is unnecessary to teach this (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 11:21). principle, as we already learned: Growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from that was planted in the ground, are con- If N : ִּג ּיד ּו ֵלי ֶט ֶבל – Produce that grows from untithed produce one plants untithed produce whose seed disintegrates when sidered teruma. Why, then, is it necessary to teach this principle planted, the produce is permitted. However, if one plants a again? species whose seed does not disintegrate when planted, e.g., And if you say as follows: Th is case is referring to the growths of ְו ִכי ֵּת ָימא: ִּג ּיד ּו ֵלי ִּג ּיד ּו ִלין ּו ַמאי ָקא onions, its produce remains prohibited. In the latter case the third generation of plants is likewise prohibited, and only the growths of teruma, i.e., plants that grew from the original growths ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – ְּבָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַזְרעוֹ ָּכ ֶלה, fourth generation is permitted (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot of teruma, and what is it teaching us? It is teaching that an item ָהא ַנ ִמי ָּת ֵנ ָינא: ַה ֶּט ֶבל ִּג ּיד ּו ָליו ּמו ָּתִרין .(Ma’aserot 6:6 whose seed does not disintegrate when planted in the ground ְּבָד ָבר ׁ ֶשַזְּרעוֹ ָּכ ֶלה, ֲא ָבל ְּבָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין maintains its teruma status. While most seeds will disintegrate, other plants, such as onions and garlic, merely continue growing ַזְרעוֹ ָּכ ֶלה – ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ִּג ּיד ּו ֵלי ִג ּיד ּו ִלין when planted. In that case, this mishna would be informing us that ֲא ּסוִרין ַּב ֲא ִכ ָילה! ִא ׁ ְיש ִּת ּיקו. even the growths of growths of such plants retain their teruma status. However, we already learned that as well. As the mishna states: With regard to untithed produce [tevel], its growths, the produce that grows from it, are permitt ed in the case of items whose seed disintegrates; however, in the case of items where the seed does not disintegrate, it is prohibited to eat even the growths of growths unless they are tithed.H Th ere would be no need for the mishna to teach us this halakha a second time. Th ey were silent and did not have an answer to this question. פרק ב׳ דף לד. . Perek II . 34a 166 NOTES Th ey said to Rava bar Matt ana: Have you heard something in this ֲא ַמ ּרו ֵל ּיה: ִמ ֵ ּידי ׁ ְש ִמ יﬠ ָל ְך ְּב ָהא? ,In this context : ְּפ ּסול ַה ּג ּוף – regard? He said to them: Th is is what Rav Sheshet said: What is the Inherent disqualification -this phrase means that the object has an inherent, inde ֲא ַמר ְל ּהו: ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת: ַמאי meaning of the word prohibited in this context? It means that it is pendent prohibition associated with it, like other objects ֲא ּסוִרין – ֲא ּסוִרין ַל ּכֹ ֲה ִנים, ִהוֹאיל prohibited for priests, since it has been disqualifi ed for them due prohibited by law. It appears that a similar halakha H ְו ִא ְיפ ִס ּילו ְל ּהו ְּב ֶה ַּיסח ַהַ ּד ַﬠת. to the diversion of att ention. Teruma and other consecrated prop- applies to consecrated items as well, and there is a mitzva erty must be guarded, and when one fails to do so, it is treated as to guard them and avoid diverting one’s attention from though it were impure. Th erefore, these teruma saplings are treated as them. If one diverts his attention from either teruma or an though they have become impure once the priest diverts att ention offering, it is invalidated. This refers to the process in : ִﬠ ּיב ּור ּצוָרה – from them, and they remain prohibited to him even aft er another Decay of form generation grows from them. which the meat loses its original form and is no longer fit to be considered meat. This requirement was imple- Th e Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that a mented so as not to treat sacrificial meat with disrespect ָה ִנ ָיחא ְל ַמאן ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ֶ״ה ַּיסח ַהַ ּד ַﬠת N .