Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2021 | 讬状讘 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 18 – Shabbat September 18

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Why is it forbidden to purify vessels in a mikveh on Shabbat? There are four answers to this question. Rabba says that it is a decree that one may come to carry the vessels four cubits in the public domain. On a Yom Tov, they decreed not to permit it as it may lead to people doing it on Shabbat. The Gemara cites five different sources to raise a difficulty against Raba鈥檚 explanation as there are cases that we do not issue a decree and if we issue in our case, why would they not issue the decree there as well? For each case, it is explained why there is no need to issue a decree – either because it is an uncommon case and the rabbis don鈥檛 issue a decree on uncommon cases or because there is no concern that if we permit that action, people will come to think it is permitted in a different case due to unique circumstances. Rav Yosef gives another reason for forbidding the immersion of vessels in the mikveh – a decree lest one squeeze out the water from the object. Rabbi Bibi says a decree lest one delay purifying the vessels purposely for Shabbat/Yom Tov. Rava says it is forbidden as it looks like one is fixing a utensil. If so, why is a person allowed to go to a mikveh? The answer given is that it can appear as if one is going in to cool off. What about dirty water, going in the winter, or on Yom Kippur? The Gemara brings an answer to each of these questions. Regarding Yom Kippur, Rava claims that since (ho鈥檌l) it is permitted on Shabbat, it also is permitted on Yom Kippur. The Gemara raises a question against this as regarding a different issue 鈥 sipping vinegar to cure a toothache on Shabbat 鈥 Rava does not use the 鈥渟ince/ho鈥檌l鈥 argument. They conclude that Rava changed his position on the matter of Shabbat. The Mishnah said that it is permissible to put water into a mikvah to purify it but it is forbidden to use an impure vessel and have it become purified in the water. The Mishnah does not seem to conform to the method of Rebbi or the Sages as it appears in a braita that Rebbi forbids in both and Sages permit in both. The Gemara provides a response for how to explain the Mishnah according to both opinions – depending on whether the subject in each source/sentence refers to Shabbat or Yom Tov.

砖诪讗 讬讟诇谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讬砖 诇讜 讘讜专 讘讞爪讬专讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 讘讜专 讘讞爪专讜 讗讟讜 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

lest one come to pick up the vessel in his hand and carry it four cubits in the public domain to a ritual bath. Abaye said to Rabba: If one has a pit full of water of a ritual bath in his courtyard, so that this decree should not apply, what is there to say? Rabba said to him: The Sages issued a decree against immersing vessels even in a pit of water in one鈥檚 own courtyard due to a pit situated in the public domain.

讛转讬谞讞 砖讘转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝专讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 砖讘转

Abaye posed another challenge: This works out well with regard to Shabbat, but with regard to a Festival, when there is no prohibition against carrying from one domain to another, what is there to say? Rabba replied: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel on a Festival, due to the prohibition against immersing it on Shabbat.

讜诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讛砖拽讛 讗讟讜 讛讟讘诇讛

The Gemara asks: And do we issue a decree in such a case? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that one may bring ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water in stone vessels in order to purify the water. However, one may not immerse the impure water in a ritually impure vessel in order to purify the vessel at the same time. And if it is so that such a decree was issued, let us also decree here that bringing ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water is prohibited due to the prohibition against immersing a ritually impure vessel in a ritual bath.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬诐 讬驻讬诐 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讘讚 诇讛讜 讛砖拽讛 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讛讜

The Gemara rejects this challenge: And how can you understand that there is substance to this question? If he has other good, ritually pure, water to drink, why do I need to bring this ritually impure water into contact with the ritually pure water? Rather, one must say that he does not have suitable drinking water, and since he does not have other water, he is particularly careful about this water, so that it not become impure. Therefore, perforce, this must be an exceptional case, as the water became impure despite the precautions that were taken; and the Sages did not apply their decrees to unusual cases.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪讚诇讬谉 讘讚诇讬 讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讚诇讬讜 讝讻讜专 讛讜讗

