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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 1, 2022 | 讻状讞 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

  • 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.

Chagigah 20

This month鈥檚 shiurim are sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her father, Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naphtali HaLevy ve鈥機haya, z鈥漧, who passed away on 21 Adar 1. 鈥淗e lived his Jewish values blending them with his fierce belief in democracy and feminism.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Ariella Slovin in honor of her mother, Reena Slovin’s birthday. 鈥淲ith love from her three children and their spouses. We are so impressed by her unwavering dedication to daf yomi which reflects her dedication to Jewish education and Jewish practice. We love you!鈥澛

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Alan’s mother, Helen Zibitt, Henia bat Yaacov v’ Rachel Leah on her 22nd yahrzeit. 鈥淢om loved Israel and learning, and would have been active in Daf Yomi.鈥

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Miriam Tannenbaum on her English birthday. “In honor of our dear mother. Thank you for being a role model in everything you do. Whether your students, your family, your aspirations, or Torah, 讘诇讬讘讜 诇砖诪专讜, your full heart and efforts are felt always. We love you!

Rav Meri said that one can infer from the Mishna that those who treat their non-sacred items as if they are sacrificial meat, the laws of sacrificial meat actually apply to them. From where in the Mishna is this inferred? A number of laws are brought regarding one who has a lapse of thought in protecting an item from impurity and the item is therefore not considered protected and is treated as impure. Some of the cases are where one confuses one item for another. Is that really a case where we say there was a lapse of thought? In a braita, a case is brought where one confuses wine with oil and yet it is still considered pure! Before the Gemara answers the question, they ask a counter-question – why does the braita forbid one to eat the oil? Rabbi Yirmia answers that the case is one where it was watched from becoming impure in a way that it would pass on impurity (contact with a first or second-degree impurity – because of the stringency of the rabbi regarding liquids) but not from becoming disqualified/impure (contact with a t’vul yom). Is there really such a thing as watching an item partially? Yes, and a braita is brought to prove that. The Gemara goes back to the question about why a lapse of thought would cause an item to be impure and raises more questions from sources that indicate that if one intends to watch an item, it is considered protected from impurity. In the end, answers are brought to explain why these situations were unique. The Mishna lists many issues for which sacrificial meat is treated more severely than teruma.

诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讜 诪注诇讛

It is deduced from the fact that it is not taught in their regard that those who eat non-sacred produce according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food must treat the produce with a higher standard with regard to their degree of purity, like those who actually partake of sacrificial food.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讜 诪注诇讛 讚讗讬 讚诪讜 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讗 转谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬 讚诪讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讗 转谞讬 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚转谞谉 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the reason for this fact, that a higher standard is not taught with regard to those who actually partake of sacrificial food, is that these foods are not on a distinct level of ritual purity, as, if they are similar to the level of teruma, teruma has already been taught; and if they are similar to non-sacred produce, non-sacred produce has also already been taught. As we learned in a baraita that they are not considered to be on a level of their own: Non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food are like non-sacred food; Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: They are like teruma, but not like sacrificial food. Therefore, the fact that this level is not explicitly mentioned affords no proof.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讬讛 讞住讬讚 砖讘讻讛讜谞讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇拽讜讚砖 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇讞讟讗转

Rather, the proof is derived from the last clause in the mishna: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer was the most pious member of the priesthood, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zav for those who ate sacrificial food. Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered rendered impure by the treading of a zav for those preparing the purification waters.

诇讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讜讚砖 讻拽讜讚砖 讚诪讜

The Gemara infers from this: For the purifying waters, yes, his cloth was considered to have ritual impurity imparted by treading, but for sacrificial food, no, it was not considered to have ritual impurity imparted by treading. Apparently, he maintains that non-sacred produce prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food is like sacrificial food, as one who is particular to preserve the ritual purity required for sacrificial food even with regard to non-sacred produce is considered pure even with regard to sacrificial food themselves.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞驻诇讛 诪注驻专转讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谞讛 诇讬 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讟诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 谞转讞诇驻讜 诇讜 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 砖讘转 讘讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讞讜诇 讜诇讘砖谉 谞讟诪讗讜

