Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Chullin 34
בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי ״בָּשָׂר״, דְּאִי בִּתְרוּמָה – בָּשָׂר מִי אִיכָּא?
with regard to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara responds: It should not enter your mind that the mishna is referring to a case of the level of purity of teruma, as the mishna teaches a case of the slaughter of animals and birds and consumption of their meat. And if the mishna is taught with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, is there meat eaten with the level of purity of teruma? The practice of preparing non-sacred food items on the level of purity of teruma is done only so that one will treat actual teruma in the correct manner, and teruma is separated only from produce that grows in the ground.
אֶלָּא מַאי, בְּקָדָשִׁים? חַיָּה בְּקָדָשִׁים מִי אִיכָּא? בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר מִיחַלַּף, בָּשָׂר בְּפֵירֵי לָא מִיחַלַּף.
The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the case in the mishna? Is it a case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food? Is there an undomesticated animal that can be sacrificed as an offering and its meat is sacrificial food? The Gemara answers: Although undomesticated animals cannot be sacrificed as an offering, there are those who would undertake to eat their meat only when prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food because meat of an undomesticated animal is sometimes interchanged with meat of a domesticated animal. No one would undertake to eat meat only when prepared on the level of purity of teruma, because meat would not be interchanged with produce.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: חַבְרַיָּא אָמְרִין בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
Ulla said: My colleagues say that the mishna is referring to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, but non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.
וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ דַּחֲמִירִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי אִית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי.
Ulla continues: And I say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and when he said that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, he is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, that they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rather, even non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.
מַאן חַבְרַיָּא? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אַהְדַּרוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לַהֲדָדֵי?
The Gemara asks: Who are the colleagues to whom Ulla referred? It is Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua reply to each other? The differences between their opinions are twofold. First, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with first-degree impurity assumes first-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity. Second, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but not vis-à-vis teruma.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מָצִינוּ אוֹכֵל חָמוּר מִן הָאוֹכֶל, דְּאִילּוּ נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר בַּחוּץ – לֹא מְטַמֵּא, וְאִילּוּ אוֹכְלָהּ מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאָנוּ הֵיאַךְ לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹכֵל כַּמַּאֲכָל?
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The basis for my opinion that one assumes the level of impurity of that which he ate is that we found a case where the halakha of the one who eats a food item is more stringent than the halakha of the food itself. As, the carcass of a kosher bird on the outside, i.e., when one comes into contact with it, does not impart ritual impurity, while one who eats the carcass of the kosher bird renders his garments impure when the food is in his throat. And we, in light of that, how will we not deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity at least like that of the food that he ate?
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִנִּבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר לָא גָּמְרִינַן, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא. אֶלָּא מָצִינוּ שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל חָמוּר מִן הָאוֹכֵל, דְּאִילּוּ מַאֲכָל בִּכְבֵיצָה, וְאוֹכֵל עַד דְּאָכֵיל כַּחֲצִי פְרָס, וְאָנוּ הֵיאַךְ נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹכֵל כַּמַּאֲכָל?
And Rabbi Yehoshua responded that we do not derive other cases from the case of the carcass of a kosher bird, because it is a novel ruling that cannot serve as a paradigm. Rather, we found that the halakha of food is more stringent than the halakha of the one who eats it, as food becomes impure if its measure is that of an egg-bulk, and one who eats impure food does not become impure until he eats half of a half-loaf. And we, in light of that, how will we deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity like that of the food that he ate?
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: טוּמְאָה מִשִּׁיעוּרִין לָא גָּמְרִינַן, וְעוֹד – לִדְבָרֶיךָ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר עַל רִאשׁוֹן שֵׁנִי – יָפֶה אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֵׁנִי שֵׁנִי לְמָה?
And Rabbi Eliezer responded: We do not derive the relative stringency of ritual impurity from the relative size of halakhic measures, as measures are not indicative of stringency or leniency. And furthermore, according to your statement, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with first-degree ritual impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, what you say is well. But that which you say with regard to one who eats food with second-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, why is that the case? It contradicts your reasoning.
אָמַר לוֹ: מָצִינוּ שֶׁהַשֵּׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שֵׁנִי עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקִין.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: We found that food with second–degree impurity renders other food impure with second-degree impurity by means of liquids. Liquids that come into contact with food with second-degree impurity render other food with which they come into contact impure with second-degree impurity.
