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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 14, 2019 | 讟壮 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 27

At what age of the animal can one give the firstborn to the priest? Until what age? Can the priest work in order to receive priestly gifts as his salary? A levite or a poor person for his tithe? Can someone sell the right to give a particular priest the truma? Would it be the same for other priestly gifts? What differences are there between truma outside of Israel? Are there leniencies? In what areas?


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

讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

the benefit of discretion for the owners of the produce, i.e., benefit accrued from the option of giving teruma and tithes to any priest or Levite of their choosing.

讻讬爪讚 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛驻专讬砖 转专讜诪讛 诪讻专讬讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讗 诇讱 住诇注 讝讛 讜转谞讛讜 诇讘谉 讘转讬 讻讛谉 诪讜转专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讗住讜专

The baraita continues: How so? With regard to an Israelite who separated teruma from his pile of grain, and another Israelite found him and said to him: Take this sela coin for yourself and give the teruma and tithes to my daughter鈥檚 son who is a priest, it is permitted. But if it was a priest who gave the sela coin for the right to give the teruma and tithes to another priest, it is prohibited. Priests may not pay for the gifts that they receive.

讜转谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讱 转专讜诪讛 讚拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪转讞诇讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讟注讬 讘讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of this baraita, what is the reason that he does not state that the owners also have the benefit of discretion with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, jaw, and maw, which must be given to the priest from every non-sacred animal that one slaughters? Why does he mention teruma alone? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: In the case of teruma, which has inherent sanctity, and which therefore cannot be redeemed, the priest will not come to err with it and treat it as though it has no sanctity, even if the owner receives payment for it.

讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗转讬 诇诪讬讟注讬 讘讛讜谉 讚讘专 诪讬转讞诇 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讗讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗转讗 诇诪讬谞讛讙 讘讛谉 诪谞讛讙 讚讞讜诇讬谉

By contrast, with regard to these gifts of the priesthood, since they have sanctity that inheres in their value, which means that once the priest has received them he may sell them, the priest might come to err with them by saying that the sanctity that they have can be redeemed with four zuz, i.e., the one sela, and he might come to treat them in the manner that one treats non-sacred food. This would be a mistake, as a priest must eat his priestly gifts in a dignified manner, i.e., roasted and with seasoning (see 岣llin 132b).

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讛谉 讛诪住讬讬注 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 专讘 讞诪讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛

搂 On a related topic, Rava says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael does not have any prohibition due to a priest assisting at the threshing floor. The Sages decreed that one must separate teruma from produce grown in certain places outside of Eretz Yisrael. Yet, the halakhot governing this teruma are not as stringent as those that apply to teruma from produce grown within Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, one may give such teruma to a priest for helping at the threshing floor. In support of this claim, the Gemara relates that Rav 岣ma gave teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael to his servant, who was a priest, as his wages.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘讟讬诇讛 讘专讜讘 专讘讛 诪讘讟诇讛 讘专讜讘 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

With regard to teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael, Shmuel says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael that became mixed with non-sacred produce is nullified in a majority, unlike ordinary teruma, which requires one hundred parts of non-sacred produce to nullify it. The Gemara relates that Rabba, who was a priest, would nullify his teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael in a majority ab initio and eat it during his days of impurity. Both of these acts are prohibited in the case of teruma from produce grown in Eretz Yisrael.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻讬 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讛讜讛 专诪讬 转专讬 谞讟诇讬 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞讚讗 谞讟诇讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讜砖拽讬诇 讞讚 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专诪讬 讞讚讗 讜砖拽讬诇 讞讚讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, when he would happen to have wine of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael, would pour two jugs of non-sacred wine and one jug of teruma wine into a vat in order to nullify the teruma wine, and then take out one jug鈥檚 worth of wine to drink. Having done so, from here onward every time he received more teruma wine grown outside of Eretz Yisrael, he would pour one jug of teruma wine into the same vat, which still contained two jugs鈥 worth of wine, and take out one jug鈥檚 worth of wine.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪驻专讬砖

And Shmuel further says: Teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael does not need to be separated before one eats the produce. Rather, one may proceed to eat and afterward separate the teruma from the remainder.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗住讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讛讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘谞讙讬注讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