(diversion of att ention constitutes an inherent disqualifi cation, it by burning it in its original form (Rashi ְּפ ּסול ַה ּג ּוף ָהֵוי״ – ׁ ַש ִּפיר, ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן works out well. According to this opinion, a diversion of att ention ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ֶ״ה ַּיסח ַהַ ּד ַﬠת ְּפ ּסול ּטו ְמ ָאה does not disqualify teruma due to a concern that it became impure. BACKGROUND ָהֵוי״ ַמאי ִא ָּיכא ְל ֵמ ַימר? This : ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ִמְז ֵּבח ְו ּלול – Instead, there is an independent rabbinic decree rendering teruma that The ramp, the altar, and the gap has not been watched impure even when this teruma could not pos- schematic diagram displays the altar (on the right), the sibly have become impure. According to this opinion, one can under- ramp, and the gap between the ramp and the altar. stand why this growth may not be eaten by a priest. But according to the one who says that a diversion of att ention is a disqualifi cation due to a concern about ritual impurity, what is there to say? It is stated in the mishna that by planting these saplings they become pure, even if they were certainly ritually impure prior to being planted. If this is the case with regard to teruma that is certainly impure, all the more so should it apply to a case where there is only a chance that the teruma is ritually impure. Apropos the discussion of diversion of att ention, the Gemara cites a ְ ּד ִא ְּת ַמר: ֶה ַּיסח ַה ַ ּד ַﬠת, ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן :dispute between amora’im with regard to this issue, as it was stated ָא ַמר: ְּפ ּסול ּטו ְמ ָאה ָהֵוי, ְוַר ִּבי ׁ ִש ְמעוֹן ?What is the nature of the disqualifi cation of diversion of att ention ֶּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר: ְּפ ּסול ַה ּג ּוף ָהֵוי. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is a disqualifi cation due to a concern about Altar, ramp, and gap between them ritual impurity that may have been contracted while one’s att ention was diverted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is an inherent disqualifi cation. Th e Gemara discusses the ramifi cations of this dispute: According to ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן ָא ַמר: ְּפ ּסול ּטו ְמ ָאה ָהֵוי, Rabbi Yoĥanan, who said it is a disqualifi cation due to a concern ׁ ֶש ִאם ָיבֹא ֵא ִל ָיּ ּהו ִו ַיט ֲהֶר ָּנה – ׁש ְוֹמ ִﬠין about ritual impurity, if Elijah comes and renders it ritually pure לוֹ. ַר ִּבי ׁ ִש ְמעוֹן ֶּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ֵאוֹמר: then we will listen to him, because it was treated as impure only due ְּפ ּסול ַה ּג ּוף ָהֵוי, ׁ ֶש ִאם ָיבֹא ֵא ִל ָיּ ּהו to a doubt with regard to its actual status. However, according to -Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that it is an inherent disquali ִו ַיט ֲהֶר ָּנה – ֵאין ׁש ְוֹמ ִﬠין לוֹ. fi cation, even if Elijah comes and renders it pure we will not listen to him. Th e reason for this is that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish believes that this decree is unrelated to the question of whether the object actually became impure. Rabbi Yoĥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ֵא ִית ֵיב ּיה ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן ְלַר ִּבי ׁ ִש ְמעוֹן ֶּבן ,ben Lakish based on what is taught in the Toseft a: Rabbi Yishmael ָל ִק ׁיש: ַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל ְּבנוֹ ׁ ֶשל ַר ִּבי BH son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka, says: Th ere was a small gap ָיוֹח ָנן ֶּבן ְּב ָרוֹקא ֵאוֹמר: ּלול ָק ָטן between the ramp and the altar on the western side of the ramp, ָה ָיה ֵּבין ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ַל ִּמְז ֵּבח ְּב ַמ ֲﬠָרבוֹ ׁ ֶשל where they would throw disqualifi ed birds that had been designated as sin-off erings. If birds became disqualifi ed for any reason, such as ֶּכ ֶב ׁש, ׁ ֶש ָּׁשם ָה ּיו ְזוֹר ִקין ְּפ ּסו ֵלי ַח ָּטאת ,a diversion of att ention, they were left there until their form decayed ָהעוֹף, ּו ְת ּעו ַּבר ּצוָר ָתן ְו ְיוֹצ ִאין ְל ֵבית i.e., until the next morning, at which point they would be defi nitively ַה ְּׂשֵר ָיפה. ִאי ָא ְמַר ְּת ִּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְּפ ּסול disqualifi ed due to remaining in the Temple overnight and could be ּטו ְמ ָאה ָהֵוי – ִמ ּׁש ּום ָה ִכי ָּב ֵﬠי ִﬠ ּיב ּור taken out to the place designated for burning. Granted, if you say ּצוָרה, ׁ ֶש ָּמא ָיבֹא ֵא