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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 10, 2019 | 讛壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 23

A number of questions are brought against Rabbi Yirmiya who said that even when things are canceled by a majority, they aren’t entirely canceled and could be “revived”. When one sees animals nursing their young, can one assume it is their own young or could they be nursing a different animal’s offspring? Rav paskened that we hold like all the mishnayot in this chapter except in the cases where there is a debate. To which mishnayot is he referring?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 谞拽讜讚讬谉 讗讜 拽诇讬讜转 讗讜 讬诇讜砖讜 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转 讗讜 转转讞诇拽 诇注讬住讜转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻讘讬爪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讬讗 拽讘 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜拽讘 讜注讜讚 诪诪讬谉 讝讛 住讘专 讗讬讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 讘专讜讘讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讛讜 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

according to Rabbi Eliezer, what will be with them? Let them be eaten dry or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into small batches, provided that there is not an egg-bulk of volume in a single batch. And Ulla says: What is the reason that the mixture may not be allowed to come in contact with water, despite the fact that it is entirely non-sacred? It is a rabbinic decree, lest one bring a kav of non-sacred, impure produce from some other place and take a kav and a little more from this mixture. Then he will think to himself: I will nullify the kav of impure produce with the majority of pure produce from the mixture. But since there is some amount of impure produce in the mixture, the type that was nullified found its own type and is revived in its impure state.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讟讜诪讗讛 注讜专专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟讛专讛 注讜专专转 讟讜诪讗讛

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: That proof is not conclusive. Even if impurity revives impurity, as in the case of teruma where the kav of produce is impure, why should it be assumed that purity revives impurity, as is suggested with regard to the fish brine, where the water in the pot is pure?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗驻专 讻砖专 砖谞转注专讘 讘讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 诇讟诪讗 讜讗讬 专讜讘讗 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya from a mishna (Para 9:7): If the ashes of a red heifer, which impart ritual impurity to the priests involved in its ritual and are fit for sprinkling on someone impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, became intermingled with regular burned ashes, we follow the majority in order to determine whether or not the mixture is impure. And therefore, if the majority is composed of the regular burned ashes, the mixture does not impart impurity. Abaye explains the objection: And if you say nullified impurity is considered like an item that is nevertheless present in the mixture and can be revived, then although the mixture does not impart impurity through physical contact as it is assumed that one touches the majority, let it impart impurity through carrying due to the ashes of the red heifer.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Rav Dimi responded: In fact, it was stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The mixture is pure in the sense that it does not impart impurity through contact, but it does impart impurity through carrying.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘砖讞讜讟讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇谞讘讬诇讛 砖转讬注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Abaye responded: But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: If meat from an animal carcass, which imparts ritual impurity, was mixed with the meat of a slaughtered animal, the meat from the carcass is nullified by the meat of the slaughtered animal in the event that the ritually pure meat constitutes a majority. The reason is that it is impossible for a carcass to become a slaughtered animal, i.e., a ritually slaughtered animal can never have the status of a carcass with regard to impurity. Abaye explains the difficulty: Granted that it does not impart impurity through contact, but if the impurity is considered present to some extent let the mixture impart impurity through carrying.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讜谉 讘讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讘讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讜砖讞讜讟讛 讘讟讬诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: You learned the mishna according to the interpretation of Rav 岣sda, but we learned it according to the interpretation of Rabbi 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya teaches: With regard to meat from an animal carcass and meat from a slaughtered animal, one nullifies the other, depending on the majority. And it was stated with regard to this ruling that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: If the majority is from a slaughtered animal the mixture is pure in the sense that it does not impart impurity through contact, but it does impart impurity through carrying.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 砖砖驻注讛 讞专专转 讚诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转拽讘专 讜谞驻讟专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗 讗诪讗讬 讚谞讛讬 讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 转讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讗讬砖转讬拽

Abaye raised another difficulty: And that which we learned in our mishna contradicts your opinion, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn. And Rabbi 岣yya teaches with regard to this ruling: That mass does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying. But why? If Rav Dimi is correct, then granted it does not impart impurity through contact, but let it nevertheless impart impurity through carrying. Rav Dimi was silent in response.