搂 With regard to the particular care that must be taken to prevent any suspicion that one鈥檚 clothes have contracted impurity, Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said: If the shawl of one who was stringent with regard to ritual purity fell off of him, and he said to another person: Give it to me, and he gave it to him, the shawl is impure. Even if the other individual is himself pure, since his attention was diverted at that moment from being cautious with regard to impurity, it is as though the shawl were rendered impure. Similarly, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram says: If one鈥檚 Shabbat clothes were switched for his weekday clothes and he wore them, they are impure. His assumption that they were different clothes than the clothes he had intended to wear is enough of a distraction to spoil his caution against impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讞讘讬专讜转 砖谞转讞诇驻讜 诇讛谉 讻诇讬讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讟讬诪讗谉

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: There was an incident involving two women who were wives of 岣verim, who are meticulous in observance of halakha especially with regard to matters of impurity, whose clothes were switched in the bathhouse; and the incident came before Rabbi Akiva and he declared the clothes impure. This demonstrates that an unintentional act is considered a lapse of attention, which renders the items impure, even if there was no other reason to consider them impure.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇住诇 诇讬讟讜诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜注诇转讛 讘讬讚讜 驻转 砖注讜专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚谞讟诪讗转

Rabbi Oshaya strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, one who inserted his hand into a basket to take a loaf of wheat bread, and a loaf of barley bread came up in his hand instead; in that case, too, will you say that the loaf is rendered impure?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪砖诪专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 砖诇 砖诪谉 讟讛讜专讛 诪诇讟诪讗 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗住讜专讛 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讗诪讗讬

And if you would say, indeed, this is correct, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who is minding a barrel to ensure its ritual purity on the assumption that it is a barrel of wine and it is found to be of oil, it is ritually pure in the sense that it does not transmit impurity? This indicates that one鈥檚 lack of knowledge with regard to the identity of the item he is minding does not itself cause impurity. The Gemara rejects this: But according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of that same baraita: And it is prohibited to be eaten, which indicates that the supervision is insufficient in this case. The Gemara asks: Why is it that the barrel鈥檚 status is pure and yet there is a prohibition against eating its contents? If the supervisor鈥檚 error does not harm the food鈥檚 ritually pure status, one should likewise be permitted to eat it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 砖诪专转讬讛 诪讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The baraita is referring to one who says: I guarded it from things that render it impure but not from things that invalidate it. In other words, he was careful to guard it only from being rendered impure with a severe degree of impurity, which causes anything it renders impure to render others impure in turn, but not from a lesser degree of impurity that merely invalidates it for use but does not enable it to render other items ritually impure. Since he guarded it from impurity, it is considered pure with regard to rendering other items impure, but it still may not be eaten, in case it was invalidated by an impure object.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇驻诇讙讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 讘住诇 讜讛住诇 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 讜讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讘转讜讱 讛住诇 讜讛讬讛 讘诇讘讜 注诇 讛住诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讜 注诇 讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讛住诇 讟讛讜专 讜讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And is there guarding by half measures; can it be said that one was careful with regard to only a particular type of impurity? The Gemara responds: Yes, as it is indeed taught in a baraita: If one inserted his hand into a basket filled with figs, and the basket was placed on his shoulder, and a shovel was in the basket, and his mind was on the basket to guard it from impurity, but his mind was not on the shovel, the basket is pure and the shovel is impure.

讛住诇 讟讛讜专 转讟诪讗 讛诪讙专讬驻讛 诇住诇 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讘住诇 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 砖诪专转讬讜 诪讚讘专 砖诪讟诪讗讜 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇讜

The Gemara asks: Why is the basket pure? Let the shovel render the basket ritually impure, if the former is in fact impure. The Gemara answers: The halakha is that a vessel cannot render a different vessel impure. Therefore, the basket remains pure. The Gemara asks another question: And let it render impure any food that is inside the basket, as food is not a vessel and can therefore be rendered impure by a vessel. Ravina said: The baraita is referring to one who says: I guarded the shovel from things that render it ritually impure, which is why it cannot render other objects impure, but I did not guard it from things that invalidate it, so it is impure. Consequently, there is no proof from here that the contents of the barrel in the earlier case may not be eaten.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

Returning to the prior discussion, the Gemara states that in any case it is difficult. Why should an object be impure just because the one guarding it was mistaken with regard to the identity of its contents; how would this accord with the baraita that explicitly taught that if one minds a barrel under the assumption that it is wine and it turns out to contain oil, the oil is pure and cannot render others impure?