Abaye raised an objection from the following baraita: One may draw water from a spring or a ritual bath on a Festival with a ritually impure pail, and the pail becomes ritually pure because while being filled with water, the bucket is completely immersed in the ritual bath. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree here that it is prohibited to draw water on Festival with a ritually impure pail lest one come to immerse the pail by itself. Rabba answered: It is different there; since it is permitted for him to immerse the pail only by drawing water with it, he remembers that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel by itself, and therefore there is no reason to issue a decree.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 讚注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讛讬讗 讜诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

Abaye raised an objection from a different baraita, in which it was taught: With regard to a vessel that was rendered ritually impure on the eve of a Festival, one may not immerse it on the Festival; however, if it became impure on the Festival itself, one may immerse it on the Festival. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree here that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel that became impure on a Festival due to the prohibition against immersing a vessel that became impure on the eve of a Festival. Rabba answered: Contracting ritual impurity on a Festival, when all are ritually pure, is an uncommon occurrence, and the general principle is that in the case of an uncommon occurrence, the Sages did not issue a decree as a preventive measure.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讛讗 讗讟讜 讛讗

Abaye raised yet another objection from the following baraita: With regard to a vessel that was rendered ritually impure by a primary source of impurity, one may not immerse it on a Festival. However, if it was rendered impure only by a derivative source of impurity, meaning that the vessel came into contact with an object that was rendered impure by a primary source of impurity, so that the object has the status of first-degree ritual impurity and confers upon the vessel the status of second-degree ritual impurity, a type of impurity that applies to vessels only by rabbinic decree; in such a case, one may immerse the vessel on a Festival. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree here that it is prohibited to immerse this, a vessel rendered impure by a derivative source of impurity, due to the prohibition to immerse that, a vessel rendered impure by a primary source of impurity.

讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讙讘讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛诐

Rabba replied: Where do you find a case where people are particular about purifying a vessel that contracted ritual impurity from a derivative source of impurity? It is only in one situation, namely, with regard to priests, since they eat teruma, and teruma contracts ritual impurity even from a vessel that came into contact with only a derivative source of impurity. An ordinary person, who eats non-consecrated produce, does not go to the trouble of purifying such a vessel, since regular produce contracts ritual impurity only from a vessel that came into contact with a primary source of impurity, but not from a vessel that came into contact with a derivative source of impurity. And as for priests, the general principle is that priests are vigilant; they are careful not to allow their vessels to become impure. Therefore, impurity in the case of priests is considered a rare occurrence, with regard to which the Sages did not issue a decree.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪注专诪转 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘讘讙讚讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a different proof, as Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: A menstruating woman who has no ritually pure clothes to wear after she immerses herself in a ritual bath to purify herself, as all her clothes had become impure, and it is Shabbat or a Festival, when she is unable to immerse them, may employ an artifice to circumvent the prohibition and immerse herself in her clothes. She is permitted to purify herself, and when she immerses herself while wearing her garments, they become purified at the same time. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree that it is prohibited for the woman to immerse herself in her clothes lest she come to immerse the clothes by themselves.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诇讘讜砖 讝讻讜专讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: It is different there; since it is permitted for her to immerse the clothes only by wearing them as garments, she remembers that it is prohibited to immerse them by themselves and will not come to violate this prohibition.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 住讞讬讟讛

Apropos Rabba鈥檚 view that one may not immerse a vessel on Shabbat lest he come to carry it four cubits in the public domain, Rav Yosef said that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel on Shabbat for a different reason: It is a decree issued by the Sages as a preventive measure due to the prohibition against wringing. After immersing certain items, such as clothes, one might come to wring them, and this is prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals as a subcategory of the biblically prohibited labor of threshing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 讻诇讬诐 讚讘谞讬 住讞讬讟讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 住讞讬讟讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讝专讛 讛谞讬 讗讟讜 讛谞讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This works out well with regard to vessels that are fit for wringing, such as clothes, but with regard to vessels that are not fit for wringing, what is there to say? Rav Yosef said to him: The Sages issued a decree against these vessels, which cannot be wrung, due to those vessels, which can be wrung. Abaye raised against Rav Yosef all of these objections that he had raised against Rabba, in an attempt to prove that the Sages did not issue such a decree, and Rav Yosef answered him as we answered in the name of Rabba.