讚诇诪讗 讜讚讗讬 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 住专讜讞讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讙专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讙专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Why was Rav Dimi silent? Perhaps the halakha is different here, as it is decayed impurity, since an animal carcass that has rotted does not impart impurity at all. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of bar Padda, who says: An item with severe ritual impurity, such as that of a nonviable newborn, imparts impurity to substances until it is rotted to the degree that it is no longer fit to be consumed by a gentile who observes certain mitzvot [ger toshav], who is permitted to consume it; but an item with light impurity, which transmits impurity only by contact, imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. And as this congealed mass is not fit to be eaten by a ger toshav it does not impart impurity. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says:

讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讛讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻诇讘 拽砖讬讗

Both this one and that one, i.e., items of both forms of impurity, impart impurity until they are no longer fit to be eaten by a dog, it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as this mass is fit for a dog. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

讙讜驻讗 讘专 驻讚讗 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讙专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 注讚 诇讻诇讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘专 驻讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇讙专 讜讙讜壮 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘讬诇讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Bar Padda says: An item with severe ritual impurity imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a ger toshav, but an item with light impurity imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Both this one and that one impart impurity until they are no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of bar Padda? As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any animal carcass; you may give it to the ger who is within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). Bar Padda understands from this verse that an item which is fit for a ger toshav is called an animal carcass, and that which is not fit for a ger toshav is not called an animal carcass.

讜讗讬讚讱 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛住专讬讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讛住专讬讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, how does he interpret that verse? He maintains that it serves to exclude a carcass that was decayed from the outset, e.g., if the flesh started to decompose while the animal was still alive, due to severe injury. But if the carcass was initially edible and later decayed, it continues to impart ritual impurity provided it is fit for a dog. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, bar Padda, how does he respond to this claim? A verse is not necessary to exclude such a case where the carcass was decayed from the outset, as it is merely like dust and obviously does not impart impurity.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 砖砖驻注讛 讞专专转 讚诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转拽讘专 讜谞驻讟专转 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 讘专讜讘 谞讙注讜 讘讛

We learned in our mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn. And Rabbi 岣yya teaches: That mass of congealed blood does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is due to the halakhic nullification of a forbidden substance in a majority of permitted substances that the Sages touched upon it, in order to exclude it from impurity through contact or carrying.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 讘专讜讘 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝讬 讻诇诇 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转讞讝讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讙讘 讗讬诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this halakha is due specifically to the nullification of a substance in a mixture by the majority of the mixture? Let one derive the halakha from the fact that the mass is not fit for consumption at all, and it never was. The Gemara explains: This too was initially fit by virtue of its mother, i.e., if one had slaughtered the mother before the embryo was discharged it would have been edible as part of the mother.

转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 爪讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞讞砖讚讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诇注专讘 诪讞爪讛 讘爪讬专 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讞爪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讬专 诪诪讞爪讛 谞诪讬 讜讛谞讬 诪砖讛讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Makhshirin 6:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Ritually pure brine, taken from an am ha鈥檃retz, into which any amount of water fell is rendered impure. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: That is to say that amei ha鈥檃retz are suspected of mixing half a portion of water in the brine, which means that when the additional water falls in, the nullified impurity in the brine is revived by it and renders the entire mixture impure. The Gemara asks: But why do I need to say they are suspected of mixing precisely half a portion of water? Even if they mix in less than half, the brine will also be rendered impure upon contact with the added water, as that small amount combined with slightly less than half a portion of water constitutes half the mixture, and half a mixture is not nullified by the other half.

讗讬诪讗 注讚 诪讞爪讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讘专讜讘讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讘驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Say instead that an am ha鈥檃retz is suspected of mixing in water until it constitutes slightly less than half the mixture. And if you wish, say instead: The impurity of foods belonging to an am ha鈥檃retz applies by rabbinic law and the impurity of liquids also applies by rabbinic law. Accordingly, the impurity of the brine in this case is due to two separate rabbinic decrees. Where the majority is water the Sages decreed the brine is impure, but in a case where half the mixture is pure fish brine and half is water the Sages did not decree that the brine is impure.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诇讜拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诪谞讬拽讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘谞讛 砖诇 讗讞专转 讛讬讛 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 注讚专讜 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛诪讘讻讬专讜转 诪谞讬拽讜转 讜砖讗讬谞谉 诪讘讻讬专讜转 诪谞讬拽讜转 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘谞讛 砖诇 讝讜 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 讗讜 砖诪讗 讘谞讛 砖诇 讝讜 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 讝讜