And Shmuel also says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to a member of a priestly household whose impurity comes from his body, e.g., a man who experiences a seminal emission or a menstruating woman. It is not prohibited to a priest who came into contact with a corpse, an animal carcass, or the carcass of a creeping animal. And this statement, that such teruma is forbidden to one whose impurity comes from his body, applies only with regard to eating it. But with regard to touching teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael, we have no problem with it.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讬诇讻讱 谞讚讛 拽讜爪讛 讞诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛 讻讛谉 拽讟谉 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 拽讟谉 砖拽诇讛 诇讛 讘专讬砖 诪住讗 讜砖讚讬讗 讘转谞讜专讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖讗 讞诇讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转砖转讻讞 转讜专转 讞诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

Ravina says: Therefore, a menstruating woman, whose impurity comes from her body, may separate 岣lla from dough outside of Eretz Yisrael, and a minor priest, who has never experienced a seminal emission and is therefore ritually pure, may eat it. And if there is no minor priest available, she takes the 岣lla with the top of a skewer [massa] and throws it in the oven, and then separates another piece from the dough as 岣lla, not because it is necessary but so that the halakhic category of 岣lla should not be forgotten. And an adult priest may eat it, even if he is ritually impure.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 注诪专诐 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜讜 拽讗讝诇讬 讘讗专讘讗 住诇讬拽 专讘 注诪专诐 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 注诇转 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 讟诪讗 诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬讟讘讜诇 讜讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an, Rav Amram, and Rami bar 岣ma were traveling in a ferry. Rav Amram went to relieve himself. A certain woman came before Rav Na岣an and Rami bar 岣ma and said to them: In the case of one who is impure through contact with a corpse, what is the halakha with regard to whether he may immerse himself in a ritual bath and partake of teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rav Na岣an said to Rami bar 岣ma:

讜讻讬 讛讝讗讛 讬砖 诇谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讬讛 诇住讘讗 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讟诪讗 诪转 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

But do we have sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer? Since without such sprinkling one remains impure after contact with a corpse, how does it help to immerse in a ritual bath? Rami bar 岣ma said to him: Shouldn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an be concerned for the opinion of the old man, i.e., Rav Amram? Wouldn鈥檛 it be better to wait until he returns before answering? Meanwhile, Rav Amram came back. He said to them that this is what Rav says: One who became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse may immerse and partake of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讟诪讗 砖专抓 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara comments: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Sheshet: One who became impure through contact with the carcass of a creeping animal may immerse in a ritual bath and partake of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael. But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

讘讻讜专 谞讗讻诇 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讻讜壮 诪讚拽讗诪专 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇砖谞讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诪谞讬谞谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: The firstborn animal is eaten year by year, i.e., within its first year, whether it is blemished or unblemished. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the mishna says: If a blemish developed within its first year, rather than within the first year, that is to say that we count according to its year, not by the calendar year. In other words, the year is calculated from the day of the animal鈥檚 birth. From where is this matter derived?

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讗讬讝讜讛讬 砖谞讛 砖谞讻谞住转 讘讞讘专转讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专

It is derived from a verse, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat it before the Lord your God, year by year [shana beshana] in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:20). The phrase 鈥shana beshana,鈥 which can also be translated as: A year in a year, indicates that the verse is referring to one year that enters another year. Which type of year enters another year? You must say that this is speaking of the year of the firstborn animal, which enters the following calendar year, since if the animal is born in the middle of the year, its first year includes part of the subsequent calendar year.

讚讘讬 专讘 转谞讗 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讘讻讜专 砖谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚

The school of Rav taught that there is a different halakha derived from the phrase 鈥測ear by year.鈥 This phrase indicates that it may be eaten on one day of this year and one day of that next year. The verse thereby taught with regard to an unblemished firstborn animal, which is sacrificed in the Temple, that it is eaten for two days and one night, like a peace offering.

讚讘讬 专讘 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讬诇驻讬 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 砖谞转讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讛 砖诇 诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: From where does the school of Rav derive the halakha that a firstborn must be eaten within its own year and that its year is not calculated according to the calendar year? They derive it from the halakha of other sacrificial animals, whose age is counted from their birth rather than by the calendar year. And with regard to the other sacrificial animals themselves, from where do we derive that their age is counted from their birth? Rav A岣 bar Yaakov says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). This description of the lamb is referring to its own year, and not a year of the counting of the world.

讜专讘 谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讻讞讝讛 讛转谞讜驻讛 讜讻砖讜拽 讛讬诪讬谉 讛拽讬砖讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: And Rav, from where does he derive that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from a verse in which Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons with regard to eating the firstborn: 鈥淎nd their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:18). The verse thereby juxtaposed the halakha of the firstborn with the breast and thigh of a peace offering. Just as there, it may be eaten for two days and one night, as stated explicitly in a verse (see Leviticus 7:16), so too here, a firstborn may be eaten for two days and one night.