ִל ָיּ ּהו ִו ַיט ֲהֶר ָּנה, that a diversion of att ention is a disqualifi cation due to a concern for N ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמַר ְּת ְּפ ּסול ַה ּג ּוף, ָל ָּמה ִלי ritual impurity, for this reason it requires decay of form to ensure that the bird is certainly disqualifi ed. Currently the bird is disqualifi ed ִﬠ ּיב ּור ּצוָרה? ְו ָה ְת ַנן, ֶזה ַה ְּכ ָלל: only due to uncertainty, and Elijah may come and render it ritually pure. However, if you say that it is an inherent disqualifi cation, then why do I need to leave it until it has decay of form? It should be de- fi nitively disqualifi ed once there has been a diversion of att ention. But didn’t we learn in the mishna that this is the principle: HALAKHA .There was a space near the ramp of the altar : ּלול ָק ָטן – It has been disqualified for them due to the diversion of Small gap -If one diverted his atten- Birds that had been designated for sin-offerings and subsequent : ִא ְיפ ִס ּילו ְל ּהו ֶה ַּיסח ַהַ ּד ַﬠת – attention tion from an offering, it is disqualified due to the concern that ly disqualified were placed there until their forms decayed and it became impure, as stated by Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer then taken out to the place designated for burning (Rambam Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:4). Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 2:14).

Perek II . 34a 167 . פרק ב׳ דף לד. Perek II Daf 34 Amud b

HALAKHA ,Any off ering that has a disqualifi cation in the body of the animal ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ְּפ ּסולוֹ ְּב ּגופוֹ – ִי ָּׂשֵרף ִמ ָיּד, ְּב ָדם A disqualification in the body of the animal…or its i.e., it has a defi nite disqualifi cation with regard to the meat itself, ּו ִב ְב ָﬠ ִלים – ְּת ּעו ַּבר ּצוָר ָתן ְו ְיוֹצ ִאין ְל ֵבית Any offering that has : ְּפ ּסולוֹ ְּב ּגופוֹ… ּו ַב ְּב ָﬠ ִלים – owner should be burned immediately. If it is has a disqualifi cation in the ַה ְּׂשֵר ָיפה! ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה: ַהאי ַּת ָּנא – ַּת ָּנא ְ ּד ֵבי a disqualification in the body of the offering must be burned immediately. However, if its disqualifica- blood of the animal, e.g., if the blood was spilled, or a disqualifi ca- H ַר ָּבה ַּבר ֲא ּבו ּה ּהוא, ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ִּפ ּיג ּול tion is in its blood or due to its owner, it must be left tion of its owner, e.g., if the owner became impure, then it should -be left until its form is decayed and taken out to the place desig ָט ּעון ִﬠ ּיב ּור ּצוָרה. overnight for its form to decay before being burned (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3). nated for burning. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: Th is Meat that was disqualified before the blood was tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka, is of the If sacrificial meat same opinion as the tanna who taught in the school of Rabba bar : ָּב ָׂשר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַסל ֶקוֹדם ְזִר ָיקה – sprinkled became disqualified or ritually impure, or if it was Avuh, who said: Even piggul, an off ering that was invalidated due removed from its proper domain, the blood may not to inappropriate intent while being off ered, requires decay of form. be sprinkled. If the blood was sprinkled, the offer- Even with regard to an inherent disqualifi cation in the meat of the ing is accepted. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as his opinion is accepted off ering, where the Torah says explicitly that the off ering should be in disputes with Rabbi Eliezer (Rambam Sefer Avoda, burned, as is the case with regard to piggul, the animal should be set Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:31). aside until the next day, when its form has decayed. Rabbi Yoĥanan raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi ֵא ִית ֵיב ּיה: ִנ ְט ָמא אוֹ ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַסל ַה ָּב ָׂשר, אוֹ PERSONALITIES Shimon ben Lakish based on another baraita, where it is taught: If ׁ ֶש ָיּ ָצא ּחוץ ַל ְּק ָל ִﬠים, ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ֵאוֹמר: Rabbi Yirmeya was an :ַר ִּבי ִיְר ְמָיה – Rabbi Yirmeya the meat became impure or disqualifi ed, or if