讜注讜讚 诪讜转讬讘 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讘讙讚 讝讛 讗专讙转讬讜 讘讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讬 诇砖讜诪专讜 讘讟讛专讛 讜诪转讜讱 讘讚讬拽讜转 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讜讚拽讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讚讛 诪砖讻讛 注诪讬 讘讞讘诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟讛讜专 讗讬谉 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟诪讗

And Rabba bar Avuh raised a further objection: There was an incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: Rabbi, I wove this garment in a ritually pure state, but my mind was not on it to guard its state of purity. In other words, although I did not intend to guard it in this manner, I am certain that no impurity came into contact with it. And during the interrogations that Rabbi Yishmael conducted with her, to see if it had remained in a state of purity, she happened to say to him: Rabbi, a menstruating woman pulled the rope with me as I was weaving, and the garment was therefore rendered fully impure by a menstruating woman moving it. Rabbi Yishmael said: How great are the words of the Sages when they said: If one鈥檚 mind is focused on guarding it, it is pure; if one鈥檚 mind is not focused on guarding it, it is impure. Since she was not focused on preserving the garment鈥檚 pure state, it contracted impurity without her noticing.

砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 诪驻讛 讝讜 讗专讙转讬讛 讘讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讬 诇砖讜诪专讛 讜诪转讜讱 讘讚讬拽讜转 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讜讚拽讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讬诪讗 谞驻住拽讛 诇讬 讜拽砖专转讬讛 讘驻讛

There was another incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: Rabbi, I wove this cloth in a state of ritual purity, but my mind was not on it to guard it from impurity. And during the interrogations that Rabbi Yishmael conducted with her, she said to him: Rabbi, a thread of mine that was woven into the cloth snapped and I tied it with my mouth. It can be assumed that the thread became moist from her spittle, which means that if that thread was touched by a source of impurity, the cloth would be rendered ritually impure by contact with impure liquids. This is because the Sages decreed that any impurity that touches liquid renders the liquid ritually impure to the first degree, so any vessel that comes into contact with the liquid would be impure to the second degree.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟讛讜专 讗讬谉 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟诪讗

Rabbi Yishmael said: How great are the words of the Sages when they said: If one鈥檚 mind is focused on guarding it, it is pure; if one鈥檚 mind is not focused on guarding it, it is impure. In any case, if one intends to keep something in a state of ritual purity, a mistake on his part with regard to its identity is not considered enough of a distraction to render the item impure, unlike the baraita that explicitly taught that if one minds a barrel under the assumption that it is wine and it turns out to contain oil, the oil is pure and cannot render others impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 讞讘专转讬 讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜诪住讞讛 讚注转讛 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok there is no difficulty, as in the case of the two wives of 岣verim whose garments were switched it can be said that each of them says to herself: My colleague is the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, and not a 岣ver. And she diverts her mind from her garments, as she is certain that they have already been rendered impure, and a distraction of this kind makes it likely that the garment contracted impurity. It is therefore considered impure.

诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇讬诐 讚砖讘转 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 砖讬诪讜专 讟驻讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 砖讬诪讜专 讘讬讚讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛

Likewise, according to Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram there is no difficulty either, as with regard to the case of one who switched his Shabbat clothes with his weekday clothes, it can also be said that since he is more protective of Shabbat clothes, he will divert his mind from that higher level of protection if he thinks that they are weekday garments. A distraction of this kind makes it likely that the garment contracted impurity, so it is considered impure. But according to Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar, who deals with the case where one鈥檚 shawl fell and another person lifts it up, why should this be considered a distraction? Let him guard his garments from ritual impurity while they are in the other person鈥檚 hands; why should they be considered impure?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖诪专 诪讛 砖讘讬讚 讞讘专讜 讜诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is a presumption that a person does not guard that which is in another鈥檚 hand. Since the object is in the hands of another, he will inevitably be distracted from guarding it. The Gemara asks: And can one indeed not guard an item in the hand of another?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 讞诪专讬讜 讜驻讜注诇讬讜 讟注讜谞讬谉 讟讛专讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛驻诇讬讙 诪讛谉 讬讜转专 诪诪讬诇 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讘讜讗 讗讞专讬讻诐 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转注诇诪讜 注讬谞讬讜 诪讛谉 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one whose donkey drivers and workers, who were amei ha鈥檃retz, were bearing pure food, without touching the pure food itself but only the earthenware vessels containing them, even if he distanced himself from them as they walked by more than a mil, his pure foods are pure. Since the workers are unaware of his departure, he is still considered to be guarding the food in their possession and need not be concerned that they may have touched the pure foods. But if he said to them: Go, and I will follow behind you, then once they are no longer within his eyesight, his pure foods are impure.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪讟讛专 讞诪专讬讜 讜驻讜注诇讬讜 诇讻讱

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita, where the food remains pure, and what is different in the latter clause, where the food is impure? Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: The first clause is referring to one who purifies his donkey drivers and workers for this purpose, meaning that he ensured that they immersed and purified themselves beforehand, so that concern for impurity was removed.

讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇 诪讙注 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara questions this: If so, in the latter clause they should also be pure. The Gemara responds: An am ha鈥檃retz is not particular about the contact of his colleague, and therefore there is concern that they might have encountered another am ha鈥檃retz on the way, who touched the produce and thereby rendered it impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讗 诇讛诐 讚专讱 注拽诇转讜谉

The Gemara counters: If so, in the first clause of the baraita there should also be concern that they might have met an am ha鈥檃retz, and despite the employer鈥檚 warning to his workers to stay ritually pure, they are not careful with regard to the impurity of another am ha鈥檃retz. The Gemara answers: The first clause is referring to a situation when he comes across them via a circuitous path. Since he is not walking directly behind them but can appear from the sides, they cannot always see him. Consequently, they are concerned that he may return at any moment. Therefore, they are careful not to render themselves ritually impure, and they are also wary of the contact of other amei ha鈥檃retz, although they are not usually particular about the contact of their colleagues.

讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讻讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讘讜讗 讗讞专讬讻诐 诪讬住诪讱 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in the latter clause, too, since he can arrive from around a corner at any given moment, they should certainly be cautious. The Gemara responds: Since he said to them: Go and I will follow behind you, they rely on this, and they do not consider themselves to be under observation. Consequently, they are not particular about the contact of another am ha鈥檃retz.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诪专 讘拽讚砖 诪讘转专讜诪讛 砖诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讘转讜讱 讻诇讬诐 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇拽讚砖 讗讞讜专讬讬诐 讜转讜讱 讜讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖

MISHNA: Concerning several matters there is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial food than with regard to teruma, a portion of the produce designated for the priest. This expresses itself in many ways, the first being that one may immerse vessels inside other vessels to purify them for teruma; but not for sacrificial food, for which one must immerse each vessel separately. Another difference is that the halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside and its place for gripping apply to vessels used for teruma, meaning that each part of the vessel has its own use and is considered a separate vessel in that it does not convey impurity to the other parts of the vessel when it contracts impurity; but not to sacrificial food, for which an impure section of the vessel does convey impurity to all the other sections.

讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛诪讚专住 谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讘讙讚讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讚专住 诇拽讚砖

Likewise, one who carries an object trodden on by a zav, a man suffering from gonorrhea, may carry teruma at the same time, if he is careful that neither he nor the impure object should come into contact with the teruma, but this may not be done with sacrificial food. The garments of those who eat teruma are like an object trodden on by a zav with regard to sacrificial food.

诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚砖 诪讚转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讘拽讚砖 诪转讬专 讜诪谞讙讘 讜诪讟讘讬诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讜砖专 讜讘转专讜诪讛 拽讜砖专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇

The mishna lists other stringencies that apply to sacrificial foods but not to teruma: The characteristics of teruma are not like the characteristics of sacrificial food, as in the case of vessels that are used with sacrificial food, if one has a garment or vessel that is tied up he must untie it and dry it if there was any moisture on it, as both a knot and absorbed moisture are considered interpositions that prevent the water of the ritual bath from reaching the entire garment. And he may then immerse them, and afterward he may tie them up again if he wishes. But with regard to teruma he may, if he so desires, tie up the garment and then immerse it without any concern that the knot might be considered an interposition.

讻诇讬诐 讛谞讙诪专讬诐 讘讟讛专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讻诇讬 诪爪专祝 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity nevertheless require immersion to be considered pure for sacrificial foods, but not for teruma. A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if one piece of food becomes impure all the other pieces become impure as well; but not with regard to teruma, concerning which each piece is treated independently.

