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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 7, 2020 | 讻状讗 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Pesachim 16

Today’s daf is dedicated by Michelle and Laurence Berkowitz in honor of their son Gilad who celebrated his Bar Mitzva on Shabbat Parshat Toldot and to his twin sister Joy who celebrated her 13th birthday, Gilad and Joy are named after their late aunt, Joy Rochwarger Balsam z”l. Joy was a pioneer in women’s Torah learning and was known to many of the teachers and students of Hadran. Joy taught the joy of torah to hundreds of students and would have been so proud of the Hadran learning and the multitudes of people participating. Joy聽 was Nechama Leibowitz’s zt”l personal aide during Nechama’s last years. “Joy and Gilad Berkowitz, may you continue to learn Torah in your namesake’s memory.”
According to Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi disagree about the conclusion one can reach from聽 Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim. They both agree it was a case of a liquid that came in contact with the meat but they disagree about whether liquids can pass on impurity only on a rabbinic level or also by Torah law. The gemara brings the tannatic debate regarding the ability of liquids to become and to pass on impurity by Torah law. They also bring a source about Yosi ben Yoezer Ish Tzreida who testified that all liquids in the slaughtering area of the Temple are considered pure. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether he meant they do not even become impure or that they do not pass on impurity. The gemara raises one question against Shmuel and six against Rav.

住驻拽 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讟讛讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讟诪讗

If there is uncertainty whether or not a certain liquid has become ritually impure, it is presumed impure. It is an uncertainty with regard to Torah law, and the halakha is stringent in such cases. However, if the uncertainty is with regard to rendering other items impure, they are pure, as liquids transmit impurity by rabbinic law, and the halakha is lenient with regard to uncertainties of that kind. These are the statements of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Elazar would say likewise in accordance with his statements. Rabbi Yehuda says: When there is uncertainty with regard to these liquids, the item is impure in all cases, even in terms of transmitting impurity to other items, as he maintains that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诇讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: In cases of uncertainty as to whether or not these liquids transmitted impurity to foods, the ruling is that the foods are impure, in accordance with the principle that when there is uncertainty in cases of Torah law, the halakha is stringent. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon maintain that liquids transmit impurity to food by Torah law. However, when there is uncertainty as to whether or not these liquids transmitted impurity to vessels, the halakha is lenient, and they are pure. Even Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon concede that liquids transmit impurity to vessels only by rabbinic law. This baraita clearly indicates that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei indeed dispute whether or not the impurity of liquids applies by Torah law.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜诇诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讛注讬讚 (讬讜住祝) 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉

With regard to the Tosefta, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar maintain that liquids have ritual impurity by Torah law at all? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: There is no impurity for liquids at all by Torah law. Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified about the grasshopper called eil kamtza that it is kosher and may be eaten; and he testified about liquids in the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they were ritually pure, as there was no decree of impurity issued with regard to them. The fact that these liquids are ritually pure indicates that by Torah law liquids cannot transmit impurity at all. Instead, that type of impurity is by rabbinic law, and rabbinic decrees of impurity were not in effect in the Temple.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara adds: This works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that in this context the term ritually pure means that they do not transmit impurity to other items; however, they themselves can become impure. If that is Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion, he indeed holds in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir that liquids transmit impurity by rabbinic law but themselves become impure by Torah law, as stated in the baraita above. However, according to Rav, who said that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer holds that the liquids are actually ritually pure and they themselves cannot be rendered impure, what can be said? According to Rav, Rabbi Elazar maintains that there is no impurity at all by Torah law with regard to liquids. In what sense does he hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that liquids themselves can become impure by Torah law?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞讚讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: When the baraita said that Rabbi Elazar agreed with Rabbi Meir, it was with regard to one of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinions. Rabbi Elazar agrees with Rabbi Meir that in a case where there is uncertainty with regard to rendering other items impure, they are pure, as liquids transmit impurity by rabbinic law. However, Rabbi Elazar maintains that the impurity of liquids themselves is also not by Torah law, and therefore in a case of uncertainty with regard to impurity of the liquids themselves, the ruling is that they are pure.