אָמַר לוֹ: וְהָא מַשְׁקִין נָמֵי תְּחִלָּה הָווּ, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַפּוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקִין לִהְיוֹת תְּחִלָּה, חוּץ מִטְּבוּל יוֹם.
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But aren’t those liquids also impure with first-degree ritual impurity through contact with an item impure with second-degree impurity? As we learned in a mishna (Para 8:7): Any item with second-degree ritual impurity that disqualifies teruma renders liquids impure with first-degree ritual impurity. These liquids assume a degree of impurity greater than that of the item that rendered them impure. This rabbinic decree applies to all people and items with second-degree impurity except for one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. Liquids with which he comes into contact follow the standard course of transmitted impurity and assume third-degree impurity, one level below his own impurity.
וְעוֹד, שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לָמָה?
Rabbi Eliezer questioned the next segment in the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua: And furthermore, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with third-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, why is that the halakha? It contradicts your reasoning.
אָמַר לוֹ: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ
Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: I too stated that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food only with regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, as its state of purity
טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. The Sages issued a decree that even one who is vigilant to partake of his teruma in a state of ritual purity is considered impure vis-à-vis one partaking of sacrificial food. Therefore, one who ate a food item that was prepared on the level of purity of teruma that had become impure with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity, and he renders sacrificial food impure.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – נַעֲשָׂה גּוּפוֹ שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yannai says: With regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and these items had become impure with third-degree impurity, his body becomes impure with second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. He renders sacrificial food with which he comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity, and that food in turn disqualifies sacrificial food with which it comes into contact.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין, עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא!
Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua: One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. This is stated in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma. The Gemara infers: Yes, one is able to prepare items on the level of purity of teruma, but one is not able to prepare items on the level of purity of sacrificial food, as in the latter case the non-sacred food does not become impure at all.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר.
Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: That inference is incorrect, as Rabbi Yehoshua is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua teaches that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.
וְהָא ״אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה״ קָאָמַר, אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua say to Rabbi Eliezer according to the explanation that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I too stated this only with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, indicating that he was not referring to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar bar Ḥana and Rabbi Asi are amora’im, and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and they disagree about whether the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua was stated specifically with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, or whether it includes even those prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – נִפְסַל גּוּפוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה.
§ Ulla says: One who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and that are impure with third-degree impurity, his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. שֵׁנִי הוּא דְּלָא הָוֵי, הָא שְׁלִישִׁי הָוֵי.
The Gemara asks: What is Ulla teaching us? We already learn in the mishna cited earlier (33b) from tractate Teharot: One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. This is stated in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma. The Gemara infers: It is second-degree impurity that he does not assume, but third-degree impurity he assumes, and he is therefore disqualified from partaking of teruma.
אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָא שֵׁנִי הָוֵי וְלָא שְׁלִישִׁי הָוֵי, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּאָמַר ״שֵׁנִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״ – אָמַר נָמֵי ״אֵין שֵׁנִי בִּתְרוּמָה״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Ulla to teach this halakha, as if it was learned from that mishna, I would say that vis-à-vis teruma he assumes neither second-degree nor third-degree impurity, as there is no reason to deem the status of one who eats like that of the food that he ate. And perhaps it was only since Rabbi Yehoshua said that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food that he also said that he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that he assumes third-degree impurity and is disqualified from partaking of teruma.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְעוּלָּא: הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין טָמֵא וּמְטַמֵּא, וְהַשֵּׁנִי פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי נֶאֱכָל בִּנְזִיד הַדֶּמַע.
Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to the statement of Ulla from a mishna (Teharot 2:3): Non-sacred food that is impure with first-degree impurity is impure and renders teruma impure in the sense that this teruma disqualifies other teruma with which it comes into contact. Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity disqualifies teruma, but it does not render teruma impure, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And food that is impure with third-degree impurity may be eaten by a priest in a stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נִפְסַל גּוּפוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה, סָפֵינַן לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דְּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִנְזִיד הַדֶּמַע,
And if you say that by partaking of food that is impure with third-degree impurity his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma, do we feed him a matter that invalidates his body from the right to partake of teruma? According to this, when eating the stew that contains food that is impure with third-degree impurity, he is disqualified from partaking of the spices of teruma that the mishna permits him to add to the stew. Ulla said to him: Leave the matter of stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Chullin 34
בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי ״בָּשָׂר״, דְּאִי בִּתְרוּמָה – בָּשָׂר מִי אִיכָּא?
with regard to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara responds: It should not enter your mind that the mishna is referring to a case of the level of purity of teruma, as the mishna teaches a case of the slaughter of animals and birds and consumption of their meat. And if the mishna is taught with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, is there meat eaten with the level of purity of teruma? The practice of preparing non-sacred food items on the level of purity of teruma is done only so that one will treat actual teruma in the correct manner, and teruma is separated only from produce that grows in the ground.