专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗

Rav Beivai said a different reason: The prohibition against immersing a vessel on a Festival is a decree issued by the Sages lest one come to delay the immersion of his impure vessels. Were the Sages to permit him to immerse vessels on a Festival, he might delay immersing all of his impure vessels until the Festival, when he has more free time; and were he to leave ritually impure vessels in his possession for a lengthy period, he might come to defile items that must be kept ritually pure, such as teruma. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Beivai: With regard to a vessel that became ritually impure on the eve of a Festival, one may not immerse it on a Festival, due to a decree lest he come to delay and keep impure vessels in his home in order to immerse them on the Festival.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻诪转拽谉 讻诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 谞专讗讛 讻诪讬拽专

Rava said yet a different reason: It is prohibited to immerse a vessel on Shabbat because it looks as if he is repairing the vessel. Since the vessel was previously unfit for use, and the act of immersion renders it usable, this is similar to the repair of a vessel, which is Torah law proscribes on Shabbat and Festivals. The Gemara challenges this understanding: If so, a person should likewise be prohibited to immerse himself, because it looks as if he is repairing himself through purification. The Gemara answers: A person undergoing immersion looks as if he is cooling himself. Since it is not clearly evident that he is immersing in order to purify himself, as he might be bathing for his pleasure, there is no reason to prohibit the immersion.

讛讗 转讬谞讞 诪讬诐 讬驻讬诐 诪讬诐 专注讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讘讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: This works out well in a case where he immerses himself in good, clean water, in which it would be a pleasure to bathe; but if he immerses himself in bad, murky water, as the water of a ritual bath is not always sufficiently clean, what is there to say? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Even in that case, his actions do not prove that his intention is to purify himself, as sometimes a person comes home

讘砖专讘 讜专讜讞抓 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬 诪砖专讛

on a hot day and washes himself even in putrid water in which flax was soaked, because the heat has made him so uncomfortable.

转讬谞讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讘讗 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 诪诇讜讻诇讱 讘讟讬讟 讜讘爪讜讗讛 讜专讜讞抓 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Gemara raises another objection: This works out well in the summer season; however, in the rainy season, when people do not usually immerse themselves in water in order to cool off, what is there to say? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Sometimes a person comes home from the field soiled with mud and excrement and washes himself even in the rainy season.

转讬谞讞 讘砖讘转 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara continues with another objection: This works out well and explains why it is permitted for one to immerse himself on Shabbat, when it is permitted to wash, and therefore it can be argued that it is not clearly evident that he is immersing in order to purify himself; but on Yom Kippur, when all bathing apart from ritual immersion is prohibited, what is there to say? His actions prove that his intention is to purify himself, and this should be prohibited because it looks as though he is repairing himself through purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讬

Rava said: It is impossible to prohibit immersion on Yom Kippur alone, as is there anything that is permitted on Shabbat and the very same act is prohibited as labor on Yom Kippur? In fact, the prohibition against labor is more stringent on Shabbat than on Yom Kippur. Rather, since it is permitted on Shabbat, it is also permitted on Yom Kippur. The Sages did not issue decrees with regard to Yom Kippur that would make it more stringent than Shabbat. Therefore, since they allowed a person to immerse on Shabbat because it looks as if he is doing so for pleasure, to escape the heat or to remove dirt, and not necessarily in order to purify himself, they permitted it on Yom Kippur as well, even though it is evident in that situation that his immersion is for the purpose of achieving purity.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛转谞谉 讛讞讜砖砖 讘砖讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓 讗讘诇 诪讟讘诇 讛讜讗 讻讚专讻讜 讜讗诐 谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 讜专诪讬谞谉 注诇讛 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 讗讘诇 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注

The Gemara asks: Does Rava accept the principle of: Since? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat in order to alleviate his toothache; however, he may dip his food in vinegar in his usual manner during the meal and eat it, and if he is healed by the vinegar, he is healed. And we raised a contradiction to this mishna from the following baraita: One may not sip vinegar and immediately spit it out, as this is clearly done for medicinal purposes; however, one may sip the vinegar and swallow it, since it looks as though he is drinking it. This indicates that there is a permitted way to use vinegar even without dipping his food into it.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 转谞谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讟讘讜诇 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讟讘讜诇

