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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 4, 2022 | 讗壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 23

This month’s shiurim are dedicated by Joshua and Judy Schwartz in honor of his beloved mother, Bernice Cohen Schwartz’s 99th birthday. 鈥淎s a teenager, Bernice wanted to study Talmud like the boys, but her grandfather said it wasn’t for girls. Thanks to Hadran, now it is!鈥

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Rabbi Perkins in honor and in memory of Rabbi Dr. Samuel T. Lachs. 鈥淒r. Lachs taught Rabbinics at Gratz College in Philadelphia and at several other colleges and universities, including Bryn Mawr College, where he was Professor and Chair of the Department of the History of Religion. A scholar who studied the rabbinic background to Christian texts, Dr. Lachs inspired me and many others with his erudition and his commitment to the use of critical methodologies in the interpretation of Talmudic texts.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz in honor of her daughter in law Sigal Spitzer Flamholz鈥檚 birthday. 鈥淪he is an inspiration balancing motherhood work and her learning. Bli ayin hara.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her father, Moe Furman z”l, Moshe ben Meir, on the completion of Shloshim. 鈥淗e had a huge zest for life, filling every moment with laughter and activity/ He was a fearless adventurer traveling to China and South America when he was 95, and joining his family for trips to Mexico and Alaska. He was committed to consistency in his long life, and had a policy of never gossiping. These qualities and many more were passed down to me, his grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who were blessed to be able to live with him for the last 8 years. We miss him very much and can’t quite believe he’s gone. I am sure that he would be proud of all the Torah learning going on in his merit and of my dedication to Daf Yomi. We all love you, dad!鈥

The Gemara explains the next few cases listed in the Mishna. The first is one who holds an item that is impure as it was stepped on by a zav. At the time one is holding it, if one moves a sacrificial item, one passes on impurity. Why is this only true for sacrificial items and not teruma? The next case is utensils that were watched from impurities from the moment they became susceptible to impurity. If so, why would they need to be immersed in the mikveh before using it for sacrificial items? What exactly are the details of the case? The Mishna implies that they need immersion and can be used immediately without waiting for sunset. Is this in disagreement with Rabbi Eliezer? The third case discussed is that a sacrificial item that is impure passed on impurity to any other item that is in the same utensil. Rabbi Chanin said this is derived from a verse in the Torah. If so, why does it seem that Rabbi Akiva held it was a decree of the rabbis?

讜谞驻住拽讛 专爪讜注讛 砖诇 住谞讚诇讜 讜谞讟诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇讗讜讬专 讛讞讘讬转 讜谞讟诪讗转 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 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

and the strap of his sandal, which had been rendered ritually impure by being trodden by a zav, broke off, and he picked up the strap and placed it on top of the mouth of the barrel, and it fell into the airspace of the barrel, thereby rendering the entire barrel impure. At that time the Sages said and issued a permanent decree that one who carries an object that is impure by having been trodden by a zav may carry teruma at the same time, but not sacrificial food.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, if they prohibited doing so due to that incident, they should have made the same decree with regard to teruma also, because if the same incident would occur with teruma it would defile the teruma as well. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is that of Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya, who said concerning a similar issue: They prohibited it only in the Jordan River, and only in a boat, in a situation similar to the incident that occurred, which triggered the enactment. In his opinion, whenever the Sages enacted a decree prohibiting something due to a particular incident, they did not extend the prohibition to related cases, but only to the same set of circumstances that pertained to that specific incident.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讬讝专拽诐 诇爪讚 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讬砖讬讟诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬专讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 诪注讘讬专谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讙砖专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讗讞讚 讛讬专讚谉 讜讗讞讚 砖讗专 讛谞讛专讜转 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

The Gemara presents the background to Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya鈥檚 statement: What is that enactment that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya was referring to? As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not carry the water of purification and the ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan River, and this is if he is on a boat. Nor may he stand on one side of the river and throw them to the other side. Nor may he float them across the river. Nor may he ford the river riding on an animal or on his friend and carrying the water or ashes of purification, unless his feet are touching the ground as he fords the river. But he may transfer them across the river over a bridge without concern about transferring them improperly. This decree applies both to the Jordan and to other rivers. Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya says: The Sages prohibited these acts only in the Jordan River, and only if he transports them in a boat, and in circumstances exactly like those of the incident that occurred.

诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪注讘讬专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讝讬转 诪转 转讞讜讘 讘拽专拽注讬转讛 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讘住驻讬谞讛

The Gemara inquires: What was the incident that occurred? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was once an incident involving a person who was transferring water of purification and ashes of purification in the Jordan, and he was on a boat, and an olive-bulk from a corpse was discovered stuck in the floor of the boat, over which the water of purification had passed, thereby rendering them impure and invalid. At that time the Sages said: A person may not carry water of purification and ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan, and this is if he is on a boat. Just as in that case, Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya stated that the decree was limited to the specific circumstances of the original incident, here too, he would say that since the original incident involved sacrificial food and not teruma the Sages did not apply the decree to teruma.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住谞讚诇 讟诪讗 住谞讚诇 讟讛讜专 诪讛讜 讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讞讘讬转 住转讜诪讛 诪讛讜 注讘专 讜谞砖讗 诪讛讜

Several dilemmas were raised before the scholars: It is clear that this halakha, like the incident itself, applies to an object that has actually contracted impurity by being trodden by a zav, such as an impure sandal. But if it is a pure sandal, what is the halakha? Is the decree so far-reaching as to include a prohibition against carrying even a pure sandal together with sacrificial food? Similarly, the halakha certainly applies to an open barrel, where there is a danger that the sandal may enter the airspace of the barrel, as in the original incident, but if it was a closed barrel, where there is no such danger, what is the halakha? Does the decree apply in this case as well? Another question: If someone transgressed this decree and carried an impure sandal together with sacrificial food, what is the halakha? Did the Sages decree that the sacrificial food would become defiled because their decree was transgressed or not?

专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 讗诐 注讘专 讜谞砖讗 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 注讘专 讜谞砖讗 讟讛讜专

The Gemara presents a conclusion for the last dilemma. Rabbi Ila said: If one transgressed and carried sacrificial food together with an impure sandal, it is indeed rendered impure. Rabbi Zeira said: If he transgressed and carried sacrificial food in this manner, it is still pure.

讻诇讬诐 讛谞讙诪专讬诐 讘讟讛专讛 讻讜壮 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 讞讘专 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讟讘讬诇讛

搂 The mishna states: Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity require immersion for sacrificial food but not for teruma. The Gemara asks: Who completed the work of these vessels? If we say that it was a 岣ver, an individual who is meticulous about the halakhot of ritual purity, who completed them, why should they require immersion, given that he is meticulous about the halakhot of purity?

讗诇讗 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 谞讙诪专讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 讞讘专 讜诪砖讜诐 爪讬谞讜专讗 讚注诐 讛讗专抓

Rather, it must mean that an am ha鈥檃retz completed them. But can one call these vessels completed in purity? The very touch of an am ha鈥檃retz renders them impure. Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with vessels that a 岣ver completed, and the Sages declared them impure for sacrificial food due to a concern that the spittle of an am ha鈥檃retz might have fallen on them, which would render them impure if he were a zav.

讚谞驻诇 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讙诪专讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘转专 讚讙诪专讬讛 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 诪拽诪讬讛 讚讙诪专讬讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讙诪专讬讛 注讚讬讬谉 诇讞讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the vessel? If we say it was before he completed the vessel, in that case it is not yet a vessel, and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage at all. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a 岣ver, he is careful about it. He would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become defiled. The Gemara responds: Actually, we must explain that the spittle fell before he completed it, when the 岣ver was not yet guarding it against impurity, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he completed the vessel the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of defiling the finished vessel, for the continued presence of the spittle on the vessel might have escaped the attention of the 岣ver craftsman.