  • 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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 27

讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

the benefit of discretion for the owners of the produce, i.e., benefit accrued from the option of giving teruma and tithes to any priest or Levite of their choosing.

讻讬爪讚 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛驻专讬砖 转专讜诪讛 诪讻专讬讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讗 诇讱 住诇注 讝讛 讜转谞讛讜 诇讘谉 讘转讬 讻讛谉 诪讜转专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讗住讜专

The baraita continues: How so? With regard to an Israelite who separated teruma from his pile of grain, and another Israelite found him and said to him: Take this sela coin for yourself and give the teruma and tithes to my daughter鈥檚 son who is a priest, it is permitted. But if it was a priest who gave the sela coin for the right to give the teruma and tithes to another priest, it is prohibited. Priests may not pay for the gifts that they receive.

讜转谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讱 转专讜诪讛 讚拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪转讞诇讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讟注讬 讘讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of this baraita, what is the reason that he does not state that the owners also have the benefit of discretion with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, jaw, and maw, which must be given to the priest from every non-sacred animal that one slaughters? Why does he mention teruma alone? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: In the case of teruma, which has inherent sanctity, and which therefore cannot be redeemed, the priest will not come to err with it and treat it as though it has no sanctity, even if the owner receives payment for it.

讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗转讬 诇诪讬讟注讬 讘讛讜谉 讚讘专 诪讬转讞诇 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讗讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗转讗 诇诪讬谞讛讙 讘讛谉 诪谞讛讙 讚讞讜诇讬谉

By contrast, with regard to these gifts of the priesthood, since they have sanctity that inheres in their value, which means that once the priest has received them he may sell them, the priest might come to err with them by saying that the sanctity that they have can be redeemed with four zuz, i.e., the one sela, and he might come to treat them in the manner that one treats non-sacred food. This would be a mistake, as a priest must eat his priestly gifts in a dignified manner, i.e., roasted and with seasoning (see 岣llin 132b).

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讛谉 讛诪住讬讬注 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 专讘 讞诪讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛

搂 On a related topic, Rava says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael does not have any prohibition due to a priest assisting at the threshing floor. The Sages decreed that one must separate teruma from produce grown in certain places outside of Eretz Yisrael. Yet, the halakhot governing this teruma are not as stringent as those that apply to teruma from produce grown within Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, one may give such teruma to a priest for helping at the threshing floor. In support of this claim, the Gemara relates that Rav 岣ma gave teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael to his servant, who was a priest, as his wages.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘讟讬诇讛 讘专讜讘 专讘讛 诪讘讟诇讛 讘专讜讘 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

With regard to teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael, Shmuel says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael that became mixed with non-sacred produce is nullified in a majority, unlike ordinary teruma, which requires one hundred parts of non-sacred produce to nullify it. The Gemara relates that Rabba, who was a priest, would nullify his teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael in a majority ab initio and eat it during his days of impurity. Both of these acts are prohibited in the case of teruma from produce grown in Eretz Yisrael.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻讬 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讛讜讛 专诪讬 转专讬 谞讟诇讬 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞讚讗 谞讟诇讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讜砖拽讬诇 讞讚 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专诪讬 讞讚讗 讜砖拽讬诇 讞讚讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, when he would happen to have wine of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael, would pour two jugs of non-sacred wine and one jug of teruma wine into a vat in order to nullify the teruma wine, and then take out one jug鈥檚 worth of wine to drink. Having done so, from here onward every time he received more teruma wine grown outside of Eretz Yisrael, he would pour one jug of teruma wine into the same vat, which still contained two jugs鈥 worth of wine, and take out one jug鈥檚 worth of wine.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪驻专讬砖

And Shmuel further says: Teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael does not need to be separated before one eats the produce. Rather, one may proceed to eat and afterward separate the teruma from the remainder.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗住讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讛讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘谞讙讬注讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

And Shmuel also says: Teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to a member of a priestly household whose impurity comes from his body, e.g., a man who experiences a seminal emission or a menstruating woman. It is not prohibited to a priest who came into contact with a corpse, an animal carcass, or the carcass of a creeping animal. And this statement, that such teruma is forbidden to one whose impurity comes from his body, applies only with regard to eating it. But with regard to touching teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael, we have no problem with it.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讬诇讻讱 谞讚讛 拽讜爪讛 讞诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛 讻讛谉 拽讟谉 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 拽讟谉 砖拽诇讛 诇讛 讘专讬砖 诪住讗 讜砖讚讬讗 讘转谞讜专讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖讗 讞诇讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转砖转讻讞 转讜专转 讞诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