it was taken out of ִיְזרוֹק, ַר ִּבי ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ ֵאוֹמר: לֹא ִיְזרוֹק. ּו ֶמוֹדה amora who was born in and studied there the walls that delineate its permitt ed area, Rabbi Eliezer says: He ַר ִּבי ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ ׁ ֶש ִאם ָזַרק – ּהוְר ָצה. in his youth, and then moved to Eretz Yisrael. It was only upon his immigration to Eretz Yisrael that he sprinkles the blood of these off erings nonetheless, as in his opinion became a prominent scholar. He studied there under the blood may be sprinkled regardless of the status of the meat of the disciples of Rabbi Yoĥanan, particularly Rabbi the off ering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He does not sprinkle the blood and Rabbi . unless the meat is fi t to be brought as an off ering. And Rabbi Ye- Rabbi Yirmeya was especially sharp and would hoshua concedes that if the blood was sprinkled, the off ering is often question the boundaries of halakhic principles. accepted.H Due to this he was penalized and even removed -Th e Gemara clarifi es: To what type of disqualifi cation is the barai ַמאי ִנ ְפ ַסל – ָלאו ְּב ֶה ַּיסח ַה ַ ּד ַﬠת? ִאי from the study hall for a time. His sharp tongue was ta referring? Is it not disqualifi cation on account of a diversion of ָא ְמַר ְּת ִּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְּפ ּסו ֵלי ּטו ְמ ָאה ָהֵוי – ַה ְי ּינו especially evident when he referred to the amora’im of Babylonia as foolish Babylonians, as he did on sev- att ention? It cannot be a case where it was disqualifi ed due to im- ְ ּד ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה ִ ּד ְמַר ִּצי ִציץ. ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמַר ְּת eral occasions. It should be noted that this criticism purity or being taken outside of the walls, since these are mentioned ְּפ ּסול ַה ּג ּוף ָהֵוי – ַא ַּמאי ּהוְר ָצה ( ִציץ)? was humbly accepted by the Babylonian scholars in question. explicitly. Granted, if you say that a diversion of att ention is a dis- Rabbi Yirmeya became one of the greatest Sages qualifi cation based on a concern about ritual impurity, this is how in Eretz Yisrael, and his statements are cited in many you can fi nd a case that the off ering is accepted because the front- places in both the Jerusalem and the Babylo- plate atones for cases where there is a disqualifi cation related to nian Talmud. In Babylonia, his statements were often ritual impurity.N But if you say that it is an inherent disqualifi ca- preceded by the general phrase for the teachings of tion, why is the off ering accepted according to Rabbi Yehoshua, scholars from Eretz Yisrael: They say in the West. given that it is a disqualifi ed off ering? :Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish rejects this interpretation of the baraita ַמאי ִנ ְפ ַסל – ִנ ְפ ַסל ִּב ְט ּבול יוֹם. ִאי ָה ִכי ַה ְי ּינו No, this is not a case where the off ering was disqualifi ed due to a ָט ֵמא! ְּתֵרי ַּגְו ֵוני ָט ֵמא. diversion of att ention. In what way was the off ering disqualifi ed? It was disqualifi ed due to contact with one who immersed himself during the day. One who immersed himself during the day invali- dates items due to ritual impurity. Although these items themselves are invalidated, they cannot in turn render other items ritually im- pure. Th e Gemara asks: If that is so, this is the same as the dis- qualifi cation of ritual impurity. What, then, is the diff erence be- tween this disqualifi cation and that of ritual impurity previously mentioned by the baraita? Th e Gemara answers that two types of ritual impurity are mentioned here: One type of impurity can also impart impurity to other objects, and a second type can invalidate another object but will not impart impurity. When Ravin ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha of ִּכי ְס ֵליק ָר ִבין ֲא ַמָר ּה ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ְﬠ ֵּת ּיה ַק ֵּמ ּיה ְ ּדַר ִּבי P :Rav Sheshet before Rabbi Yirmeya. And Rabbi Yirmeya said ִיְר ְמָיה, ַו ֲא ַמר: ַּב ְב ָל ֵאי ִט ְּפ ׁ ָש ֵאי, ִמ ּׁש ּום ְ ּד ָי ְת ִבי Foolish Babylonians! Because you dwell in a dark land, you state ְּב ַאְר ָﬠא ַ ּד ֲח ׁש ּו ָכא ָא ְמִר ּיתון ׁ ְש ַמ ֲﬠ ָת ָתא halakhot that are dim. Have you not heard this statement of Rabbi ִ ּד ְמ ַח ׁ ְש ּכו! ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ יﬠ ְל ּכו ָהא ְ ּדַר ִּבי ׁ ִש ְמעוֹן Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Oshaya? ֶּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ִמ ְּׁש ֵמ ּיה ְ ּדַר ִּבי ׁ ַאוֹש ֲﬠָיא:

NOTES .The Torah states of shall sanctify” (Exodus 28:38). The Sages explain that offerings, the Torah states explicitly that they are not accepted :ִר ּיצ ּוי ִציץ – The atonement of the frontplate that by wearing the frontplate on his forehead, “Aaron shall bear the frontplate does not atone for all sins committed with the Rather, they explain that this statement applies to specific cases the iniquity committed in the holy things which the children offerings in the Temple service; indeed, with regard to some of ritual impurity.

פרק ב׳ דף לד: . Perek II . 34b 168 NOTES Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: With ֵמי ֶה ָחג ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו, ִה ִּׁש ָיקן ְו ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ֵמי – regard to the water used for the water libation during the festival The water libation during the festival became impure Rashi explains that this would come about on : ֶה ָחג ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו ִה ְקִ ּד ׁ ָישן – ְט ִהוֹרין, ִה ְקִ ּד ׁ ָישן ְו ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך of Sukkot which was drawn over the course of the day in order to N H the Shabbat that occurs during Sukkot, when there was no ִה ִּׁש ָיקן – ְט ֵמ ִאים. be poured the next day and consequently became impure, the possibility of refilling the vessel with water from the Shilo’aĥ N following distinction applies: If it was brought into contact with a spring. Others explain that this scenario could occur any ritual bath of pure water and was then consecrated, it is ritually time during the Festival, as the drawing of this water was pure. However, if it was consecrated and was then brought into performed with great ceremony and involved significant contact with the ritual bath, it is ritually impure. toil. Consequently it was preferable, if possible, to purify the water rather than repeat the process of drawing the water. Purifying water by bringing it : ַה ָּׁש ָקה – Th e question arises: Since this type of purifi cation is similar to Bringing into contact ִמ ְּכִדי, ְזִר ָיﬠה ִנ ְינ ּהו – ַמה ִּלי ִה ִּׁש ָיקן planting, as when the impure water came in contact with the water into contact with a ritual bath is performed in the following ְו ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ִה ְקִ ּד ׁ ָישן, ַמה ִּלי ִה ְקִ ּד ׁ ָישן manner: The water is placed in vessels that are not suscep- of the ritual bath, it is considered as though the water was planted ְו ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ִה ִּׁש ָיקן? ַא ְל ָמא: ֵאין in the ground and thereby purifi ed,N what does it matt er if it was tible to ritual impurity, e.g., stone vessels, and the vessels are placed within the ritual bath so that the water of the ritual ְזִר ָיﬠה ְל ֶה ְקֵ ּד ׁש. ָה ָכא ַנ ִמי: ֵאין ְזִר ָיﬠה brought into contact and then consecrated or consecrated and .bath will come into contact with the water inside the vessel ִל ְת ּרו ָמה. then brought into contact? Apparently planting is not eff ective This procedure was performed to purify water for drinking or H with regard to consecrated items, i.e., such items are not purifi ed cooking when the water in the ritual bath itself was unfit for through this process. Th erefore, here too, planting is not eff ective drinking, such as is the case with seawater. with regard to teruma. Despite the fact that planting is generally Bringing into contact with a ritual bath and planting – The equation between these concepts is not : ַה ָּׁש ָקה ּוְזִר ָיﬠה -eff ective in removing the impure status of the water, the Sages im posed higher standards with regard to consecrated items. Similarly, straightforward. Based on Rabbeinu Ĥananel’s explanation, the Sages imposed higher standards for removing the teruma status it appears that the similarity between these two concepts of the plants. One can explain that the produce grown from teruma is external, in that planting a seed in the ground resembles mentioned in the baraita remains prohibited for non-priests be- immersing a vessel in water. However, it seems that the basic concept that applies in both cases is not purification through cause it is still considered teruma. immersion but purification through nullification. Just as a seed planted in the ground loses its previous form, so too, Rav sat and said this halakha that was stated by Rav Oshaya the water in the vessel becomes nullified by the water in ְי ֵתיב ַרב ִ ּד ִימי ְו ָק ָא ַמר ָל ּה ְל ָהא .with regard to principle of bringing liquid into contact with a ritual the ritual bath ׁ ְש ַמ ֲﬠ ָתא. ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה ַא ַּבֵיי: ִה ְקִ ּד ׁ ָישן -bath. Abaye said to him: Did Rav Oshaya state his ruling that bring ִּב ְכ ִלי ָק ָא ַמר, ֲא ָבל ַּב ֶּפה ָלא ַﬠ ּבוד ing a liquid into contact with a ritual bath is not eff ective for conse- HALAKHA ַר ָּב ַנן ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה, אוֹ ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ַּב ֶּפה ַנ ִמי ֵמי – crated items with regard to a case where he consecrated the water The water libation during the festival became impure If water collected for use in the water libation : ֶה ָחג ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו by placing it in a sacred vessel, but if he consecrated it through ַﬠ ּבוד ַר ָּב ַנן ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה? speech then the Sages did not impose a higher standard, in which on the altar becomes ritually impure and is brought into case the water can be purifi ed by being brought into contact with a contact with a ritual bath, the following distinction applies: If ritual bath? Or perhaps the Sages imposed a higher standard in a it is purified before it is consecrated, it may be poured out for the libation; however, if it is purified after it was consecrated, case where one consecrates it through speech as well? it may not be poured out for the libation, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot .(Rav Dimi said to him: I did not hear the halakha with regard to Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 6:6 ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה: זוֹ לֹא ׁ ָש ַמ ְﬠ ִּתי, ַּכ ֵיּוֹצא ָּב ּה this case; however, I heard the halakha with regard to a similar case. That which :ְזִר ָיﬠה… ֶה ְקֵ ּד ׁש – Planting…consecrated items ׁ ָש ַמ ְﬠ ִּתי. ְ ּד ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ַא ָּב ּהו ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: With regard to grows from consecrated seeds that became impure may ָיוֹח ָנן: ֲﬠ ָנ ִבים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו, ְ ּדָר ָכן ְו ַא ַחר grapes that became ritually impure, if one trod on them and af- not be brought as an offering, as the Sages imposed higher H ָּכ ְך ִה ְק ִ ּד ׁ ָישן – ְט ִהוֹרים, ִה ְק ִ ּד ׁ ָישן terward consecrated them, they are pure. According to this opin- standards for consecrated items in this regard (Rambam Sefer .(ion, the wine inside the grape does not become impure from the Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 6:8 ְו ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ְ ּדָר ָכן – ְט ֵמ ִאין. ְו ָהא ֲﬠ ָנ ִבים, ִ ּד ְק ּדו ַּׁשת ֶּפה ִנ ְינ ּהו – ַו ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ָה ִכי :ְ ּדִר ַיכת ֲﬠ ָנ ִבים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו – grape itself. However, if he consecrated the grapes and aft erward Treading on ritually impure grapes pressed them, they are impure, because the halakha is especially If ritually impure grapes were pressed before teruma was ַﬠ ּבוד ַר ָּב ַנן ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה. stringent with regard consecrated items. And yet with regard to separated, it is permitted to separate teruma from the wine grapes which are only consecrated through speech, as the wine/ afterward. However, if teruma was taken first, the grapes grapes off ered on the altar are not brought in a sacred vessel, even should be pressed in quantities of less than an egg-bulk at a so, the Sages imposed a higher standard such that these grapes time so that the priests will be permitted to drink the wine (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 12:11). become impure aft er they have been consecrated.