讟讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 诇讗

The Gemara comments: The mishna states that the vessel requires immersion, implying: Immersion, yes, but the setting of the sun after immersion, not, i.e., it is considered pure immediately after immersion, even though generally the purification engendered by immersion does not take effect until sunset.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 砖驻讜驻专转 砖讞转讻讛 诇讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讟讘讜诇 诪讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬讟诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讟讘讜诇 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讚讞转讻讛 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讞转讻讛 讞讘专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗诇讗 讚讞转讻讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讬讟诪讗 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讛讗 讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (Para 5:4): Regarding a tube of reed, which one cut for storing ashes of purification, Rabbi Eliezer says: He should immerse it immediately; Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should first render it impure by touching it to an actual source of impurity and only after that immerse it. And we discussed the mishna鈥檚 case, asking: Who cut this tube? If we say a 岣ver cut it, why do I need immersion? The 岣ver prepared it with the strictest adherence to the halakhot of purity. Rather, it must be that an am ha鈥檃retz cut it. But in that case, would Rabbi Yehoshua say that he should first render it impure and only then immerse it? Isn鈥檛 it already impure, due to the handling of the am ha鈥檃retz?

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讚讞转讻讛 讞讘专 讜诪砖讜诐 爪讬谞讜专讗 讚注诐 讛讗专抓 讚谞驻诇 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讞转讻讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗诇讗 讘转专 讚讞转讻讛 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讞转讻讛 讚诇诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讞转讻讛 注讚讬讬谉 诇讞讛 讛讬讗

And in response to this question, Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the case is that a 岣ver cut it, and the reason it requires immersion is because the Sages were concerned that the spittle of an am ha鈥檃retz might have touched it. The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the tube? If we say it was before he cut the tube, in that case it is not yet a vessel and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a 岣ver, he is careful about it and would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become impure. The Gemara responds: Actually we must explain that the spittle fell before he cut it, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he cut the tube the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of rendering the finished tube impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬讻讬专讗 诇爪讚讜拽讬谉

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is found that there is an act of recognition performed in opposition to the Sadducees, in order to demonstrate that the Sages do not take their opinions into account.

讚转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讛讬讜 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇讘谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪注讜专讘讬 砖诪砖 讛讬转讛 谞注砖讬转

As we learned in a mishna (Para 3:7): They would render impure the priest who burns the red heifer, in order to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who used to say: The ritual of the red heifer was to be performed by those who had experienced sunset after their immersion. The Sadducee opinion was that all those involved in the preparation of the red heifer must be completely pure, having undergone immersion as well as having waited until after sunset, when the purification takes full effect. The Sages, however, maintain that the red heifer may be prepared by people immediately after immersion, without waiting for sunset. In order to clearly demonstrate their rejection of the Sadducee opinion they would deliberately defile the people involved with preparing the red heifer and then immerse them. It is for this reason as well that Rabbi Yehoshua ruled that the tube must be rendered impure before it is immersed.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬讻讬专讗 诇爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 诪讗讬 讛讬讻讬专讗 诇爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗讬讻讗

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, granted, if you say that generally, the setting of the sun is required after a vessel is completed, it is found that there is some act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees, as according to him, the tube used for the red heifer ashes, which should normally have required the setting of the sun, is used without waiting for sunset. But if you say that generally the setting of the sun is not required to remove the impurity caused by the touch of an am ha鈥檃retz, and immersion alone is sufficient, what act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees is there here? It must be, therefore, that Rabbi Eliezer requires the setting of the sun for purification from the impurity imparted by an am ha鈥檃retz. Therefore, the mishna, which implies that immersion alone is sufficient, does not accord with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 专讘

Rav said: Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does not require the setting of the sun for vessels that have been completed in purity, but there is nevertheless a demonstrative sign that the opinion of the Sadducees is rejected,