And Abaye said: Also when we learned this ruling in the mishna, we learned it with regard to the case of one who sips and spits it out. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar even in a case where one sips and swallows it, it is still not difficult: Here, the baraita permits sipping vinegar before dipping one鈥檚 food in it, as he appears to be doing so for pleasure. There, the mishna prohibits sipping the vinegar after dipping his food in it, when it is clear that one is doing so for medicinal purposes only.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜拽讜讚诐 讟讘讜诇 砖专讬 诇讗讞专 讟讘讜诇 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗

The Gemara completes its question: And if it is so that Rava accepts the principle of: Since, let him say: Since it is permitted to sip vinegar before dipping, it is also permitted to do so after dipping. The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that statement with regard to vinegar and accepted Abaye鈥檚 resolution of the difficulty, along with the principle of: Since.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪讛讛讬讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讘讬谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: And from where can it be determined that he retracted that teaching? Perhaps he retracted this statement with regard to immersion in a ritual bath on Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind that he retracted his view in that case, as it is taught in a baraita: All who are obligated in immersions immerse in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur, even though it is prohibited to wash on these days. Rava would certainly have aligned his opinion with the explicit ruling of a baraita.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘 诪讬诪讬讜 诇讟讛专讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that one may bring ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water in stone vessels in order to purify the water. However, one may not immerse the impure water. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement: However, one may not immerse the impure water? Shmuel said: One may not immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify it on a Festival. The Sages allowed impure water to be purified through contact with ritually pure water only in a stone vessel or in another vessel that does not contract impurity, but not in an impure vessel that would itself become purified through this immersion.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘 诪讬诪讬讜 诇讟讛专讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘 诪讬诪讬讜 诇讟讛专讜 讜诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉

The Gemara asks: If that is its meaning, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor with that of the Rabbis. As it is taught in the Tosefta: One may not immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify the vessel, and one may not bring impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel in order to purify the water; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: One may immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify the vessel, and one may bring impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel in order to purify the water.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 拽砖讬讗 讛砖拽讛 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讛讟讘诇讛

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then the ruling with regard to bringing impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel is difficult, as in the Tosefta Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits doing so, whereas the mishna permits it; and if it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then the ruling with regard to the immersion of an impure vessel on account of its water is difficult, as in the Tosefta the Rabbis permit this, while the mishna, as explained by Shmuel, prohibits it.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖讘转 讜讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; and if you wish, say instead that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. How so? If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and explain that the first clause of that baraita, i.e., the first part of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement in the Tosefta, deals with a Festival; it is in that case that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits immersing an impure vessel on account of its water, but bringing impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel would be permitted. And the latter clause, which extends the prohibition to bringing impure water into contact with pure water, is referring to the more stringent case of Shabbat. And the entire mishna is referring to a Festival, when it is permitted to purify impure water by bringing it into contact with pure water in a stone vessel.

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 15-23 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we begin the second chapter of Masechet Beitza we will be learning about Eiruv Tavshilin which allows one to...

Beitzah 18 – Shabbat September 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 18 – Shabbat September 18

砖诪讗 讬讟诇谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讬砖 诇讜 讘讜专 讘讞爪讬专讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 讘讜专 讘讞爪专讜 讗讟讜 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

lest one come to pick up the vessel in his hand and carry it four cubits in the public domain to a ritual bath. Abaye said to Rabba: If one has a pit full of water of a ritual bath in his courtyard, so that this decree should not apply, what is there to say? Rabba said to him: The Sages issued a decree against immersing vessels even in a pit of water in one鈥檚 own courtyard due to a pit situated in the public domain.

讛转讬谞讞 砖讘转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝专讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 砖讘转

Abaye posed another challenge: This works out well with regard to Shabbat, but with regard to a Festival, when there is no prohibition against carrying from one domain to another, what is there to say? Rabba replied: The Sages issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel on a Festival, due to the prohibition against immersing it on Shabbat.