讜讛讗 讻讚讘专讬讜 拽讗诪专 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 讜讻谉 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 the baraita saying: And Rabbi Elazar would say in accordance with Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statements, in the plural, indicating that the points of agreement are many? And furthermore, the baraita is teaching: Likewise. This term also indicates that Rabbi Elazar agrees completely with Rabbi Meir. Since no resolution was found for this contradiction, the Gemara concludes that it is indeed difficult to understand the baraita according to Rav.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讜讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专

After citing the testimony of Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and the associated amoraic dispute, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav said: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer said that the liquids in the Temple are actually ritually pure and neither become impure nor transmit impurity. And Shmuel said that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items; however, they themselves can become impure. The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that liquids are actually pure, as he maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued this decree they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. However, with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple, they did not issue the decree.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 注爪诪谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讜讻讬 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉

And the Gemara elaborates on the opinion of Shmuel: Shmuel said that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items; however, they themselves can become impure, as Shmuel maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids themselves is by Torah law, whereas their capacity to transmit impurity to other objects is by rabbinic law. And when the Sages issued this decree, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. However, with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple they did not issue the decree. And when Shmuel said that the Sages did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse, he meant that they did not do so with regard to their capacity to transmit impurity to other items; however, as far as their own impurity is concerned, they become impure like other liquids.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诇讘专讬讛 讻讬 注讬讬诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said to his son: When you enter before Rav Pappa, raise the following contradiction before him: Did Shmuel actually say that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items but they themselves are susceptible to impurity? Is there anything that by Torah law can itself become impure but does not transmit impurity to other items? Read here a verse that clearly states that any item that is itself impure, including liquids, transmits impurity to other items: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt in fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:19).

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 讛讗讬 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The legal status of liquids is just as it is in the case of fourth-degree ritual impurity in a consecrated item, with regard to which everyone agrees that it becomes impure but does not transmit impurity to other items. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this contention: How is it possible to compare these two cases? Fourth-degree impurity in a consecrated item is not called impure; it is disqualified. However, this liquid is called impure. Therefore, the two halakhot are not comparable. No resolution is found for this contradiction, and the Gemara concludes that it is indeed difficult.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讘讻诇 讻诇讬 讬讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讬讟诪讗 讛讻砖讬专

The Gemara cites several sources to decide the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m and between Rav and Shmuel with regard to whether or not the impurity of liquids is by Torah law. Come and hear: 鈥淎nd all drink that may be drunk in any vessel shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). This verse clearly indicates that liquids can become impure. The Gemara rejects this contention: What is the meaning of the term: Shall be impure, in this context? It means that the liquid renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity.

讛讻砖讬专 诪专讬砖讗 讚拽专讗 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讙讜壮 讞讚 讘转诇讜砖讬谉 讜讞讚 讘诪讞讜讘专讬谉

The Gemara retorts: Does it in fact mean that the liquid renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity? That cannot be as you already learned that from the beginning of this verse: 鈥淔rom all food that may be eaten, on which water has come shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the second part of the verse is also necessary: One part of the verse, the latter part, is referring to water detached from its source, in vessels, and one part, the former part, is referring to water still attached to its source in the ground.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘转诇讜砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And both derivations are necessary, as neither halakha could have been derived from the other. As, had the Torah taught us only about the halakha of water detached from its source, one might have thought that this water renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to the fact that he ascribed significance to the water by drawing it from its source. However, with regard to water still attached to its source, say that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讘讚讜讻转讬讬讛讜 讞砖讬讘讬 讗讘诇 转诇讜砖讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬

And had the Torah taught only the halakha of water still attached to its source, one might have thought that due to the fact that it stands in its place this water is significant; however, with regard to water detached from its source, say no, it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity, as it is disconnected from its source. It was therefore necessary for the Torah to mention both cases.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讱 诪注讬谉 讜讘讜专 诪拽讜讛 诪讬诐 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear: 鈥淗owever, a spring or a cistern, a gathering of water shall be pure, but he who touches their carcass shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:36). It can be inferred from this verse that all water can be rendered impure, with the exception of spring water and water in a cistern, which are in the ground. The Gemara rejects this contention: What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淪hall be pure鈥? This phrase means that one who immerses in this water is purified from his ritual impurity, and does not refer to the impurity of liquids at all.

