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 week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rabbi Yonatan says in the name of Rabbi that someone who eats a shelishi (third degree) of actual teruma is forbidden to eat teruma but is allowed to touch it. Ulla had said the same thing regarding one who eats a shelishi of chullin that was treated like teruma. The Gemara explains why both statements were needed and could not have necessarily been derived one from the other.
Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that someone who eats a shelishi of chullin treated like kodashim is still pure to eat actual kodashim, because only real kodashim that are sanctified by an action (like a meal offering when placed in a sanctified vessel or an animal when slaughtered) can create a revi’i (fourth degree). Rami bar Hama challenges this from Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion in the Mishna in Taharot (2:2) that a shelishi that was treated as teruma is considered a sheni for kodashim. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between items treated as teruma and those treated as kodashim. The reason to distinguish is that those who are careful from impurities for teruma are not cautious enough regarding kodashim. This distinction is proven from a Mishna in Chagiga (18b). Rava, however, disagrees with the application of the Mishna in Chagiga to this case, and disagrees with Rav Yitzchak. A difficulty is raised against this distinction from a Mishna in Chagiga (24b) where one designated part of the wine in a barrel of teruma to be kodashim. If the protection for teruma is not valid for kodashim, wouldn’t the teruma wine make the kodashim wine impure? To resolve this they distinguish between teruma and kodashim that are combined and those that are not combined.
A second difficulty on Rav Yitzchak is brought from a braita that clearly states that a shelishi of items that are treated as kodashim passes on impurity to kodashim. To resolve this difficulty, they conclude that there is a tannaitic debate and brings a braita with two opinions that both support Rav Yitzchak’s position.
Rabbi Shimon stated in the Mishna that shechita makes the animal susceptible to impurity. Rav Asi explains that Rabbi Shimon means only shechita makes it susceptible, but the blood of the animal does not. The Gemara challenges this to see if he means only shechita, and blood from the slaughter would not be considered a liquid that could render something susceptible to impurity, or did he mean shechita in addition to blood, as blood of the slaughter could also render something susceptible to impurity. Our Mishna is brought to strengthen Rav Asi’s reading, but it is rejected as inconclusive. Then three other tannaitic sources are brought to try to either prove or disprove Rav Assi’s claim, however, all are deemed inconclusive.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Chullin 35
דְּלֵיכָּא כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס.
as there is not an olive-bulk of teruma in the amount of stew that he eats in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Therefore, one need not treat the mixture with the level of purity required of teruma.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה עַצְמָהּ – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל, וּמוּתָּר לִיגַּע.
Rabbi Yonatan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For one who partakes of actual teruma that is impure with third-degree impurity, it is prohibited to partake of other teruma, but it is permitted to come into contact with teruma.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּעוּלָּא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, דְּאִי מִדְּעוּלָּא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה – בִּנְגִיעָה נָמֵי אָסוּר, אִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וְאִי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל חוּלִּין – בַּאֲכִילָה נָמֵי שְׁרֵי, צְרִיכִי.
The Gemara notes that the statement of Ulla was necessary and the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. As, if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Ulla, I would say: This statement applies with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, but with regard to teruma itself perhaps contact is also prohibited. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. And if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Rabbi Yonatan, I would say: This statement applies with regard to teruma, but with regard to non-sacred food that was prepared with purity of teruma, perhaps eating it is also permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.
יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – טָהוֹר לֶאֱכוֹל בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה רְבִיעִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ אֶלָּא קֹדֶשׁ מִקּוֹדֶשׁ בִּלְבַד.
§ Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and he was sitting and saying: 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, he is ritually pure in terms of the right to partake of sacrificial food, as you have nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not.
מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: שְׁלִישִׁי – שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה. בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. אַמַּאי? הָא לָאו קֹדֶשׁ מִקּוֹדֶשׁ הוּא!
Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection from the mishna cited earlier (33b): One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second–degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, and he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. Eating an item with third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred items, as partaking of impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma. According to the statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta, why does this food assume second-degree impurity? It is not sacrificial food, which is sanctified.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִתְרוּמָה, שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to him: Leave teruma alone; its state of purity is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. Therefore, non-sacred food that was prepared with the purity of teruma renders sacrificial food impure.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרַאּ? דִּתְנַן: בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לִפְרוּשִׁין, בִּגְדֵי פְרוּשִׁין מִדְרָס לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, בִּגְדֵי אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that the purity of teruma is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food? It is from a mishna (Ḥagiga 18b), as we learned: The halakhic status of the garments of an am ha’aretz, who does not scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity, is like that of items rendered impure by treading, e.g., items designated for sitting or lying upon which a zav or a menstruating woman sits or lies, which are rendered a primary source of ritual impurity for individuals who scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity [perushin] and eat their non-sacred food in a state of purity. In other words, it is considered a primary level of impurity for them. The halakhic status of the garments of perushin is like that of items rendered impure by treading for priests who partake of teruma. In addition, the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food.
אָמַר רָבָא: מִדְרָסוֹת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי מִדְרָסוֹת,
Rava said: Are you saying that one can cite proof from the halakha of items rendered impure by treading that the state of purity of teruma is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food? No proof may be cited from there, as the decree that the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food is different,
שֶׁמָּא תֵּשֵׁב עֲלֵיהֶן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, אֲבָל בְּפֵירֵי לָא אָמְרִינַן. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּפֵירֵי נָמֵי אָמַר.
as with regard to garments there is concern lest his wife sit upon them when she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. But with regard to produce, we do not say that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure, and Rabbi Yitzḥak states his halakha with regard to produce as well.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן בְּפֵירֵי? וְהָתְנַן: אִם אָמַר ״הִפְרַשְׁתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית קֹדֶשׁ״ – נֶאֱמָן, וְלָא קָא (מטמא) [מְטַמְּיָא] לֵיהּ תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: טׇהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ – תְּטַמֵּא תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ!
Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak: And do we say with regard to produce that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥagiga 24b): It is not permitted for a priest to accept teruma wine from an am ha’aretz, but if an am ha’aretz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma wine a quarter–log of sacrificial wine, he is deemed credible? And this indicates that teruma does not render the sacrificial food impure. And if you say with regard to teruma that its state of purity is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, let the teruma render the sacrificial food impure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין קָאָמְרַתְּ? טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין שָׁאנֵי, דְּמִגּוֹ דִּמְהֵימַן אַקֹּדֶשׁ – מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַתְּרוּמָה.
Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti: Are you saying that there is an objection to my opinion based on the case of impurity in a case of food items, the teruma wine and the sacrificial wine, that are attached in one barrel? Impurity in a case of food items that are attached is different, as, since the am ha’aretz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food, he is deemed credible with regard to the teruma as well.
מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן: הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה חוּלִּין, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Rav Huna bar Natan raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak with regard to rendering sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity: Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity renders impure through contact a non-sacred liquid, which assumes first-degree impurity, and disqualifies teruma foods, in the sense that those foods are impure but do not transmit impurity to other food. And non-sacred food that is impure with third-degree impurity renders impure through contact a sacrificial liquid and disqualifies sacrificial foods, in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said that there is nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but not non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין.
The Gemara answers that this matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of non-sacred foods, and they are incapable of assuming third-degree impurity.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְרוּמָה, לְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם, וְלִפְסוֹל אֶחָד.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of teruma. Accordingly, a primary source of ritual impurity is able to render two items impure: The food item with which it comes into contact assumes first-degree impurity, and the food item with which that came into contact assumes second-degree impurity. And that item is able to disqualify one further item, which assumes third-degree impurity but will not render sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree impurity. According to both opinions in this baraita, non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not disqualify sacrificial food. According to the mishna in Teharot, it does disqualify sacrificial food.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם.