讜诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讛砖拽讛 讗讟讜 讛讟讘诇讛

The Gemara asks: And do we issue a decree in such a case? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that one may bring ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water in stone vessels in order to purify the water. However, one may not immerse the impure water in a ritually impure vessel in order to purify the vessel at the same time. And if it is so that such a decree was issued, let us also decree here that bringing ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water is prohibited due to the prohibition against immersing a ritually impure vessel in a ritual bath.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬诐 讬驻讬诐 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讘讚 诇讛讜 讛砖拽讛 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讛讜

The Gemara rejects this challenge: And how can you understand that there is substance to this question? If he has other good, ritually pure, water to drink, why do I need to bring this ritually impure water into contact with the ritually pure water? Rather, one must say that he does not have suitable drinking water, and since he does not have other water, he is particularly careful about this water, so that it not become impure. Therefore, perforce, this must be an exceptional case, as the water became impure despite the precautions that were taken; and the Sages did not apply their decrees to unusual cases.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪讚诇讬谉 讘讚诇讬 讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讚诇讬讜 讝讻讜专 讛讜讗

Abaye raised an objection from the following baraita: One may draw water from a spring or a ritual bath on a Festival with a ritually impure pail, and the pail becomes ritually pure because while being filled with water, the bucket is completely immersed in the ritual bath. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree here that it is prohibited to draw water on Festival with a ritually impure pail lest one come to immerse the pail by itself. Rabba answered: It is different there; since it is permitted for him to immerse the pail only by drawing water with it, he remembers that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel by itself, and therefore there is no reason to issue a decree.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 讚注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讛讬讗 讜诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

Abaye raised an objection from a different baraita, in which it was taught: With regard to a vessel that was rendered ritually impure on the eve of a Festival, one may not immerse it on the Festival; however, if it became impure on the Festival itself, one may immerse it on the Festival. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree here that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel that became impure on a Festival due to the prohibition against immersing a vessel that became impure on the eve of a Festival. Rabba answered: Contracting ritual impurity on a Festival, when all are ritually pure, is an uncommon occurrence, and the general principle is that in the case of an uncommon occurrence, the Sages did not issue a decree as a preventive measure.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讛讗 讗讟讜 讛讗

Abaye raised yet another objection from the following baraita: With regard to a vessel that was rendered ritually impure by a primary source of impurity, one may not immerse it on a Festival. However, if it was rendered impure only by a derivative source of impurity, meaning that the vessel came into contact with an object that was rendered impure by a primary source of impurity, so that the object has the status of first-degree ritual impurity and confers upon the vessel the status of second-degree ritual impurity, a type of impurity that applies to vessels only by rabbinic decree; in such a case, one may immerse the vessel on a Festival. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree here that it is prohibited to immerse this, a vessel rendered impure by a derivative source of impurity, due to the prohibition to immerse that, a vessel rendered impure by a primary source of impurity.

讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讙讘讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛诐

Rabba replied: Where do you find a case where people are particular about purifying a vessel that contracted ritual impurity from a derivative source of impurity? It is only in one situation, namely, with regard to priests, since they eat teruma, and teruma contracts ritual impurity even from a vessel that came into contact with only a derivative source of impurity. An ordinary person, who eats non-consecrated produce, does not go to the trouble of purifying such a vessel, since regular produce contracts ritual impurity only from a vessel that came into contact with a primary source of impurity, but not from a vessel that came into contact with a derivative source of impurity. And as for priests, the general principle is that priests are vigilant; they are careful not to allow their vessels to become impure. Therefore, impurity in the case of priests is considered a rare occurrence, with regard to which the Sages did not issue a decree.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪注专诪转 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘讘讙讚讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a different proof, as Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: A menstruating woman who has no ritually pure clothes to wear after she immerses herself in a ritual bath to purify herself, as all her clothes had become impure, and it is Shabbat or a Festival, when she is unable to immerse them, may employ an artifice to circumvent the prohibition and immerse herself in her clothes. She is permitted to purify herself, and when she immerses herself while wearing her garments, they become purified at the same time. And if it is so that the Sages issued such a decree, let us also decree that it is prohibited for the woman to immerse herself in her clothes lest she come to immerse the clothes by themselves.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诇讘讜砖 讝讻讜专讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: It is different there; since it is permitted for her to immerse the clothes only by wearing them as garments, she remembers that it is prohibited to immerse them by themselves and will not come to violate this prohibition.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 住讞讬讟讛