讛专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘转专讜诪讛 讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讗讞转 诪讬讚讬讜 讞讘讬专转讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘拽讚砖 诪讟讘讬诇 砖转讬讛谉 砖讛讬讚 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讞讘讬专转讛 讘拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 谞讙讜讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖

The mishna continues the list of differences between sacrificial food and teruma. Sacrificial food that is impure with fourth-degree impurity is disqualified, meaning that the sacrificial food is rendered impure but it does not impart impurity to other items. Teruma is disqualified when it is impure with third-degree impurity; it is not susceptible to fourth-degree impurity at all. And with regard to teruma, if one of one鈥檚 hands became impure by rabbinic law that renders only the hands impure, its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, remains pure. But with regard to sacrificial food, if one hand becomes impure he must immerse them both, as one hand renders its counterpart impure with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. One may eat dry foods, i.e., foods that have never come into contact with liquid and are therefore not susceptible to impurity, with impure hands when it is teruma, but not when it is sacrificial food.

  • 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

Chagigah: 14-20- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The Gemara continues discussing details of the Heavenly Chariot, Ma鈥檃se Merkava. We will learn the famous story of the four...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 20: Paying Attention for Purity’s Sake

More on the purity/impurity issues with regard to clothing. What does it mean to have a constant awareness of your...
stone2 bukvoed

Pure as the Driven Snow

The last section of Chagigah veers away from mystical topics to very concrete ones, albeit ones that are foreign to...

Chagigah 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 20

诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讜 诪注诇讛

It is deduced from the fact that it is not taught in their regard that those who eat non-sacred produce according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food must treat the produce with a higher standard with regard to their degree of purity, like those who actually partake of sacrificial food.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讜 诪注诇讛 讚讗讬 讚诪讜 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讗 转谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬 讚诪讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讗 转谞讬 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚转谞谉 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the reason for this fact, that a higher standard is not taught with regard to those who actually partake of sacrificial food, is that these foods are not on a distinct level of ritual purity, as, if they are similar to the level of teruma, teruma has already been taught; and if they are similar to non-sacred produce, non-sacred produce has also already been taught. As we learned in a baraita that they are not considered to be on a level of their own: Non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food are like non-sacred food; Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: They are like teruma, but not like sacrificial food. Therefore, the fact that this level is not explicitly mentioned affords no proof.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讬讛 讞住讬讚 砖讘讻讛讜谞讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇拽讜讚砖 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇讞讟讗转

Rather, the proof is derived from the last clause in the mishna: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer was the most pious member of the priesthood, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zav for those who ate sacrificial food. Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered rendered impure by the treading of a zav for those preparing the purification waters.

诇讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讜讚砖 讻拽讜讚砖 讚诪讜

The Gemara infers from this: For the purifying waters, yes, his cloth was considered to have ritual impurity imparted by treading, but for sacrificial food, no, it was not considered to have ritual impurity imparted by treading. Apparently, he maintains that non-sacred produce prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food is like sacrificial food, as one who is particular to preserve the ritual purity required for sacrificial food even with regard to non-sacred produce is considered pure even with regard to sacrificial food themselves.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞驻诇讛 诪注驻专转讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谞讛 诇讬 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讟诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 谞转讞诇驻讜 诇讜 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 砖讘转 讘讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讞讜诇 讜诇讘砖谉 谞讟诪讗讜

搂 With regard to the particular care that must be taken to prevent any suspicion that one鈥檚 clothes have contracted impurity, Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said: If the shawl of one who was stringent with regard to ritual purity fell off of him, and he said to another person: Give it to me, and he gave it to him, the shawl is impure. Even if the other individual is himself pure, since his attention was diverted at that moment from being cautious with regard to impurity, it is as though the shawl were rendered impure. Similarly, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram says: If one鈥檚 Shabbat clothes were switched for his weekday clothes and he wore them, they are impure. His assumption that they were different clothes than the clothes he had intended to wear is enough of a distraction to spoil his caution against impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讞讘讬专讜转 砖谞转讞诇驻讜 诇讛谉 讻诇讬讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讟讬诪讗谉

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: There was an incident involving two women who were wives of 岣verim, who are meticulous in observance of halakha especially with regard to matters of impurity, whose clothes were switched in the bathhouse; and the incident came before Rabbi Akiva and he declared the clothes impure. This demonstrates that an unintentional act is considered a lapse of attention, which renders the items impure, even if there was no other reason to consider them impure.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇住诇 诇讬讟讜诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜注诇转讛 讘讬讚讜 驻转 砖注讜专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚谞讟诪讗转