讜转诇讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讚讬讬谉 砖讛谉 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

The Gemara stated that both water detached from its source and water still attached to its source render food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: And does water detached from its source render food susceptible to contract impurity? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, say: With regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple, not only are they pure, but neither do they render produce susceptible to ritual impurity? Apparently, water detached from its source does not render food susceptible to impurity by Torah law. The fact that the Sages suspend the capacity of certain liquids to render produce susceptible to impurity indicates that the fact that water removed from its source renders food susceptible to impurity must be by rabbinic decree. Otherwise, that capability could not have been suspended in the Temple.

转讬专讙诪讗 注诇 讚诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讛讗专抓 转砖驻讻谞讜 讻诪讬诐 讚诐 砖谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara rejects this contention: Explain this statement as referring to blood. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina was not referring to all liquids in the Temple, but only to blood. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived with regard to blood of consecrated offerings that it does not render produce susceptible to impurity? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall surely not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:16). The Sages derived from this verse: Blood that is poured like water, i.e., blood from a non-sacred domesticated animal that pours out when it is slaughtered and is not received in a vessel as sacrificial blood assumes the legal status of water and renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity.

讚诐 砖讗讬谞讜 谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗诪讬 讛专讬 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讚谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专

Conversely, blood that is not poured out like water but is received in a vessel to be sprinkled on the altar does not render produce susceptible to contract impurity. Rav Shmuel bar Ami strongly objects to this: There is the blood squeezed from an animal after slaughter once the initial spurt of blood has concluded, which is poured like water, as it is unfit for sprinkling upon the altar. And nevertheless, this blood does not render produce susceptible to impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛谞讞 诇讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Leave aside the blood squeezed after the initial spurt, which is an exceptional case, as even from non-sacred animals it does not render produce susceptible to ritual impurity either. With regard to the halakha that blood renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity, the legal status of blood squeezed after the initial spurt is not that of blood at all.

拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 专拽 讞讝拽 诇讘诇转讬 讗讻诇 讛讚诐 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讛谞驻砖 讚诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 拽专讜讬 讚诐 讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 拽专讜讬 讚诐

The Gemara comments: Rav Shmuel bar Ami accepted this statement from Rabbi Zeira and cited a verse that supports it. As the Merciful One states: 鈥淥nly be strong not to eat the blood; for the blood is the soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23). This verse indicates: Blood with regard to which the soul leaves the body when it is spilled is called blood; however, blood with regard to which the soul does not leave the body when it is spilled, but which is squeezed out afterward, is not called blood.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛

The Gemara cites an additional proof that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law. Come and hear: With regard to blood that became ritually impure, and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, the following distinction applies: If he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, blood becomes ritually impure by Torah law, even if it does not transmit impurity to other items. The Gemara rejects this contention: This impurity is by rabbinic law, and this ruling is not in accordance with Rav鈥檚 explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida, as he maintains that sacrificial blood does not become impure at all.

转讗 砖诪注 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara cites a proof from another mishna. Come and hear: For what does the frontplate of the High Priest atone and thereby allow the blood of the offering to be sprinkled? It atones for the blood, and for the meat, and for the fat that became impure, whether one caused it to become impure unwittingly or intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond his control or willfully, and whether it is the offering of an individual or that of a community. Apparently, the blood of an offering can become impure.

诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讚诇讗 (讻讬讜住祝) 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: The mishna is referring to blood that is impure by rabbinic law, and here too, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida, who says that consecrated blood does not become impure at all.

转讗 砖诪注 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara cites an additional proof: Come and hear another verse written about the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the consecrated objects, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God鈥 (Exodus 28:38).

讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛 注讜谉 讛讜讗 谞讜砖讗 讗诐 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讗诐 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘

And the Sages expounded: Which sin does it bear? If you say it atones for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat the offering after the permitted time, it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7). If you say it atones for notar, i.e., meat of an offering left after the time that one was permitted to eat it, it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it鈥 (Leviticus 7:18).

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讟讜诪讗转 讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 拽诪爪讬诐

Evidently, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity in the offering of an individual, as in some circumstances, impurity was exempted from its general prohibition on behalf of the community. It was permitted to sacrifice communal offerings in the Temple in a state of impurity. What, does this not apply to impure blood as well? Apparently, blood can also become impure. Rav Pappa said: No, the reference is not to impure blood but to the impurity of handfuls of flour separated by the priest from a meal-offering. The handful of flour renders the meal-offering permitted to be eaten by the priests, parallel to the blood of an animal offering.