§ The mishna states (33a): In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them, Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Shimon would say: It is its slaughter that renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, and not the blood that emerges during the slaughter.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. מַאי לָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלָא בְּדָם? לָא, אַף בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rav Asi. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that Rabbi Shimon is saying: By means of the slaughter and not by means of the blood from the slaughter? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps Rabbi Shimon is saying: The animal can be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of blood and also by means of slaughter.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי הַדָּם מַכְשִׁיר? וַהֲלֹא שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת! הָכִי קָאָמַר לָהֶן: וְכִי דָם בִּלְבַד מַכְשִׁיר? אַף שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי מַכְשֶׁרֶת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita in support of Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: Is it blood that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? But isn’t it slaughter that renders it susceptible? This indicates that Rabbi Shimon holds that it is specifically the slaughter and not the blood that renders the flesh susceptible to impurity. The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the Rabbis: Is it blood alone that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? Slaughter too renders it susceptible.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר, אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי – לָא מַכְשִׁיר?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita contrary to Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the animal that is dead of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what then is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?
לַישְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם הַמֵּת! דַּם הַמֵּת אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ אִיהוּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach the halakha of blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the animal himself, and what difference is there to me if the animal was killed by the angel of death? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that unlike blood of an animal that was killed, blood of an animal that is dead as a result of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר. אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי, לָא מַכְשִׁיר?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita contrary to Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the wound of an animal does not render other items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?
לַשְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ! דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּהּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ פַּלְגָא.
If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of its wound. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach blood of its wound, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the entire animal, and what difference is there to me if one killed half of the animal, i.e., wounded it? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches that unlike the blood of an animal that was killed, the blood from an animal’s wound does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא דַּם חֲלָלִים דְּמַכְשַׁיר? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״.
The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to blood of animals that are killed that they render food items susceptible to ritual impurity? It is due to the fact that it is written: “Behold, they are a people that rises up as a lioness, and as a lion he lifts himself up; he shall not lie down until he eats of the prey and drinks blood of carcasses” (Numbers 23:24). The fact that the blood of a carcass, which in the context of the verse is referring to an animal that was killed, is mentioned in the context of drinking, indicates that it is a liquid that renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity.
דַּם שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״! הָהוּא לְמִישְׁרֵי דָּמָן דִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בַּהֲנָאָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
With regard to blood of slaughter it is also written: “Only, you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth as water” (Deuteronomy 12:16). The parallel to water ostensibly indicates that the blood of slaughter should also render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: That verse is not written with regard to susceptibility to impurity. The purpose for which it comes is to permit benefit from the blood of disqualified consecrated animals.
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.
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
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
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
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
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
Chullin 35
דְּלֵיכָּא כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס.
as there is not an olive-bulk of teruma in the amount of stew that he eats in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Therefore, one need not treat the mixture with the level of purity required of teruma.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה עַצְמָהּ – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל, וּמוּתָּר לִיגַּע.
Rabbi Yonatan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For one who partakes of actual teruma that is impure with third-degree impurity, it is prohibited to partake of other teruma, but it is permitted to come into contact with teruma.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּעוּלָּא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, דְּאִי מִדְּעוּלָּא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה – בִּנְגִיעָה נָמֵי אָסוּר, אִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וְאִי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל חוּלִּין – בַּאֲכִילָה נָמֵי שְׁרֵי, צְרִיכִי.
The Gemara notes that the statement of Ulla was necessary and the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. As, if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Ulla, I would say: This statement applies with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, but with regard to teruma itself perhaps contact is also prohibited. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yonatan was necessary. And if the halakha were learned exclusively from the statement of Rabbi Yonatan, I would say: This statement applies with regard to teruma, but with regard to non-sacred food that was prepared with purity of teruma, perhaps eating it is also permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.
יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – טָהוֹר לֶאֱכוֹל בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה רְבִיעִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ אֶלָּא קֹדֶשׁ מִקּוֹדֶשׁ בִּלְבַד.
§ Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and he was sitting and saying: 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, he is ritually pure in terms of the right to partake of sacrificial food, as you have nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not.
מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: שְׁלִישִׁי – שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה. בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. אַמַּאי? הָא לָאו קֹדֶשׁ מִקּוֹדֶשׁ הוּא!
Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection from the mishna cited earlier (33b): One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second–degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, and he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. Eating an item with third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred items, as partaking of impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma. According to the statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta, why does this food assume second-degree impurity? It is not sacrificial food, which is sanctified.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִתְרוּמָה, שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to him: Leave teruma alone; its state of purity is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. Therefore, non-sacred food that was prepared with the purity of teruma renders sacrificial food impure.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרַאּ? דִּתְנַן: בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לִפְרוּשִׁין, בִּגְדֵי פְרוּשִׁין מִדְרָס לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, בִּגְדֵי אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that the purity of teruma is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food? It is from a mishna (Ḥagiga 18b), as we learned: The halakhic status of the garments of an am ha’aretz, who does not scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity, is like that of items rendered impure by treading, e.g., items designated for sitting or lying upon which a zav or a menstruating woman sits or lies, which are rendered a primary source of ritual impurity for individuals who scrupulously observe the halakhot of ritual purity [perushin] and eat their non-sacred food in a state of purity. In other words, it is considered a primary level of impurity for them. The halakhic status of the garments of perushin is like that of items rendered impure by treading for priests who partake of teruma. In addition, the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food.
אָמַר רָבָא: מִדְרָסוֹת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי מִדְרָסוֹת,
Rava said: Are you saying that one can cite proof from the halakha of items rendered impure by treading that the state of purity of teruma is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food? No proof may be cited from there, as the decree that the halakhic status of the garments of priests who partake of teruma is like that of items rendered impure by treading for those who eat sacrificial food is different,
שֶׁמָּא תֵּשֵׁב עֲלֵיהֶן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, אֲבָל בְּפֵירֵי לָא אָמְרִינַן. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּפֵירֵי נָמֵי אָמַר.
as with regard to garments there is concern lest his wife sit upon them when she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. But with regard to produce, we do not say that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure, and Rabbi Yitzḥak states his halakha with regard to produce as well.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן בְּפֵירֵי? וְהָתְנַן: אִם אָמַר ״הִפְרַשְׁתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית קֹדֶשׁ״ – נֶאֱמָן, וְלָא קָא (מטמא) [מְטַמְּיָא] לֵיהּ תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: טׇהֳרָתָהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ – תְּטַמֵּא תְּרוּמָה לְקֹדֶשׁ!
Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak: And do we say with regard to produce that if it was prepared with the purity of teruma it renders sacrificial food impure? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥagiga 24b): It is not permitted for a priest to accept teruma wine from an am ha’aretz, but if an am ha’aretz says to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma wine a quarter–log of sacrificial wine, he is deemed credible? And this indicates that teruma does not render the sacrificial food impure. And if you say with regard to teruma that its state of purity is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, let the teruma render the sacrificial food impure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין קָאָמְרַתְּ? טוּמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין שָׁאנֵי, דְּמִגּוֹ דִּמְהֵימַן אַקֹּדֶשׁ – מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַתְּרוּמָה.
Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti: Are you saying that there is an objection to my opinion based on the case of impurity in a case of food items, the teruma wine and the sacrificial wine, that are attached in one barrel? Impurity in a case of food items that are attached is different, as, since the am ha’aretz is deemed credible with regard to the sacrificial food, he is deemed credible with regard to the teruma as well.
מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן: הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה חוּלִּין, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Rav Huna bar Natan raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak with regard to rendering sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity: Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity renders impure through contact a non-sacred liquid, which assumes first-degree impurity, and disqualifies teruma foods, in the sense that those foods are impure but do not transmit impurity to other food. And non-sacred food that is impure with third-degree impurity renders impure through contact a sacrificial liquid and disqualifies sacrificial foods, in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said that there is nothing that confers fourth-degree impurity in sacrificial food other than consecrated sacrificial food alone, but not non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין.