注砖讗讜讛 讻讟诪讗 砖专抓

as they treated the tube with severity as though it had been rendered impure by contact with a dead creeping animal. Therefore, in not requiring the setting of the sun they made it noticeable that they were opposed to the Sadducees.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讞讜转讻讛 讜诪讟讘讬诇讛 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗诇讗 注砖讗讜讛 讻讟诪讗 诪转 讗讬 讛讻讬 转讬讘注讬 讛讝讗转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty. However, if that is so, that the tube is treated as if defiled by a creeping animal, it should not render a person impure, as something defiled by a creeping animal is impure to the first degree of ritual impurity, which cannot impart ritual impurity to people. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses the tube for the red heifer ashes requires immersion himself, which shows that the tube does defile people? But rather, say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse, for such objects do defile people as well. The Gemara asks: If that is so, the tube should also require the sprinkling of the water of purification on the third and seventh days of its purification, like all things defiled by a corpse.

讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讞讜转讻讛 讜诪讟讘讬诇讛 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讝讗转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 注砖讗讜讛 讻讟诪讗 诪转 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜

Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses it requires immersion, which indicates that immersion for the tube, yes, this is required, but sprinkling of the third and the seventh day, no. Rather, you must say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse that is already in its seventh day, after its sprinklings, when it is still impure and imparts impurity to those who touch it, but requires only immersion and no further sprinkling.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讞讬讚砖讜 讚讘专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The Sages never made any innovations in the halakhot of impurity with regard to the red heifer procedure. In other words, although the Sages added stringencies to the red heifer procedure, they never created new halakhot for it that do not exist elsewhere in other areas of halakha. We have said that the tube is treated as if it had had contact with a corpse even though it did not; this is an innovation that is not found anywhere else.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 拽讜专讚讜诐 诪讟诪讗 诪讜砖讘 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬讜砖讘 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讬讻讜诇 讻驻讛 住讗讛 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 转专拽讘 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讬讛讗 讟诪讗

The Gemara answers: Abaye said: When they said that the Sages did not make innovations, they were not referring to something of this nature, but meant that they did not say that a spade upon which a zav sits can become impure as a seat. They thereby preserved the basic halakhot of impurity, as it is taught in a baraita: It states with regard to a zav: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se鈥檃 and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a tarkav, i.e., a half-se鈥檃, and sat on it, that the vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讜砖讘 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讗砖专 讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讬 砖诪讬讜讞讚 诇讬砖讬讘讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注诪讜讚 讜谞注砖讛 诪诇讗讻转谞讜

The baraita concludes: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits鈥nd be unclean until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel for which we would say to someone sitting on it: Stand up, so we can do our work. A spade and a measuring bowl, then, are not subject to the impurity of the seat of a zav, even if a zav sat on them. Rather, they are considered to be on the lower level of impurity transmitted through simple contact with a zav. The same halakha was applied to the vessels used in preparation of the red heifer; the Sages did not add stringency and decree that a vessel not generally used for sitting should be considered as the seat of a zav.

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 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻祝 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讝讛讘 诪诇讗讛 拽讟专转 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讘讻祝 讗讞转

搂 The mishna states: A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source for this stringency? Rabbi 岣nin said: The verse states with regard to the sacrificial donations of the tribal princes: 鈥淥ne golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense鈥 (Numbers 7:14), which teaches us that the verse treats everything inside the pan as one unit, even if the items are not attached to each other.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛住诇转 讜讛拽讟专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讙讞诇讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转讜 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇讜

Rav Kahana raised an objection against this based on the mishna that teaches (Eduyyot 8:1): Rabbi Akiva added to the list of it items that are considered combined when in the same vessel fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals, saying that if one who immersed himself that day but has not waited until sunset touched a part of the contents of a vessel containing these substances, all of the vessel鈥檚 contents are disqualified, as the vessel combines them.