Rav Yosef said: Th is case does not serve as a proof since you spoke ֲא ַמר ַרב ֵיוֹסף: ֲﬠ ָנ ִבים ָק ָא ְמַר ְּת – of grapes, and here we are dealing with grapes of teruma, whose ָה ָכא ַּב ֲﬠ ָנ ִבים ׁ ֶשל ְּת ּרו ָמה ָﬠ ְס ִק ַינן, consecration through speech is comparable to consecration in a ִ ּד ְק ּדו ַּׁשת ֶּפה ִ ּד ְיד ּהו ִּכ ְק ּדו ַּׁשת ְּכ ִלי sacred vessel, as teruma cannot be consecrated by being placed in a ָ ּד ְמ ָיא. ֲא ָבל ָה ֵני ְ ּד ָב ֵﬠי ְּכ ִלי – ַּב ֶּפה sacred vessel. However, with regard to those items that require a sacred vessel in order to be fully consecrated, such as water used for ָלא ַﬠ ּבוד ַר ָּב ַנן ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה a libation, the Sages did not impose a higher standard in a case where one consecrated it through speech. Th erefore, this case can- not be used to resolve Abaye’s question.

Th e Gemara asks about Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement with regard to ְ ּ״דָר ָכן״ – ַו ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ּטו ָבא. ּו ִמי ָא ַמר wine pressed from impure grapes: Th e phrase if one tread upon ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן ָה ִכי? ְו ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן: them is stated without qualifi cation, indicating that the wine is ֲﬠ ָנ ִבים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו – ּד ְוֹר ָכן ָּפחוֹת ָּפחוֹת ritually pure even if he pressed many grapes at once. And did Rab- ִמ ַּכ ֵּב ָיצה! bi Yoĥanan actually say this? Didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan say: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure grapes, one should tread on them less than an egg-bulk at a time. When there is less than an egg-bulk of grapes, they do not impart ritual impurity. Perek II . 34b 169 . פרק ב׳ דף לד: NOTES Th e Gemara answers: If you wish, say this answer: Here, too, it is ִא ָּיב ֵﬠית ֵא ָימא: ָה ָכא ַנ ִמי – ָּפחוֹת The further removed to be understood that one must tread on less than an egg-bulk at a : ׁ ְש ִל ׁ ִישי – Third degree ritual impurity ָּפחוֹת ִמ ַּכ ֵּב ָיצה. ְו ִא ָּיב ֵﬠית ֵא ָימא: an object is from contact with the initial source of ritual time. And if you wish, say this answer instead: Th ere, where the ָה ָתם – ְ ּד ָנ ְג ּעו ְל ּהו ָּבִר ׁאשוֹן, ְ ּד ָה ּוו impurity, the lower its own level of ritual impurity. An object Gemara requires less than an egg-bulk, it is a case where the grapes ְל ּהו ִא ְינ ּהו ׁ ֵש ִני, ָה ָכא – ְ ּד ָנ ְג ּעו ְּב ׁ ֵש ִני, that comes in contact with the source will have first-degree ritual impurity, any food that object touches will in turn have came into contact with an item that was impure with fi rst-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with second-degree ְ ּד ָה ּוו ְל ּהו ׁ ְש ִל ׁ ִישי. .second-degree ritual impurity, and so on ritual impurity. When a liquid touches an object that is impure with second-degree ritual impurity, it becomes impure by rabbinic de- cree with fi rst-degree ritual impurity. Th erefore, in that case one must be careful to tread only on less than an egg-bulk at a time. Here, it is speaking of a case where they came into contact with an item that was impure with second-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with third-degree ritual impurity.N In that case, the liquid that comes out of the grapes would not become ritually impure at all.