אֶלָּא מַאי, בְּקָדָשִׁים? חַיָּה בְּקָדָשִׁים מִי אִיכָּא? בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר מִיחַלַּף, בָּשָׂר בְּפֵירֵי לָא מִיחַלַּף.
The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the case in the mishna? Is it a case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food? Is there an undomesticated animal that can be sacrificed as an offering and its meat is sacrificial food? The Gemara answers: Although undomesticated animals cannot be sacrificed as an offering, there are those who would undertake to eat their meat only when prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food because meat of an undomesticated animal is sometimes interchanged with meat of a domesticated animal. No one would undertake to eat meat only when prepared on the level of purity of teruma, because meat would not be interchanged with produce.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: חַבְרַיָּא אָמְרִין בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
Ulla said: My colleagues say that the mishna is referring to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, but non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.
וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ דַּחֲמִירִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי אִית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי.
Ulla continues: And I say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and when he said that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, he is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, that they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rather, even non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.
מַאן חַבְרַיָּא? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אַהְדַּרוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לַהֲדָדֵי?
The Gemara asks: Who are the colleagues to whom Ulla referred? It is Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua reply to each other? The differences between their opinions are twofold. First, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with first-degree impurity assumes first-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity. Second, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but not vis-à-vis teruma.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מָצִינוּ אוֹכֵל חָמוּר מִן הָאוֹכֶל, דְּאִילּוּ נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר בַּחוּץ – לֹא מְטַמֵּא, וְאִילּוּ אוֹכְלָהּ מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאָנוּ הֵיאַךְ לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹכֵל כַּמַּאֲכָל?
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The basis for my opinion that one assumes the level of impurity of that which he ate is that we found a case where the halakha of the one who eats a food item is more stringent than the halakha of the food itself. As, the carcass of a kosher bird on the outside, i.e., when one comes into contact with it, does not impart ritual impurity, while one who eats the carcass of the kosher bird renders his garments impure when the food is in his throat. And we, in light of that, how will we not deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity at least like that of the food that he ate?
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִנִּבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר לָא גָּמְרִינַן, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא. אֶלָּא מָצִינוּ שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל חָמוּר מִן הָאוֹכֵל, דְּאִילּוּ מַאֲכָל בִּכְבֵיצָה, וְאוֹכֵל עַד דְּאָכֵיל כַּחֲצִי פְרָס, וְאָנוּ הֵיאַךְ נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹכֵל כַּמַּאֲכָל?
And Rabbi Yehoshua responded that we do not derive other cases from the case of the carcass of a kosher bird, because it is a novel ruling that cannot serve as a paradigm. Rather, we found that the halakha of food is more stringent than the halakha of the one who eats it, as food becomes impure if its measure is that of an egg-bulk, and one who eats impure food does not become impure until he eats half of a half-loaf. And we, in light of that, how will we deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity like that of the food that he ate?
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: טוּמְאָה מִשִּׁיעוּרִין לָא גָּמְרִינַן, וְעוֹד – לִדְבָרֶיךָ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר עַל רִאשׁוֹן שֵׁנִי – יָפֶה אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֵׁנִי שֵׁנִי לְמָה?
And Rabbi Eliezer responded: We do not derive the relative stringency of ritual impurity from the relative size of halakhic measures, as measures are not indicative of stringency or leniency. And furthermore, according to your statement, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with first-degree ritual impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, what you say is well. But that which you say with regard to one who eats food with second-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, why is that the case? It contradicts your reasoning.
אָמַר לוֹ: מָצִינוּ שֶׁהַשֵּׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שֵׁנִי עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקִין.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: We found that food with second–degree impurity renders other food impure with second-degree impurity by means of liquids. Liquids that come into contact with food with second-degree impurity render other food with which they come into contact impure with second-degree impurity.