MISHNA: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who purchases a nursing female animal from a gentile, he does not need to be concerned, i.e., take into account the possibility, that perhaps it was nursing the offspring of another animal. Rather, the buyer may assume it had previously given birth. In the case of one who enters amid his flock and sees mother animals that gave birth for the first time that were nursing, and also sees mother animals that gave birth not for the first time that were also nursing, he does not need to be concerned that perhaps the offspring of this animal came to that animal to be nursed, or that perhaps the offspring of that animal came to this animal to be nursed.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 讘专 诪驻诇讜讙转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诪驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous tanna in the mishnayot throughout the whole chapter, except where there is a difference of opinion recorded in that mishna. Rav Sheshet says: I say Rav was dozing or sleeping when he said this halakha. After all, to which mishna is this referring? If we say it is referring to the first mishna in the chapter (19b) then his ruling does not apply, as Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in that mishna.

讗诇讗 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬

Rather, you will say it is referring to the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (21b). This is also problematic, since it is already known that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, as there is an established principle that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov measures only a kav but is clean and accurate, and therefore the halakha is in accordance with his opinions.

讗诇讗 讗讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讗砖注专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

Rather, you will say it is referring to the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna here. That is also difficult, as there is a tanna who disagrees, in the baraita cited on 24a. Rather, you will say that it is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam in the next mishna (24b). But didn鈥檛 Rav already say this one time? As Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam. Rather, you will say that it is referring to the matter of the hair of a blemished firstborn discussed in the mishna on 25b. But that case too is subject to a dispute, as Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis disagree in that mishna.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav鈥檚 statement is referring to the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here, and Rav teaches us this: That if a mishna is contradicted by a dissenting opinion cited in a baraita it is not considered a dispute, and the halakha therefore follows the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 讘专 诪驻诇讜讙转讗

The Gemara asks: But once Rav said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous tanna in the mishnayot throughout the whole chapter except where there is a difference of opinion,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 23

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 谞拽讜讚讬谉 讗讜 拽诇讬讜转 讗讜 讬诇讜砖讜 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转 讗讜 转转讞诇拽 诇注讬住讜转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻讘讬爪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讬讗 拽讘 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜拽讘 讜注讜讚 诪诪讬谉 讝讛 住讘专 讗讬讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 讘专讜讘讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讛讜 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

according to Rabbi Eliezer, what will be with them? Let them be eaten dry or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into small batches, provided that there is not an egg-bulk of volume in a single batch. And Ulla says: What is the reason that the mixture may not be allowed to come in contact with water, despite the fact that it is entirely non-sacred? It is a rabbinic decree, lest one bring a kav of non-sacred, impure produce from some other place and take a kav and a little more from this mixture. Then he will think to himself: I will nullify the kav of impure produce with the majority of pure produce from the mixture. But since there is some amount of impure produce in the mixture, the type that was nullified found its own type and is revived in its impure state.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讟讜诪讗讛 注讜专专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟讛专讛 注讜专专转 讟讜诪讗讛

