Daf Ditty Pesachim 34: Memory loss vs inattention When I have fears that I may cease to be Before my pen has gleaned my teeming brain, Before high-pilèd books, in charactery, Hold like rich garners the full ripened grain; When I behold, upon the night’s starred face, Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance, And think that I may never live to trace Their shadows with the magic hand of chance; And when I feel, fair creature of an hour, That I shall never look upon thee more, Never have relish in the faery power Of unreflecting love—then on the shore Of the wide world I stand alone, and think Till love and fame to nothingness do sink. John Keats It was at Wentworth Place that Keats composed his mysterious and magical lyric ‘La Belle Dame sans Merci’, finished his narrative poem The Eve of St Agnes, and wrote his great odes of spring 1819 including ‘Ode to a Nightingale’. 1 2 After mentioning ways in which impure teruma was used, the Gemara mentions other halakhot pertaining to this issue. Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥananya bar Avin taught the tractate of Terumot in the school of Rabba. Rava bar Mattana met them and said to them: What novel idea can you say has been taught with regard to Terumot in the school of our Master, Rabba? They said to him: What is difficult for you? There must be some issue troubling you that has caused you to ask this question. He said to them: The following statement that we learned in the mishna in Terumot is unclear: Saplings of teruma that became ritually impure and were planted are pure such that they do not impart ritual impurity once they have been planted, but they are prohibited to be eaten as teruma. The question arises: If they do not impart ritual impurity, why is it prohibited to eat them? If their impurity has been eliminated then it should be permitted to eat them, like other ritually pure teruma. 3 Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥananya bar Avin said to Rava bar Mattana: This is what Rabba said in explaining this mishna: What does it mean that they are prohibited to be eaten? It means that they are prohibited to be eaten by non-priests, but a priest may eat them. Once these saplings are planted, they lose their ritual impurity but retain their status as teruma. Rava bar Mattana challenged this answer: If this is the case, what is the mishna teaching us with this statement? Is it teaching us that growths of teruma are considered teruma? It is unnecessary to teach this principle, as we already learned: Growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from teruma that was planted in the ground, are considered teruma. Why, then, is it necessary to teach this principle again? 4 And if you say as follows: This case is referring to the growths of growths of teruma, i.e., plants that grew from the original growths of teruma, and what is it teaching us? It is teaching that an item whose seed does not disintegrate when planted in the ground maintains its teruma status. While most seeds will disintegrate, other plants, such as onions and garlic, merely continue growing when planted. In that case, this mishna would be informing us that 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 permitted 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. There would be no need for the mishna to teach us this halakha a second time. They were silent and did not have an answer to this question. 5 6 They said to Rava bar Mattana: Have you heard something in this regard? He said to them: This is what Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of the word prohibited in this context? It means that it is prohibited for priests, since it has been disqualified for them due to the diversion of attention. Teruma and other consecrated property must be guarded, and when one fails to do so, it is treated as though it were impure. Therefore, these teruma saplings are treated as though they have become impure once the priest diverts attention from them, and they remain prohibited to him even after another generation grows from them. 7 Summary Terumah that is tamei Rava bar Masna cited a Mishnah that ruled: Terumah plants that became tmei’im and were subsequently replanted are tehorim as far as transmitting tum’ah to other things, but they are prohibited to be eaten.1 He then asked Abaye and R’ Chananya the sons of Avin why the plants are prohibited to be eaten if they are tehorim. After Abaye and R’ Chananya failed to provide a satisfactory answer, Rava bar Masna explained in the name of R’ Sheishes that the plants are prohibited for consumption because they were not properly guarded from tum’ah. The Gemara challenges this explanation because it is only consistent with one explanation of why terumah becomes invalidated when not guarded properly. The Gemara digresses and elaborates upon the disagreement between R’ Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the rationale why terumah becomes invalid as a result of inattention. According to R’ Yochanan it is because of the possibility the terumah came in contact with tum’ah. According to Reish Lakish its status of being invalid results from the terumah itself. R’ Yochanan unsuccessfully challenges the position of Reish Lakish. When R’ Yirmiyah heard the explanation of R’ Sheishes he sharply criticized the Babylonians. The actual reason the terumah may not be eaten, explained R’ Yirmiyah, is based upon a principle originally taught regarding liquids, that planting the branches in the ground is not effective in removing the tum’ah completely. This principle is examined. Rava cites an example of a stringency applied to holy things. Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2 1. Growths of terumah have the same status as terumah. The Gemora states that growths of terumah are terumah. This means that if someone plants terumah produce in the ground, whatever grows from that produce has the status of terumah. [See Rambam and Ra’avad (Hilchos Terumos 11:21) regarding how much of the status of terumah they actually have.] (34a) 2. Growths of tevel (untithed grain) are not forbidden if the tevel itself was destroyed as a result of the planting. The Gemora states that growths of tevel produce are not forbidden. This means that if tevel produce was planted and produced a plant or tree with fruit, one would be able to eat in a temporary fashion from the plant or tree just like one is allowed to eat in a temporary fashion from anything that has not been tithed. The fact that its source is tevel is not relative (see Rashi DH “ha’Tevel”). However, 1 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20034.pdf 2 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Pesachim_34.pdf 8 if the original tevel was not destroyed by its being planted, its fruits, and the fruits of those fruits etc., would be forbidden from being eaten (even temporarily) until terumos and ma’asros have been taken. (34a) 3. When a korban is rendered invalid, the korban is burned right away unless it is only invalid because of an indirect issue (i.e. the blood was spilled before it was sprinkled). The Gemora quotes a classic rule regarding korbanos that when a korban itself is rendered invalid after it is slaughtered, it is burned right away. For example, if part of the avodah (steps involved in bringing the korban) of the korban was done with intent that the korban should be eaten after the time allotted by the Torah, the korban is invalid and must be burned. However, if the body of the korban was kosher, but an external reason, such as the blood being spilled before it could be sprinkled on the mizbe’ach (altar), made the korban unable to become kosher, the korban is not burned. It is rather kept overnight so that it will become inedible, and only after it is required to be burned because it was kept overnight will it actually be burned. (34a – 34b) 4. Although “planting” can be used to make something impure become pure, it is not effective for the use of kodoshim or terumah. Rabbi Oshiya taught: If water that was supposed to be used for libations on Sukkos became impure, it could be joined temporarily to the waters of the kiyor (water supply used to wash the kohanim) and thereby become pure. It is considered to have been “planted” in the waters of the ground which are free from being impure, and therefore become pure again. However, this was only if the water had not yet been designated as kodoshim (but was only being stored to eventually be designated as such). If it was already designated as kodoshim, the impurity cannot be taken away in this fashion. The Gemora explains that although regular water would become pure in this fashion, the Rabbis made a special decree that it is not true for kodoshim. Similarly, the Gemora states: Terumah that is planted in the ground does not become pure, as the Rabbis made a similar special law regarding terumah.