Rava said: We, too, have learned that the Sages created higher ָא ַמר ָר ָבא: ַאף ֲא ַנן ַנ ִמי ָּת ֵנ ָינא ְ״ו ָנ ַתן standards with regard to consecrated items. As it was taught that the ָﬠ ָליו ַמ ִים ַח ִיּים ֶאל ֶּכ ִלי״ – ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא verse says with regard to the red heifer: “And for the impure they ִח ּיּו ָתן ַּב ְּכ ִלי. ְ״ו ָנ ַתן״ – ַא ְל ָמא ְּת ּלו ׁ ִשין shall take the ashes of the burning of the sin-off ering, and he shall ִנ ְינ ּהו, ְו ָהא ְמ ּחו ָּבִרין ִנ ְינ ּהו! put fl owing water into a vessel” (Numbers :), which teaches that the fl owing water from the spring should fl ow directly into the vessel in which it will be sanctifi ed. On the other hand, the verse says “and he shall put,” meaning that the water should be poured into the vessel. Apparently the water is detached,N but it is clearly att ached to the spring, as it was previously stated that the water must fl ow directly into the vessel.

NOTES See Tosafot, mentary on tractate Para, Rabbi Shimshon of Saens notes at : ַא ְל ָמא ְּת ּלו ׁ ִשין – Apparently the water is detached who mention another explanation of this statement, suggested least one difficulty with this explanation. If one accepts this by Rabbeinu Ĥananel: This statement means that despite the explanation, then the stringent ruling is not based on a higher fact that the waters of the purification offering are physically standard imposed by the Sages but dictated by the Torah itself. connected to the spring, they should be considered detached Although Rashi’s position is difficult for other reasons, it appears Degree of ritual impurity based on contact with ritually impure items for the purposes of the halakhot of ritual impurity. In his com- to fit better within the context of the discussion here.

Perek II Daf 35 Amud a

HALAKHA Rather, this is merely a higher standard, as by Torah law the water ֶא ָּלא ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה, ָה ִכי ַנ ִמי – ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה. This may be drawn with one vessel and sanctifi ed in another vessel. Th e : ֲא ִכ ַילת ַמ ֲﬠ ֵׂשר ְּב ָט ֳהָרה – Eating tithes in a state of purity is referring to the second tithe. One who eats second tithe while he is in a state of ritual impurity is flogged for violat- Sages added that this water must be sanctifi ed in the same vessel in ing a Torah prohibition. Once he has immersed, he may eat which it was drawn from the spring, and they found support for their second tithe immediately, without waiting for the sun to set opinion in the Torah. Here too, the Sages established a higher (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Ma’aser Sheni 3:1–4). standard for a consecrated object that became ritually impure, as One who immersed himself during the day with regard they decreed that it cannot be ritually purifi ed through insertion in .One who immersed himself the ground : ְט ּבול יוֹם ִּב ְת ּרו ָמה – to teruma during the day may not eat teruma until the sun has set Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We, too, learned a similar statement in a ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ִש ִימי ַּבר ַא ׁ ִשי, ַאף ֲא ַנן ַנ ִמי .(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 7:2) baraita: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has ָּת ֵנ ָינא: ָט ַבל ְו ָﬠ ָלה – ֵאוֹכל ַּב ַּמ ֲﬠ ֵׂשר. been completed, and he immersed during the day and emerged, he ֶה ֱﬠִריב ׁ ִש ְמ ׁשוֹ – ֵאוֹכל ַּב ְּת ּרו ָמה. may eat tithes immediately.H Once the sun set for him, he may eat H ַּב ְּת ּרו ָמה – ִאין, ַּב ֳּק ָד ׁ ִשים – ָלא. teruma. Rav Shimi bar Ashi infers from this statement: With re- -gard to teruma, yes, he may eat it; however, with regard to conse ַא ַּמאי? ָטהוֹר ּהוא! ֶא ָּלא: ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה, crated food, no, he may not. Given that conclusion, Rav Shimi bar ָה ִכי ַנ ִמי – ַמ ֲﬠ ָלה. Ashi asks: Why is there a diff erence between teruma and conse- crated foods? Aft er all, he is ritually pure. Rather, the Sages estab- lished a higher standard for consecrated food, and permitt ed one to eat them only aft er sacrifi cing the requisite purifi cation off ering. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids. פרק ב׳ דף לה. . Perek II . 35a 170