Apropos Rabba鈥檚 view that one may not immerse a vessel on Shabbat lest he come to carry it four cubits in the public domain, Rav Yosef said that it is prohibited to immerse a vessel on Shabbat for a different reason: It is a decree issued by the Sages as a preventive measure due to the prohibition against wringing. After immersing certain items, such as clothes, one might come to wring them, and this is prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals as a subcategory of the biblically prohibited labor of threshing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 讻诇讬诐 讚讘谞讬 住讞讬讟讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 住讞讬讟讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讝专讛 讛谞讬 讗讟讜 讛谞讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This works out well with regard to vessels that are fit for wringing, such as clothes, but with regard to vessels that are not fit for wringing, what is there to say? Rav Yosef said to him: The Sages issued a decree against these vessels, which cannot be wrung, due to those vessels, which can be wrung. Abaye raised against Rav Yosef all of these objections that he had raised against Rabba, in an attempt to prove that the Sages did not issue such a decree, and Rav Yosef answered him as we answered in the name of Rabba.

专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗

Rav Beivai said a different reason: The prohibition against immersing a vessel on a Festival is a decree issued by the Sages lest one come to delay the immersion of his impure vessels. Were the Sages to permit him to immerse vessels on a Festival, he might delay immersing all of his impure vessels until the Festival, when he has more free time; and were he to leave ritually impure vessels in his possession for a lengthy period, he might come to defile items that must be kept ritually pure, such as teruma. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Beivai: With regard to a vessel that became ritually impure on the eve of a Festival, one may not immerse it on a Festival, due to a decree lest he come to delay and keep impure vessels in his home in order to immerse them on the Festival.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻诪转拽谉 讻诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 谞专讗讛 讻诪讬拽专

Rava said yet a different reason: It is prohibited to immerse a vessel on Shabbat because it looks as if he is repairing the vessel. Since the vessel was previously unfit for use, and the act of immersion renders it usable, this is similar to the repair of a vessel, which is Torah law proscribes on Shabbat and Festivals. The Gemara challenges this understanding: If so, a person should likewise be prohibited to immerse himself, because it looks as if he is repairing himself through purification. The Gemara answers: A person undergoing immersion looks as if he is cooling himself. Since it is not clearly evident that he is immersing in order to purify himself, as he might be bathing for his pleasure, there is no reason to prohibit the immersion.

讛讗 转讬谞讞 诪讬诐 讬驻讬诐 诪讬诐 专注讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讘讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: This works out well in a case where he immerses himself in good, clean water, in which it would be a pleasure to bathe; but if he immerses himself in bad, murky water, as the water of a ritual bath is not always sufficiently clean, what is there to say? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Even in that case, his actions do not prove that his intention is to purify himself, as sometimes a person comes home

讘砖专讘 讜专讜讞抓 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬 诪砖专讛

on a hot day and washes himself even in putrid water in which flax was soaked, because the heat has made him so uncomfortable.

转讬谞讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讘讗 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 诪诇讜讻诇讱 讘讟讬讟 讜讘爪讜讗讛 讜专讜讞抓 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Gemara raises another objection: This works out well in the summer season; however, in the rainy season, when people do not usually immerse themselves in water in order to cool off, what is there to say? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Sometimes a person comes home from the field soiled with mud and excrement and washes himself even in the rainy season.

转讬谞讞 讘砖讘转 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara continues with another objection: This works out well and explains why it is permitted for one to immerse himself on Shabbat, when it is permitted to wash, and therefore it can be argued that it is not clearly evident that he is immersing in order to purify himself; but on Yom Kippur, when all bathing apart from ritual immersion is prohibited, what is there to say? His actions prove that his intention is to purify himself, and this should be prohibited because it looks as though he is repairing himself through purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讬