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: That proof is not conclusive. Even if impurity revives impurity, as in the case of teruma where the kav of produce is impure, why should it be assumed that purity revives impurity, as is suggested with regard to the fish brine, where the water in the pot is pure?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗驻专 讻砖专 砖谞转注专讘 讘讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 诇讟诪讗 讜讗讬 专讜讘讗 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya from a mishna (Para 9:7): If the ashes of a red heifer, which impart ritual impurity to the priests involved in its ritual and are fit for sprinkling on someone impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, became intermingled with regular burned ashes, we follow the majority in order to determine whether or not the mixture is impure. And therefore, if the majority is composed of the regular burned ashes, the mixture does not impart impurity. Abaye explains the objection: And if you say nullified impurity is considered like an item that is nevertheless present in the mixture and can be revived, then although the mixture does not impart impurity through physical contact as it is assumed that one touches the majority, let it impart impurity through carrying due to the ashes of the red heifer.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Rav Dimi responded: In fact, it was stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The mixture is pure in the sense that it does not impart impurity through contact, but it does impart impurity through carrying.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘砖讞讜讟讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇谞讘讬诇讛 砖转讬注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Abaye responded: But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: If meat from an animal carcass, which imparts ritual impurity, was mixed with the meat of a slaughtered animal, the meat from the carcass is nullified by the meat of the slaughtered animal in the event that the ritually pure meat constitutes a majority. The reason is that it is impossible for a carcass to become a slaughtered animal, i.e., a ritually slaughtered animal can never have the status of a carcass with regard to impurity. Abaye explains the difficulty: Granted that it does not impart impurity through contact, but if the impurity is considered present to some extent let the mixture impart impurity through carrying.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讜谉 讘讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讘讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讜砖讞讜讟讛 讘讟讬诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: You learned the mishna according to the interpretation of Rav 岣sda, but we learned it according to the interpretation of Rabbi 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya teaches: With regard to meat from an animal carcass and meat from a slaughtered animal, one nullifies the other, depending on the majority. And it was stated with regard to this ruling that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: If the majority is from a slaughtered animal the mixture is pure in the sense that it does not impart impurity through contact, but it does impart impurity through carrying.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 砖砖驻注讛 讞专专转 讚诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转拽讘专 讜谞驻讟专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗 讗诪讗讬 讚谞讛讬 讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 转讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讗讬砖转讬拽

Abaye raised another difficulty: And that which we learned in our mishna contradicts your opinion, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn. And Rabbi 岣yya teaches with regard to this ruling: That mass does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying. But why? If Rav Dimi is correct, then granted it does not impart impurity through contact, but let it nevertheless impart impurity through carrying. Rav Dimi was silent in response.

讚诇诪讗 讜讚讗讬 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 住专讜讞讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讙专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讙专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Why was Rav Dimi silent? Perhaps the halakha is different here, as it is decayed impurity, since an animal carcass that has rotted does not impart impurity at all. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of bar Padda, who says: An item with severe ritual impurity, such as that of a nonviable newborn, imparts impurity to substances until it is rotted to the degree that it is no longer fit to be consumed by a gentile who observes certain mitzvot [ger toshav], who is permitted to consume it; but an item with light impurity, which transmits impurity only by contact, imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. And as this congealed mass is not fit to be eaten by a ger toshav it does not impart impurity. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says:

讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讛讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻诇讘 拽砖讬讗

Both this one and that one, i.e., items of both forms of impurity, impart impurity until they are no longer fit to be eaten by a dog, it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as this mass is fit for a dog. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

讙讜驻讗 讘专 驻讚讗 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讙专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 注讚 诇讻诇讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘专 驻讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇讙专 讜讙讜壮 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘讬诇讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Bar Padda says: An item with severe ritual impurity imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a ger toshav, but an item with light impurity imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Both this one and that one impart impurity until they are no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of bar Padda? As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any animal carcass; you may give it to the ger who is within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). Bar Padda understands from this verse that an item which is fit for a ger toshav is called an animal carcass, and that which is not fit for a ger toshav is not called an animal carcass.

讜讗讬讚讱 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛住专讬讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讛住专讬讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, how does he interpret that verse? He maintains that it serves to exclude a carcass that was decayed from the outset, e.g., if the flesh started to decompose while the animal was still alive, due to severe injury. But if the carcass was initially edible and later decayed, it continues to impart ritual impurity provided it is fit for a dog. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, bar Padda, how does he respond to this claim? A verse is not necessary to exclude such a case where the carcass was decayed from the outset, as it is merely like dust and obviously does not impart impurity.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 砖砖驻注讛 讞专专转 讚诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转拽讘专 讜谞驻讟专转 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 讘专讜讘 谞讙注讜 讘讛

We learned in our mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn. And Rabbi 岣yya teaches: That mass of congealed blood does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is due to the halakhic nullification of a forbidden substance in a majority of permitted substances that the Sages touched upon it, in order to exclude it from impurity through contact or carrying.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讟讜诇 讘专讜讘 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝讬 讻诇诇 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转讞讝讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讙讘 讗讬诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this halakha is due specifically to the nullification of a substance in a mixture by the majority of the mixture? Let one derive the halakha from the fact that the mass is not fit for consumption at all, and it never was. The Gemara explains: This too was initially fit by virtue of its mother, i.e., if one had slaughtered the mother before the embryo was discharged it would have been edible as part of the mother.