Rabbi Oshaya strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, one who inserted his hand into a basket to take a loaf of wheat bread, and a loaf of barley bread came up in his hand instead; in that case, too, will you say that the loaf is rendered impure?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪砖诪专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 砖诇 砖诪谉 讟讛讜专讛 诪诇讟诪讗 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗住讜专讛 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讗诪讗讬

And if you would say, indeed, this is correct, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who is minding a barrel to ensure its ritual purity on the assumption that it is a barrel of wine and it is found to be of oil, it is ritually pure in the sense that it does not transmit impurity? This indicates that one鈥檚 lack of knowledge with regard to the identity of the item he is minding does not itself cause impurity. The Gemara rejects this: But according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of that same baraita: And it is prohibited to be eaten, which indicates that the supervision is insufficient in this case. The Gemara asks: Why is it that the barrel鈥檚 status is pure and yet there is a prohibition against eating its contents? If the supervisor鈥檚 error does not harm the food鈥檚 ritually pure status, one should likewise be permitted to eat it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 砖诪专转讬讛 诪讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The baraita is referring to one who says: I guarded it from things that render it impure but not from things that invalidate it. In other words, he was careful to guard it only from being rendered impure with a severe degree of impurity, which causes anything it renders impure to render others impure in turn, but not from a lesser degree of impurity that merely invalidates it for use but does not enable it to render other items ritually impure. Since he guarded it from impurity, it is considered pure with regard to rendering other items impure, but it still may not be eaten, in case it was invalidated by an impure object.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇驻诇讙讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 讘住诇 讜讛住诇 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 讜讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讘转讜讱 讛住诇 讜讛讬讛 讘诇讘讜 注诇 讛住诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讜 注诇 讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讛住诇 讟讛讜专 讜讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And is there guarding by half measures; can it be said that one was careful with regard to only a particular type of impurity? The Gemara responds: Yes, as it is indeed taught in a baraita: If one inserted his hand into a basket filled with figs, and the basket was placed on his shoulder, and a shovel was in the basket, and his mind was on the basket to guard it from impurity, but his mind was not on the shovel, the basket is pure and the shovel is impure.

讛住诇 讟讛讜专 转讟诪讗 讛诪讙专讬驻讛 诇住诇 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讘住诇 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 砖诪专转讬讜 诪讚讘专 砖诪讟诪讗讜 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇讜

The Gemara asks: Why is the basket pure? Let the shovel render the basket ritually impure, if the former is in fact impure. The Gemara answers: The halakha is that a vessel cannot render a different vessel impure. Therefore, the basket remains pure. The Gemara asks another question: And let it render impure any food that is inside the basket, as food is not a vessel and can therefore be rendered impure by a vessel. Ravina said: The baraita is referring to one who says: I guarded the shovel from things that render it ritually impure, which is why it cannot render other objects impure, but I did not guard it from things that invalidate it, so it is impure. Consequently, there is no proof from here that the contents of the barrel in the earlier case may not be eaten.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

Returning to the prior discussion, the Gemara states that in any case it is difficult. Why should an object be impure just because the one guarding it was mistaken with regard to the identity of its contents; how would this accord with the baraita that explicitly taught that if one minds a barrel under the assumption that it is wine and it turns out to contain oil, the oil is pure and cannot render others impure?

讜注讜讚 诪讜转讬讘 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讘讙讚 讝讛 讗专讙转讬讜 讘讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讬 诇砖讜诪专讜 讘讟讛专讛 讜诪转讜讱 讘讚讬拽讜转 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讜讚拽讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讚讛 诪砖讻讛 注诪讬 讘讞讘诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟讛讜专 讗讬谉 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟诪讗

And Rabba bar Avuh raised a further objection: There was an incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: Rabbi, I wove this garment in a ritually pure state, but my mind was not on it to guard its state of purity. In other words, although I did not intend to guard it in this manner, I am certain that no impurity came into contact with it. And during the interrogations that Rabbi Yishmael conducted with her, to see if it had remained in a state of purity, she happened to say to him: Rabbi, a menstruating woman pulled the rope with me as I was weaving, and the garment was therefore rendered fully impure by a menstruating woman moving it. Rabbi Yishmael said: How great are the words of the Sages when they said: If one鈥檚 mind is focused on guarding it, it is pure; if one鈥檚 mind is not focused on guarding it, it is impure. Since she was not focused on preserving the garment鈥檚 pure state, it contracted impurity without her noticing.

砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 诪驻讛 讝讜 讗专讙转讬讛 讘讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讬 诇砖讜诪专讛 讜诪转讜讱 讘讚讬拽讜转 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讜讚拽讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讬诪讗 谞驻住拽讛 诇讬 讜拽砖专转讬讛 讘驻讛

There was another incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: Rabbi, I wove this cloth in a state of ritual purity, but my mind was not on it to guard it from impurity. And during the interrogations that Rabbi Yishmael conducted with her, she said to him: Rabbi, a thread of mine that was woven into the cloth snapped and I tied it with my mouth. It can be assumed that the thread became moist from her spittle, which means that if that thread was touched by a source of impurity, the cloth would be rendered ritually impure by contact with impure liquids. This is because the Sages decreed that any impurity that touches liquid renders the liquid ritually impure to the first degree, so any vessel that comes into contact with the liquid would be impure to the second degree.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟讛讜专 讗讬谉 讘诇讘讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讟诪讗

Rabbi Yishmael said: How great are the words of the Sages when they said: If one鈥檚 mind is focused on guarding it, it is pure; if one鈥檚 mind is not focused on guarding it, it is impure. In any case, if one intends to keep something in a state of ritual purity, a mistake on his part with regard to its identity is not considered enough of a distraction to render the item impure, unlike the baraita that explicitly taught that if one minds a barrel under the assumption that it is wine and it turns out to contain oil, the oil is pure and cannot render others impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 讞讘专转讬 讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜诪住讞讛 讚注转讛 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok there is no difficulty, as in the case of the two wives of 岣verim whose garments were switched it can be said that each of them says to herself: My colleague is the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz, and not a 岣ver. And she diverts her mind from her garments, as she is certain that they have already been rendered impure, and a distraction of this kind makes it likely that the garment contracted impurity. It is therefore considered impure.

诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇讬诐 讚砖讘转 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 砖讬诪讜专 讟驻讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 砖讬诪讜专 讘讬讚讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛

Likewise, according to Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram there is no difficulty either, as with regard to the case of one who switched his Shabbat clothes with his weekday clothes, it can also be said that since he is more protective of Shabbat clothes, he will divert his mind from that higher level of protection if he thinks that they are weekday garments. A distraction of this kind makes it likely that the garment contracted impurity, so it is considered impure. But according to Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar, who deals with the case where one鈥檚 shawl fell and another person lifts it up, why should this be considered a distraction? Let him guard his garments from ritual impurity while they are in the other person鈥檚 hands; why should they be considered impure?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖诪专 诪讛 砖讘讬讚 讞讘专讜 讜诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is a presumption that a person does not guard that which is in another鈥檚 hand. Since the object is in the hands of another, he will inevitably be distracted from guarding it. The Gemara asks: And can one indeed not guard an item in the hand of another?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 讞诪专讬讜 讜驻讜注诇讬讜 讟注讜谞讬谉 讟讛专讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛驻诇讬讙 诪讛谉 讬讜转专 诪诪讬诇 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讘讜讗 讗讞专讬讻诐 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转注诇诪讜 注讬谞讬讜 诪讛谉 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one whose donkey drivers and workers, who were amei ha鈥檃retz, were bearing pure food, without touching the pure food itself but only the earthenware vessels containing them, even if he distanced himself from them as they walked by more than a mil, his pure foods are pure. Since the workers are unaware of his departure, he is still considered to be guarding the food in their possession and need not be concerned that they may have touched the pure foods. But if he said to them: Go, and I will follow behind you, then once they are no longer within his eyesight, his pure foods are impure.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪讟讛专 讞诪专讬讜 讜驻讜注诇讬讜 诇讻讱

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita, where the food remains pure, and what is different in the latter clause, where the food is impure? Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: The first clause is referring to one who purifies his donkey drivers and workers for this purpose, meaning that he ensured that they immersed and purified themselves beforehand, so that concern for impurity was removed.

讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇 诪讙注 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara questions this: If so, in the latter clause they should also be pure. The Gemara responds: An am ha鈥檃retz is not particular about the contact of his colleague, and therefore there is concern that they might have encountered another am ha鈥檃retz on the way, who touched the produce and thereby rendered it impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讗 诇讛诐 讚专讱 注拽诇转讜谉

The Gemara counters: If so, in the first clause of the baraita there should also be concern that they might have met an am ha鈥檃retz, and despite the employer鈥檚 warning to his workers to stay ritually pure, they are not careful with regard to the impurity of another am ha鈥檃retz. The Gemara answers: The first clause is referring to a situation when he comes across them via a circuitous path. Since he is not walking directly behind them but can appear from the sides, they cannot always see him. Consequently, they are concerned that he may return at any moment. Therefore, they are careful not to render themselves ritually impure, and they are also wary of the contact of other amei ha鈥檃retz, although they are not usually particular about the contact of their colleagues.

讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讻讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讘讜讗 讗讞专讬讻诐 诪讬住诪讱 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in the latter clause, too, since he can arrive from around a corner at any given moment, they should certainly be cautious. The Gemara responds: Since he said to them: Go and I will follow behind you, they rely on this, and they do not consider themselves to be under observation. Consequently, they are not particular about the contact of another am ha鈥檃retz.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诪专 讘拽讚砖 诪讘转专讜诪讛 砖诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讘转讜讱 讻诇讬诐 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇拽讚砖 讗讞讜专讬讬诐 讜转讜讱 讜讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖

MISHNA: Concerning several matters there is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial food than with regard to teruma, a portion of the produce designated for the priest. This expresses itself in many ways, the first being that one may immerse vessels inside other vessels to purify them for teruma; but not for sacrificial food, for which one must immerse each vessel separately. Another difference is that the halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside and its place for gripping apply to vessels used for teruma, meaning that each part of the vessel has its own use and is considered a separate vessel in that it does not convey impurity to the other parts of the vessel when it contracts impurity; but not to sacrificial food, for which an impure section of the vessel does convey impurity to all the other sections.

讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛诪讚专住 谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讘讙讚讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讚专住 诇拽讚砖

Likewise, one who carries an object trodden on by a zav, a man suffering from gonorrhea, may carry teruma at the same time, if he is careful that neither he nor the impure object should come into contact with the teruma, but this may not be done with sacrificial food. The garments of those who eat teruma are like an object trodden on by a zav with regard to sacrificial food.

诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚砖 诪讚转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讘拽讚砖 诪转讬专 讜诪谞讙讘 讜诪讟讘讬诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讜砖专 讜讘转专讜诪讛 拽讜砖专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇

The mishna lists other stringencies that apply to sacrificial foods but not to teruma: The characteristics of teruma are not like the characteristics of sacrificial food, as in the case of vessels that are used with sacrificial food, if one has a garment or vessel that is tied up he must untie it and dry it if there was any moisture on it, as both a knot and absorbed moisture are considered interpositions that prevent the water of the ritual bath from reaching the entire garment. And he may then immerse them, and afterward he may tie them up again if he wishes. But with regard to teruma he may, if he so desires, tie up the garment and then immerse it without any concern that the knot might be considered an interposition.

讻诇讬诐 讛谞讙诪专讬诐 讘讟讛专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讻诇讬 诪爪专祝 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity nevertheless require immersion to be considered pure for sacrificial foods, but not for teruma. A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if one piece of food becomes impure all the other pieces become impure as well; but not with regard to teruma, concerning which each piece is treated independently.

讛专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘转专讜诪讛 讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讗讞转 诪讬讚讬讜 讞讘讬专转讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘拽讚砖 诪讟讘讬诇 砖转讬讛谉 砖讛讬讚 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讞讘讬专转讛 讘拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 谞讙讜讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖

The mishna continues the list of differences between sacrificial food and teruma. Sacrificial food that is impure with fourth-degree impurity is disqualified, meaning that the sacrificial food is rendered impure but it does not impart impurity to other items. Teruma is disqualified when it is impure with third-degree impurity; it is not susceptible to fourth-degree impurity at all. And with regard to teruma, if one of one鈥檚 hands became impure by rabbinic law that renders only the hands impure, its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, remains pure. But with regard to sacrificial food, if one hand becomes impure he must immerse them both, as one hand renders its counterpart impure with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. One may eat dry foods, i.e., foods that have never come into contact with liquid and are therefore not susceptible to impurity, with impure hands when it is teruma, but not when it is sacrificial food.

Scroll To Top