The Gemara answers that this matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of non-sacred foods, and they are incapable of assuming third-degree impurity.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְרוּמָה, לְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם, וְלִפְסוֹל אֶחָד.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The halakhic status of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food is like that of teruma. Accordingly, a primary source of ritual impurity is able to render two items impure: The food item with which it comes into contact assumes first-degree impurity, and the food item with which that came into contact assumes second-degree impurity. And that item is able to disqualify one further item, which assumes third-degree impurity but will not render sacrificial food impure with fourth-degree impurity. According to both opinions in this baraita, non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food does not disqualify sacrificial food. According to the mishna in Teharot, it does disqualify sacrificial food.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם.
§ The mishna states (33a): In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them, Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Shimon would say: It is its slaughter that renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, and not the blood that emerges during the slaughter.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. מַאי לָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלָא בְּדָם? לָא, אַף בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rav Asi. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that Rabbi Shimon is saying: By means of the slaughter and not by means of the blood from the slaughter? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps Rabbi Shimon is saying: The animal can be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of blood and also by means of slaughter.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי הַדָּם מַכְשִׁיר? וַהֲלֹא שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת! הָכִי קָאָמַר לָהֶן: וְכִי דָם בִּלְבַד מַכְשִׁיר? אַף שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי מַכְשֶׁרֶת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita in support of Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: Is it blood that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? But isn’t it slaughter that renders it susceptible? This indicates that Rabbi Shimon holds that it is specifically the slaughter and not the blood that renders the flesh susceptible to impurity. The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what Rabbi Shimon is saying to the Rabbis: Is it blood alone that renders the animal susceptible to ritual impurity? Slaughter too renders it susceptible.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר, אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי – לָא מַכְשִׁיר?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita contrary to Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the animal that is dead of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what then is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?
לַישְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם הַמֵּת! דַּם הַמֵּת אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ אִיהוּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach the halakha of blood of the animal that is dead as a result of natural causes, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the animal himself, and what difference is there to me if the animal was killed by the angel of death? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that unlike blood of an animal that was killed, blood of an animal that is dead as a result of natural causes does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו, הָא דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַכְשִׁיר? לָא, הָא דַּם חֲלָלִים מַכְשִׁיר. אֲבָל דַּם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי, לָא מַכְשִׁיר?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita contrary to Rav Asi’s statement. Rabbi Shimon says: Blood of the wound of an animal does not render other items susceptible to ritual impurity. What, is it not that one may infer that blood of slaughter renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara rejects this proof. No, infer that blood of animals that are killed renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: But with regard to blood of slaughter, what is the halakha; that it does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity?
לַשְׁמְעִינַן דַּם שְׁחִיטָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ! דַּם מַגֵּפָתוֹ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּהּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ פַּלְגָא.
If so, let Rabbi Shimon teach us that blood of slaughter does not render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity, and we will conclude that all the more so that is the halakha with regard to blood of its wound. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach blood of its wound, as it could enter your mind to say: What difference is there to me if one killed the entire animal, and what difference is there to me if one killed half of the animal, i.e., wounded it? In both cases the blood should render the animal susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches that unlike the blood of an animal that was killed, the blood from an animal’s wound does not render food items susceptible to ritual impurity, and no inference may be drawn with regard to blood of slaughter.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא דַּם חֲלָלִים דְּמַכְשַׁיר? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״.
The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to blood of animals that are killed that they render food items susceptible to ritual impurity? It is due to the fact that it is written: “Behold, they are a people that rises up as a lioness, and as a lion he lifts himself up; he shall not lie down until he eats of the prey and drinks blood of carcasses” (Numbers 23:24). The fact that the blood of a carcass, which in the context of the verse is referring to an animal that was killed, is mentioned in the context of drinking, indicates that it is a liquid that renders food items susceptible to ritual impurity.
דַּם שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״! הָהוּא לְמִישְׁרֵי דָּמָן דִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בַּהֲנָאָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
With regard to blood of slaughter it is also written: “Only, you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth as water” (Deuteronomy 12:16). The parallel to water ostensibly indicates that the blood of slaughter should also render food items susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: That verse is not written with regard to susceptibility to impurity. The purpose for which it comes is to permit benefit from the blood of disqualified consecrated animals.