讜讛讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讗驻专 讞讟讗转 砖谞讙注 讛讟诪讗 讘诪拽爪转讜 砖讟讬诪讗 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讜拽转谞讬 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Isn鈥檛 this halakha that these substances are considered combined by rabbinic law? From where do we know that this is so? From the fact that it teaches in the first clause of that mishna: Rabbi Shimon ben Beteira testified with regard to ashes of purification in a vessel that if an impure person or object touched part of it, it renders all of it impure. The purification ashes of the red heifer are neither food nor a sacrificial item, so Rabbi 岣nin鈥檚 verse does not apply to the ashes, and the vessel certainly does not combine the ashes together by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. And it is taught immediately following this: Rabbi Akiva added, which shows that Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 halakha, like the previous halakha, deals with an additional level of impurity instituted by the Sages rather than a Torah law.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗

Reish Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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: 21 – 27 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This we will continue learning about the world of purity and impurity. We will learn how and when vessels are...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 23: The Shoe-Bomber and Ritual Impurity

More on the purity/impurity stringencies... Trying to make sense of the list of them, by their numbers. One who carries...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 22: Who Can You Trust?

The daf discusses how the Chaver and Am HaAretz interact with each other. How many different parts of a klei...

Chagigah 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 23

讜谞驻住拽讛 专爪讜注讛 砖诇 住谞讚诇讜 讜谞讟诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇讗讜讬专 讛讞讘讬转 讜谞讟诪讗转 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 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

and the strap of his sandal, which had been rendered ritually impure by being trodden by a zav, broke off, and he picked up the strap and placed it on top of the mouth of the barrel, and it fell into the airspace of the barrel, thereby rendering the entire barrel impure. At that time the Sages said and issued a permanent decree that one who carries an object that is impure by having been trodden by a zav may carry teruma at the same time, but not sacrificial food.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, if they prohibited doing so due to that incident, they should have made the same decree with regard to teruma also, because if the same incident would occur with teruma it would defile the teruma as well. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is that of Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya, who said concerning a similar issue: They prohibited it only in the Jordan River, and only in a boat, in a situation similar to the incident that occurred, which triggered the enactment. In his opinion, whenever the Sages enacted a decree prohibiting something due to a particular incident, they did not extend the prohibition to related cases, but only to the same set of circumstances that pertained to that specific incident.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讬讝专拽诐 诇爪讚 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讬砖讬讟诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬专讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 谞讜讙注讜转 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 诪注讘讬专谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讙砖专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讗讞讚 讛讬专讚谉 讜讗讞讚 砖讗专 讛谞讛专讜转 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

The Gemara presents the background to Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya鈥檚 statement: What is that enactment that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya was referring to? As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not carry the water of purification and the ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan River, and this is if he is on a boat. Nor may he stand on one side of the river and throw them to the other side. Nor may he float them across the river. Nor may he ford the river riding on an animal or on his friend and carrying the water or ashes of purification, unless his feet are touching the ground as he fords the river. But he may transfer them across the river over a bridge without concern about transferring them improperly. This decree applies both to the Jordan and to other rivers. Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya says: The Sages prohibited these acts only in the Jordan River, and only if he transports them in a boat, and in circumstances exactly like those of the incident that occurred.

诪讗讬 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪注讘讬专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讻讝讬转 诪转 转讞讜讘 讘拽专拽注讬转讛 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗驻专 讞讟讗转 讜讬注讘讬专诐 讘讬专讚谉 讘住驻讬谞讛