אָמַר לוֹ: וְהָא מַשְׁקִין נָמֵי תְּחִלָּה הָווּ, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַפּוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקִין לִהְיוֹת תְּחִלָּה, חוּץ מִטְּבוּל יוֹם.
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But aren’t those liquids also impure with first-degree ritual impurity through contact with an item impure with second-degree impurity? As we learned in a mishna (Para 8:7): Any item with second-degree ritual impurity that disqualifies teruma renders liquids impure with first-degree ritual impurity. These liquids assume a degree of impurity greater than that of the item that rendered them impure. This rabbinic decree applies to all people and items with second-degree impurity except for one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. Liquids with which he comes into contact follow the standard course of transmitted impurity and assume third-degree impurity, one level below his own impurity.
וְעוֹד, שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לָמָה?
Rabbi Eliezer questioned the next segment in the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua: And furthermore, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with third-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, why is that the halakha? It contradicts your reasoning.
אָמַר לוֹ: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ
Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: I too stated that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food only with regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, as its state of purity
טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. The Sages issued a decree that even one who is vigilant to partake of his teruma in a state of ritual purity is considered impure vis-à-vis one partaking of sacrificial food. Therefore, one who ate a food item that was prepared on the level of purity of teruma that had become impure with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity, and he renders sacrificial food impure.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – נַעֲשָׂה גּוּפוֹ שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yannai says: With regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and these items had become impure with third-degree impurity, his body becomes impure with second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. He renders sacrificial food with which he comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity, and that food in turn disqualifies sacrificial food with which it comes into contact.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין, עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא!
Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua: One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. This is stated in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma. The Gemara infers: Yes, one is able to prepare items on the level of purity of teruma, but one is not able to prepare items on the level of purity of sacrificial food, as in the latter case the non-sacred food does not become impure at all.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר.
Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: That inference is incorrect, as Rabbi Yehoshua is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua teaches that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.
וְהָא ״אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה״ קָאָמַר, אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua say to Rabbi Eliezer according to the explanation that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I too stated this only with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, indicating that he was not referring to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar bar Ḥana and Rabbi Asi are amora’im, and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and they disagree about whether the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua was stated specifically with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, or whether it includes even those prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – נִפְסַל גּוּפוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה.
§ Ulla says: One who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and that are impure with third-degree impurity, his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. שֵׁנִי הוּא דְּלָא הָוֵי, הָא שְׁלִישִׁי הָוֵי.
The Gemara asks: What is Ulla teaching us? We already learn in the mishna cited earlier (33b) from tractate Teharot: One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. This is stated in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma. The Gemara infers: It is second-degree impurity that he does not assume, but third-degree impurity he assumes, and he is therefore disqualified from partaking of teruma.
אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָא שֵׁנִי הָוֵי וְלָא שְׁלִישִׁי הָוֵי, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּאָמַר ״שֵׁנִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״ – אָמַר נָמֵי ״אֵין שֵׁנִי בִּתְרוּמָה״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Ulla to teach this halakha, as if it was learned from that mishna, I would say that vis-à-vis teruma he assumes neither second-degree nor third-degree impurity, as there is no reason to deem the status of one who eats like that of the food that he ate. And perhaps it was only since Rabbi Yehoshua said that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food that he also said that he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that he assumes third-degree impurity and is disqualified from partaking of teruma.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְעוּלָּא: הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין טָמֵא וּמְטַמֵּא, וְהַשֵּׁנִי פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי נֶאֱכָל בִּנְזִיד הַדֶּמַע.
Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to the statement of Ulla from a mishna (Teharot 2:3): Non-sacred food that is impure with first-degree impurity is impure and renders teruma impure in the sense that this teruma disqualifies other teruma with which it comes into contact. Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity disqualifies teruma, but it does not render teruma impure, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And food that is impure with third-degree impurity may be eaten by a priest in a stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נִפְסַל גּוּפוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה, סָפֵינַן לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דְּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִנְזִיד הַדֶּמַע,
And if you say that by partaking of food that is impure with third-degree impurity his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma, do we feed him a matter that invalidates his body from the right to partake of teruma? According to this, when eating the stew that contains food that is impure with third-degree impurity, he is disqualified from partaking of the spices of teruma that the mishna permits him to add to the stew. Ulla said to him: Leave the matter of stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma,