转讗 砖诪注 讛谉 讬砖讗 讗讬砖 讘砖专 拽讚砖 讘讻谞祝 讘讙讚讜 讜谞讙注 讘讻谞驻讜 讗诇 讛诇讞诐 讜讗诇 讛谞讝讬讚 讜讗诇 讛讬讬谉 讜讗诇 砖诪谉 讜讗诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讛讬拽讚砖 讜讬注谞讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讗 (讬拽讚砖)

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear that which was said to the prophet Haggai: 鈥淭hus said the Lord of Hosts: Ask now the priests with regard to the Torah, saying: If a person bears hallowed flesh in the corner of his garment, and with his garment he touches bread, or stew, or wine, or oil, or any food, shall it be sacred? And the priests answered and said: No鈥 (Haggai 2:11鈥12). This question is asked with regard to the flesh of a creeping animal and whether or not the substances that come into contact with it become impure.

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 11-17 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn the laws of eating leavened bread on the 14th of Nisan, Erev Pesach....
Tuma and Tahara - and intoduction

Tuma & Tahara: an Introduction

General Introduction to Tuma/Tahara Tuma/Tahara is a chok 鈥 not related to hygiene or ability to use the object/person. Usually...
tomb of prophets entrance

Great Shall Be the Glory of the Later House

In order to prove a point about impurity, the Gemara on pages 16 and 17 brings in some verses from...
alon shvut women

Liquids

What is the status of liquids in terms of making items impure, becoming impure? What are the different rulings based...

Pesachim 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 16

住驻拽 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讟讛讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讟诪讗

If there is uncertainty whether or not a certain liquid has become ritually impure, it is presumed impure. It is an uncertainty with regard to Torah law, and the halakha is stringent in such cases. However, if the uncertainty is with regard to rendering other items impure, they are pure, as liquids transmit impurity by rabbinic law, and the halakha is lenient with regard to uncertainties of that kind. These are the statements of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Elazar would say likewise in accordance with his statements. Rabbi Yehuda says: When there is uncertainty with regard to these liquids, the item is impure in all cases, even in terms of transmitting impurity to other items, as he maintains that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诇讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: In cases of uncertainty as to whether or not these liquids transmitted impurity to foods, the ruling is that the foods are impure, in accordance with the principle that when there is uncertainty in cases of Torah law, the halakha is stringent. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon maintain that liquids transmit impurity to food by Torah law. However, when there is uncertainty as to whether or not these liquids transmitted impurity to vessels, the halakha is lenient, and they are pure. Even Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon concede that liquids transmit impurity to vessels only by rabbinic law. This baraita clearly indicates that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei indeed dispute whether or not the impurity of liquids applies by Torah law.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜诇诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讛注讬讚 (讬讜住祝) 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉

With regard to the Tosefta, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar maintain that liquids have ritual impurity by Torah law at all? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: There is no impurity for liquids at all by Torah law. Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified about the grasshopper called eil kamtza that it is kosher and may be eaten; and he testified about liquids in the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they were ritually pure, as there was no decree of impurity issued with regard to them. The fact that these liquids are ritually pure indicates that by Torah law liquids cannot transmit impurity at all. Instead, that type of impurity is by rabbinic law, and rabbinic decrees of impurity were not in effect in the Temple.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara adds: This works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that in this context the term ritually pure means that they do not transmit impurity to other items; however, they themselves can become impure. If that is Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion, he indeed holds in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir that liquids transmit impurity by rabbinic law but themselves become impure by Torah law, as stated in the baraita above. However, according to Rav, who said that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer holds that the liquids are actually ritually pure and they themselves cannot be rendered impure, what can be said? According to Rav, Rabbi Elazar maintains that there is no impurity at all by Torah law with regard to liquids. In what sense does he hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that liquids themselves can become impure by Torah law?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞讚讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: When the baraita said that Rabbi Elazar agreed with Rabbi Meir, it was with regard to one of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinions. Rabbi Elazar agrees with Rabbi Meir that in a case where there is uncertainty with regard to rendering other items impure, they are pure, as liquids transmit impurity by rabbinic law. However, Rabbi Elazar maintains that the impurity of liquids themselves is also not by Torah law, and therefore in a case of uncertainty with regard to impurity of the liquids themselves, the ruling is that they are pure.