The Gemara inquires: What was the incident that occurred? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was once an incident involving a person who was transferring water of purification and ashes of purification in the Jordan, and he was on a boat, and an olive-bulk from a corpse was discovered stuck in the floor of the boat, over which the water of purification had passed, thereby rendering them impure and invalid. At that time the Sages said: A person may not carry water of purification and ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan, and this is if he is on a boat. Just as in that case, Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya stated that the decree was limited to the specific circumstances of the original incident, here too, he would say that since the original incident involved sacrificial food and not teruma the Sages did not apply the decree to teruma.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住谞讚诇 讟诪讗 住谞讚诇 讟讛讜专 诪讛讜 讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讞讘讬转 住转讜诪讛 诪讛讜 注讘专 讜谞砖讗 诪讛讜

Several dilemmas were raised before the scholars: It is clear that this halakha, like the incident itself, applies to an object that has actually contracted impurity by being trodden by a zav, such as an impure sandal. But if it is a pure sandal, what is the halakha? Is the decree so far-reaching as to include a prohibition against carrying even a pure sandal together with sacrificial food? Similarly, the halakha certainly applies to an open barrel, where there is a danger that the sandal may enter the airspace of the barrel, as in the original incident, but if it was a closed barrel, where there is no such danger, what is the halakha? Does the decree apply in this case as well? Another question: If someone transgressed this decree and carried an impure sandal together with sacrificial food, what is the halakha? Did the Sages decree that the sacrificial food would become defiled because their decree was transgressed or not?

专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 讗诐 注讘专 讜谞砖讗 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 注讘专 讜谞砖讗 讟讛讜专

The Gemara presents a conclusion for the last dilemma. Rabbi Ila said: If one transgressed and carried sacrificial food together with an impure sandal, it is indeed rendered impure. Rabbi Zeira said: If he transgressed and carried sacrificial food in this manner, it is still pure.

讻诇讬诐 讛谞讙诪专讬诐 讘讟讛专讛 讻讜壮 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 讞讘专 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讟讘讬诇讛

搂 The mishna states: Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity require immersion for sacrificial food but not for teruma. The Gemara asks: Who completed the work of these vessels? If we say that it was a 岣ver, an individual who is meticulous about the halakhot of ritual purity, who completed them, why should they require immersion, given that he is meticulous about the halakhot of purity?

讗诇讗 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 谞讙诪专讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讚讙诪专讬谞讛讜 讞讘专 讜诪砖讜诐 爪讬谞讜专讗 讚注诐 讛讗专抓

Rather, it must mean that an am ha鈥檃retz completed them. But can one call these vessels completed in purity? The very touch of an am ha鈥檃retz renders them impure. Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with vessels that a 岣ver completed, and the Sages declared them impure for sacrificial food due to a concern that the spittle of an am ha鈥檃retz might have fallen on them, which would render them impure if he were a zav.

讚谞驻诇 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讙诪专讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘转专 讚讙诪专讬讛 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 诪拽诪讬讛 讚讙诪专讬讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讙诪专讬讛 注讚讬讬谉 诇讞讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the vessel? If we say it was before he completed the vessel, in that case it is not yet a vessel, and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage at all. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a 岣ver, he is careful about it. He would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become defiled. The Gemara responds: Actually, we must explain that the spittle fell before he completed it, when the 岣ver was not yet guarding it against impurity, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he completed the vessel the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of defiling the finished vessel, for the continued presence of the spittle on the vessel might have escaped the attention of the 岣ver craftsman.

讟讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 诇讗

The Gemara comments: The mishna states that the vessel requires immersion, implying: Immersion, yes, but the setting of the sun after immersion, not, i.e., it is considered pure immediately after immersion, even though generally the purification engendered by immersion does not take effect until sunset.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 砖驻讜驻专转 砖讞转讻讛 诇讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讟讘讜诇 诪讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬讟诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讟讘讜诇 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讚讞转讻讛 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讞转讻讛 讞讘专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗诇讗 讚讞转讻讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讬讟诪讗 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讛讗 讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (Para 5:4): Regarding a tube of reed, which one cut for storing ashes of purification, Rabbi Eliezer says: He should immerse it immediately; Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should first render it impure by touching it to an actual source of impurity and only after that immerse it. And we discussed the mishna鈥檚 case, asking: Who cut this tube? If we say a 岣ver cut it, why do I need immersion? The 岣ver prepared it with the strictest adherence to the halakhot of purity. Rather, it must be that an am ha鈥檃retz cut it. But in that case, would Rabbi Yehoshua say that he should first render it impure and only then immerse it? Isn鈥檛 it already impure, due to the handling of the am ha鈥檃retz?