转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 爪讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞讞砖讚讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诇注专讘 诪讞爪讛 讘爪讬专 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讞爪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讬专 诪诪讞爪讛 谞诪讬 讜讛谞讬 诪砖讛讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Makhshirin 6:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Ritually pure brine, taken from an am ha鈥檃retz, into which any amount of water fell is rendered impure. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: That is to say that amei ha鈥檃retz are suspected of mixing half a portion of water in the brine, which means that when the additional water falls in, the nullified impurity in the brine is revived by it and renders the entire mixture impure. The Gemara asks: But why do I need to say they are suspected of mixing precisely half a portion of water? Even if they mix in less than half, the brine will also be rendered impure upon contact with the added water, as that small amount combined with slightly less than half a portion of water constitutes half the mixture, and half a mixture is not nullified by the other half.

讗讬诪讗 注讚 诪讞爪讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讘专讜讘讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讘驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Say instead that an am ha鈥檃retz is suspected of mixing in water until it constitutes slightly less than half the mixture. And if you wish, say instead: The impurity of foods belonging to an am ha鈥檃retz applies by rabbinic law and the impurity of liquids also applies by rabbinic law. Accordingly, the impurity of the brine in this case is due to two separate rabbinic decrees. Where the majority is water the Sages decreed the brine is impure, but in a case where half the mixture is pure fish brine and half is water the Sages did not decree that the brine is impure.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诇讜拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诪谞讬拽讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘谞讛 砖诇 讗讞专转 讛讬讛 谞讻谞住 诇转讜讱 注讚专讜 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛诪讘讻讬专讜转 诪谞讬拽讜转 讜砖讗讬谞谉 诪讘讻讬专讜转 诪谞讬拽讜转 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘谞讛 砖诇 讝讜 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 讗讜 砖诪讗 讘谞讛 砖诇 讝讜 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 讝讜

MISHNA: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who purchases a nursing female animal from a gentile, he does not need to be concerned, i.e., take into account the possibility, that perhaps it was nursing the offspring of another animal. Rather, the buyer may assume it had previously given birth. In the case of one who enters amid his flock and sees mother animals that gave birth for the first time that were nursing, and also sees mother animals that gave birth not for the first time that were also nursing, he does not need to be concerned that perhaps the offspring of this animal came to that animal to be nursed, or that perhaps the offspring of that animal came to this animal to be nursed.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 讘专 诪驻诇讜讙转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 诪驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous tanna in the mishnayot throughout the whole chapter, except where there is a difference of opinion recorded in that mishna. Rav Sheshet says: I say Rav was dozing or sleeping when he said this halakha. After all, to which mishna is this referring? If we say it is referring to the first mishna in the chapter (19b) then his ruling does not apply, as Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in that mishna.

讗诇讗 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬

Rather, you will say it is referring to the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (21b). This is also problematic, since it is already known that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, as there is an established principle that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov measures only a kav but is clean and accurate, and therefore the halakha is in accordance with his opinions.

讗诇讗 讗讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讗砖注专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

Rather, you will say it is referring to the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna here. That is also difficult, as there is a tanna who disagrees, in the baraita cited on 24a. Rather, you will say that it is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam in the next mishna (24b). But didn鈥檛 Rav already say this one time? As Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam. Rather, you will say that it is referring to the matter of the hair of a blemished firstborn discussed in the mishna on 25b. But that case too is subject to a dispute, as Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis disagree in that mishna.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav鈥檚 statement is referring to the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here, and Rav teaches us this: That if a mishna is contradicted by a dissenting opinion cited in a baraita it is not considered a dispute, and the halakha therefore follows the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 讘专 诪驻诇讜讙转讗

The Gemara asks: But once Rav said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous tanna in the mishnayot throughout the whole chapter except where there is a difference of opinion,

Scroll To Top