Rava said: It is impossible to prohibit immersion on Yom Kippur alone, as is there anything that is permitted on Shabbat and the very same act is prohibited as labor on Yom Kippur? In fact, the prohibition against labor is more stringent on Shabbat than on Yom Kippur. Rather, since it is permitted on Shabbat, it is also permitted on Yom Kippur. The Sages did not issue decrees with regard to Yom Kippur that would make it more stringent than Shabbat. Therefore, since they allowed a person to immerse on Shabbat because it looks as if he is doing so for pleasure, to escape the heat or to remove dirt, and not necessarily in order to purify himself, they permitted it on Yom Kippur as well, even though it is evident in that situation that his immersion is for the purpose of achieving purity.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛转谞谉 讛讞讜砖砖 讘砖讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓 讗讘诇 诪讟讘诇 讛讜讗 讻讚专讻讜 讜讗诐 谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 讜专诪讬谞谉 注诇讛 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 讗讘诇 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注

The Gemara asks: Does Rava accept the principle of: Since? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat in order to alleviate his toothache; however, he may dip his food in vinegar in his usual manner during the meal and eat it, and if he is healed by the vinegar, he is healed. And we raised a contradiction to this mishna from the following baraita: One may not sip vinegar and immediately spit it out, as this is clearly done for medicinal purposes; however, one may sip the vinegar and swallow it, since it looks as though he is drinking it. This indicates that there is a permitted way to use vinegar even without dipping his food into it.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 转谞谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讟讘讜诇 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讟讘讜诇

And Abaye said: Also when we learned this ruling in the mishna, we learned it with regard to the case of one who sips and spits it out. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar even in a case where one sips and swallows it, it is still not difficult: Here, the baraita permits sipping vinegar before dipping one鈥檚 food in it, as he appears to be doing so for pleasure. There, the mishna prohibits sipping the vinegar after dipping his food in it, when it is clear that one is doing so for medicinal purposes only.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜拽讜讚诐 讟讘讜诇 砖专讬 诇讗讞专 讟讘讜诇 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗

The Gemara completes its question: And if it is so that Rava accepts the principle of: Since, let him say: Since it is permitted to sip vinegar before dipping, it is also permitted to do so after dipping. The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that statement with regard to vinegar and accepted Abaye鈥檚 resolution of the difficulty, along with the principle of: Since.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪讛讛讬讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讘讬谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: And from where can it be determined that he retracted that teaching? Perhaps he retracted this statement with regard to immersion in a ritual bath on Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind that he retracted his view in that case, as it is taught in a baraita: All who are obligated in immersions immerse in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur, even though it is prohibited to wash on these days. Rava would certainly have aligned his opinion with the explicit ruling of a baraita.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘 诪讬诪讬讜 诇讟讛专讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that one may bring ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water in stone vessels in order to purify the water. However, one may not immerse the impure water. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement: However, one may not immerse the impure water? Shmuel said: One may not immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify it on a Festival. The Sages allowed impure water to be purified through contact with ritually pure water only in a stone vessel or in another vessel that does not contract impurity, but not in an impure vessel that would itself become purified through this immersion.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘 诪讬诪讬讜 诇讟讛专讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘 诪讬诪讬讜 诇讟讛专讜 讜诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉

The Gemara asks: If that is its meaning, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor with that of the Rabbis. As it is taught in the Tosefta: One may not immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify the vessel, and one may not bring impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel in order to purify the water; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: One may immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify the vessel, and one may bring impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel in order to purify the water.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 拽砖讬讗 讛砖拽讛 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讛讟讘诇讛

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then the ruling with regard to bringing impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel is difficult, as in the Tosefta Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits doing so, whereas the mishna permits it; and if it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then the ruling with regard to the immersion of an impure vessel on account of its water is difficult, as in the Tosefta the Rabbis permit this, while the mishna, as explained by Shmuel, prohibits it.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖讘转 讜讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; and if you wish, say instead that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. How so? If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and explain that the first clause of that baraita, i.e., the first part of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement in the Tosefta, deals with a Festival; it is in that case that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits immersing an impure vessel on account of its water, but bringing impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel would be permitted. And the latter clause, which extends the prohibition to bringing impure water into contact with pure water, is referring to the more stringent case of Shabbat. And the entire mishna is referring to a Festival, when it is permitted to purify impure water by bringing it into contact with pure water in a stone vessel.

Scroll To Top