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讚讞转讻讛 讞讘专 讜诪砖讜诐 爪讬谞讜专讗 讚注诐 讛讗专抓 讚谞驻诇 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讞转讻讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗诇讗 讘转专 讚讞转讻讛 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讞转讻讛 讚诇诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讞转讻讛 注讚讬讬谉 诇讞讛 讛讬讗

And in response to this question, Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the case is that a 岣ver cut it, and the reason it requires immersion is because the Sages were concerned that the spittle of an am ha鈥檃retz might have touched it. The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the tube? If we say it was before he cut the tube, in that case it is not yet a vessel and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a 岣ver, he is careful about it and would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become impure. The Gemara responds: Actually we must explain that the spittle fell before he cut it, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he cut the tube the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of rendering the finished tube impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬讻讬专讗 诇爪讚讜拽讬谉

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is found that there is an act of recognition performed in opposition to the Sadducees, in order to demonstrate that the Sages do not take their opinions into account.

讚转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讛讬讜 讗转 讛讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇讘谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪注讜专讘讬 砖诪砖 讛讬转讛 谞注砖讬转

As we learned in a mishna (Para 3:7): They would render impure the priest who burns the red heifer, in order to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who used to say: The ritual of the red heifer was to be performed by those who had experienced sunset after their immersion. The Sadducee opinion was that all those involved in the preparation of the red heifer must be completely pure, having undergone immersion as well as having waited until after sunset, when the purification takes full effect. The Sages, however, maintain that the red heifer may be prepared by people immediately after immersion, without waiting for sunset. In order to clearly demonstrate their rejection of the Sadducee opinion they would deliberately defile the people involved with preparing the red heifer and then immerse them. It is for this reason as well that Rabbi Yehoshua ruled that the tube must be rendered impure before it is immersed.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬讻讬专讗 诇爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 诪讗讬 讛讬讻讬专讗 诇爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗讬讻讗

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, granted, if you say that generally, the setting of the sun is required after a vessel is completed, it is found that there is some act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees, as according to him, the tube used for the red heifer ashes, which should normally have required the setting of the sun, is used without waiting for sunset. But if you say that generally the setting of the sun is not required to remove the impurity caused by the touch of an am ha鈥檃retz, and immersion alone is sufficient, what act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees is there here? It must be, therefore, that Rabbi Eliezer requires the setting of the sun for purification from the impurity imparted by an am ha鈥檃retz. Therefore, the mishna, which implies that immersion alone is sufficient, does not accord with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 专讘

Rav said: Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does not require the setting of the sun for vessels that have been completed in purity, but there is nevertheless a demonstrative sign that the opinion of the Sadducees is rejected,

注砖讗讜讛 讻讟诪讗 砖专抓

as they treated the tube with severity as though it had been rendered impure by contact with a dead creeping animal. Therefore, in not requiring the setting of the sun they made it noticeable that they were opposed to the Sadducees.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讞讜转讻讛 讜诪讟讘讬诇讛 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗诇讗 注砖讗讜讛 讻讟诪讗 诪转 讗讬 讛讻讬 转讬讘注讬 讛讝讗转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty. However, if that is so, that the tube is treated as if defiled by a creeping animal, it should not render a person impure, as something defiled by a creeping animal is impure to the first degree of ritual impurity, which cannot impart ritual impurity to people. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses the tube for the red heifer ashes requires immersion himself, which shows that the tube does defile people? But rather, say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse, for such objects do defile people as well. The Gemara asks: If that is so, the tube should also require the sprinkling of the water of purification on the third and seventh days of its purification, like all things defiled by a corpse.

讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讞讜转讻讛 讜诪讟讘讬诇讛 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讝讗转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 注砖讗讜讛 讻讟诪讗 诪转 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜

Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses it requires immersion, which indicates that immersion for the tube, yes, this is required, but sprinkling of the third and the seventh day, no. Rather, you must say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse that is already in its seventh day, after its sprinklings, when it is still impure and imparts impurity to those who touch it, but requires only immersion and no further sprinkling.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讞讬讚砖讜 讚讘专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The Sages never made any innovations in the halakhot of impurity with regard to the red heifer procedure. In other words, although the Sages added stringencies to the red heifer procedure, they never created new halakhot for it that do not exist elsewhere in other areas of halakha. We have said that the tube is treated as if it had had contact with a corpse even though it did not; this is an innovation that is not found anywhere else.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 拽讜专讚讜诐 诪讟诪讗 诪讜砖讘 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬讜砖讘 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讬讻讜诇 讻驻讛 住讗讛 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 转专拽讘 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讬讛讗 讟诪讗

The Gemara answers: Abaye said: When they said that the Sages did not make innovations, they were not referring to something of this nature, but meant that they did not say that a spade upon which a zav sits can become impure as a seat. They thereby preserved the basic halakhot of impurity, as it is taught in a baraita: It states with regard to a zav: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se鈥檃 and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a tarkav, i.e., a half-se鈥檃, and sat on it, that the vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讜砖讘 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讗砖专 讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讬 砖诪讬讜讞讚 诇讬砖讬讘讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注诪讜讚 讜谞注砖讛 诪诇讗讻转谞讜

The baraita concludes: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits鈥nd be unclean until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel for which we would say to someone sitting on it: Stand up, so we can do our work. A spade and a measuring bowl, then, are not subject to the impurity of the seat of a zav, even if a zav sat on them. Rather, they are considered to be on the lower level of impurity transmitted through simple contact with a zav. The same halakha was applied to the vessels used in preparation of the red heifer; the Sages did not add stringency and decree that a vessel not generally used for sitting should be considered as the seat of a zav.

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 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻祝 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讝讛讘 诪诇讗讛 拽讟专转 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讘讻祝 讗讞转

搂 The mishna states: A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source for this stringency? Rabbi 岣nin said: The verse states with regard to the sacrificial donations of the tribal princes: 鈥淥ne golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense鈥 (Numbers 7:14), which teaches us that the verse treats everything inside the pan as one unit, even if the items are not attached to each other.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛住诇转 讜讛拽讟专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讙讞诇讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转讜 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇讜

Rav Kahana raised an objection against this based on the mishna that teaches (Eduyyot 8:1): Rabbi Akiva added to the list of it items that are considered combined when in the same vessel fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals, saying that if one who immersed himself that day but has not waited until sunset touched a part of the contents of a vessel containing these substances, all of the vessel鈥檚 contents are disqualified, as the vessel combines them.

讜讛讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讗驻专 讞讟讗转 砖谞讙注 讛讟诪讗 讘诪拽爪转讜 砖讟讬诪讗 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讜拽转谞讬 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Isn鈥檛 this halakha that these substances are considered combined by rabbinic law? From where do we know that this is so? From the fact that it teaches in the first clause of that mishna: Rabbi Shimon ben Beteira testified with regard to ashes of purification in a vessel that if an impure person or object touched part of it, it renders all of it impure. The purification ashes of the red heifer are neither food nor a sacrificial item, so Rabbi 岣nin鈥檚 verse does not apply to the ashes, and the vessel certainly does not combine the ashes together by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. And it is taught immediately following this: Rabbi Akiva added, which shows that Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 halakha, like the previous halakha, deals with an additional level of impurity instituted by the Sages rather than a Torah law.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗

Reish Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara:

Scroll To Top