Ravina says: Therefore, a menstruating woman, whose impurity comes from her body, may separate 岣lla from dough outside of Eretz Yisrael, and a minor priest, who has never experienced a seminal emission and is therefore ritually pure, may eat it. And if there is no minor priest available, she takes the 岣lla with the top of a skewer [massa] and throws it in the oven, and then separates another piece from the dough as 岣lla, not because it is necessary but so that the halakhic category of 岣lla should not be forgotten. And an adult priest may eat it, even if he is ritually impure.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 注诪专诐 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜讜 拽讗讝诇讬 讘讗专讘讗 住诇讬拽 专讘 注诪专诐 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讗转讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 注诇转 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讛 诇讛讜 讟诪讗 诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬讟讘讜诇 讜讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an, Rav Amram, and Rami bar 岣ma were traveling in a ferry. Rav Amram went to relieve himself. A certain woman came before Rav Na岣an and Rami bar 岣ma and said to them: In the case of one who is impure through contact with a corpse, what is the halakha with regard to whether he may immerse himself in a ritual bath and partake of teruma from outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rav Na岣an said to Rami bar 岣ma:

讜讻讬 讛讝讗讛 讬砖 诇谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讬讛 诇住讘讗 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讟诪讗 诪转 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

But do we have sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer? Since without such sprinkling one remains impure after contact with a corpse, how does it help to immerse in a ritual bath? Rami bar 岣ma said to him: Shouldn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an be concerned for the opinion of the old man, i.e., Rav Amram? Wouldn鈥檛 it be better to wait until he returns before answering? Meanwhile, Rav Amram came back. He said to them that this is what Rav says: One who became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse may immerse and partake of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讟诪讗 砖专抓 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪转 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara comments: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Sheshet: One who became impure through contact with the carcass of a creeping animal may immerse in a ritual bath and partake of teruma from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael. But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.

讘讻讜专 谞讗讻诇 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讻讜壮 诪讚拽讗诪专 谞讜诇讚 讘讜 诪讜诐 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇砖谞讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诪谞讬谞谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: The firstborn animal is eaten year by year, i.e., within its first year, whether it is blemished or unblemished. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the mishna says: If a blemish developed within its first year, rather than within the first year, that is to say that we count according to its year, not by the calendar year. In other words, the year is calculated from the day of the animal鈥檚 birth. From where is this matter derived?

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讗讬讝讜讛讬 砖谞讛 砖谞讻谞住转 讘讞讘专转讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专

It is derived from a verse, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat it before the Lord your God, year by year [shana beshana] in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:20). The phrase 鈥shana beshana,鈥 which can also be translated as: A year in a year, indicates that the verse is referring to one year that enters another year. Which type of year enters another year? You must say that this is speaking of the year of the firstborn animal, which enters the following calendar year, since if the animal is born in the middle of the year, its first year includes part of the subsequent calendar year.

讚讘讬 专讘 转谞讗 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讘讻讜专 砖谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚

The school of Rav taught that there is a different halakha derived from the phrase 鈥測ear by year.鈥 This phrase indicates that it may be eaten on one day of this year and one day of that next year. The verse thereby taught with regard to an unblemished firstborn animal, which is sacrificed in the Temple, that it is eaten for two days and one night, like a peace offering.

讚讘讬 专讘 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讬诇驻讬 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 砖谞转讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讛 砖诇 诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: From where does the school of Rav derive the halakha that a firstborn must be eaten within its own year and that its year is not calculated according to the calendar year? They derive it from the halakha of other sacrificial animals, whose age is counted from their birth rather than by the calendar year. And with regard to the other sacrificial animals themselves, from where do we derive that their age is counted from their birth? Rav A岣 bar Yaakov says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). This description of the lamb is referring to its own year, and not a year of the counting of the world.

讜专讘 谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讻讞讝讛 讛转谞讜驻讛 讜讻砖讜拽 讛讬诪讬谉 讛拽讬砖讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: And Rav, from where does he derive that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from a verse in which Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons with regard to eating the firstborn: 鈥淎nd their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:18). The verse thereby juxtaposed the halakha of the firstborn with the breast and thigh of a peace offering. Just as there, it may be eaten for two days and one night, as stated explicitly in a verse (see Leviticus 7:16), so too here, a firstborn may be eaten for two days and one night.

Scroll To Top