讜讛讗 讻讚讘专讬讜 拽讗诪专 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 讜讻谉 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 the baraita saying: And Rabbi Elazar would say in accordance with Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statements, in the plural, indicating that the points of agreement are many? And furthermore, the baraita is teaching: Likewise. This term also indicates that Rabbi Elazar agrees completely with Rabbi Meir. Since no resolution was found for this contradiction, the Gemara concludes that it is indeed difficult to understand the baraita according to Rav.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讜讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专

After citing the testimony of Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and the associated amoraic dispute, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav said: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer said that the liquids in the Temple are actually ritually pure and neither become impure nor transmit impurity. And Shmuel said that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items; however, they themselves can become impure. The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that liquids are actually pure, as he maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued this decree they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. However, with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple, they did not issue the decree.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 注爪诪谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讜讻讬 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉

And the Gemara elaborates on the opinion of Shmuel: Shmuel said that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items; however, they themselves can become impure, as Shmuel maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids themselves is by Torah law, whereas their capacity to transmit impurity to other objects is by rabbinic law. And when the Sages issued this decree, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. However, with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple they did not issue the decree. And when Shmuel said that the Sages did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse, he meant that they did not do so with regard to their capacity to transmit impurity to other items; however, as far as their own impurity is concerned, they become impure like other liquids.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诇讘专讬讛 讻讬 注讬讬诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said to his son: When you enter before Rav Pappa, raise the following contradiction before him: Did Shmuel actually say that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items but they themselves are susceptible to impurity? Is there anything that by Torah law can itself become impure but does not transmit impurity to other items? Read here a verse that clearly states that any item that is itself impure, including liquids, transmits impurity to other items: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt in fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:19).

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 讛讗讬 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The legal status of liquids is just as it is in the case of fourth-degree ritual impurity in a consecrated item, with regard to which everyone agrees that it becomes impure but does not transmit impurity to other items. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this contention: How is it possible to compare these two cases? Fourth-degree impurity in a consecrated item is not called impure; it is disqualified. However, this liquid is called impure. Therefore, the two halakhot are not comparable. No resolution is found for this contradiction, and the Gemara concludes that it is indeed difficult.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讘讻诇 讻诇讬 讬讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讬讟诪讗 讛讻砖讬专

The Gemara cites several sources to decide the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m and between Rav and Shmuel with regard to whether or not the impurity of liquids is by Torah law. Come and hear: 鈥淎nd all drink that may be drunk in any vessel shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). This verse clearly indicates that liquids can become impure. The Gemara rejects this contention: What is the meaning of the term: Shall be impure, in this context? It means that the liquid renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity.

讛讻砖讬专 诪专讬砖讗 讚拽专讗 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讙讜壮 讞讚 讘转诇讜砖讬谉 讜讞讚 讘诪讞讜讘专讬谉

The Gemara retorts: Does it in fact mean that the liquid renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity? That cannot be as you already learned that from the beginning of this verse: 鈥淔rom all food that may be eaten, on which water has come shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the second part of the verse is also necessary: One part of the verse, the latter part, is referring to water detached from its source, in vessels, and one part, the former part, is referring to water still attached to its source in the ground.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘转诇讜砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And both derivations are necessary, as neither halakha could have been derived from the other. As, had the Torah taught us only about the halakha of water detached from its source, one might have thought that this water renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to the fact that he ascribed significance to the water by drawing it from its source. However, with regard to water still attached to its source, say that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讘讚讜讻转讬讬讛讜 讞砖讬讘讬 讗讘诇 转诇讜砖讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬

And had the Torah taught only the halakha of water still attached to its source, one might have thought that due to the fact that it stands in its place this water is significant; however, with regard to water detached from its source, say no, it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity, as it is disconnected from its source. It was therefore necessary for the Torah to mention both cases.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讱 诪注讬谉 讜讘讜专 诪拽讜讛 诪讬诐 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear: 鈥淗owever, a spring or a cistern, a gathering of water shall be pure, but he who touches their carcass shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:36). It can be inferred from this verse that all water can be rendered impure, with the exception of spring water and water in a cistern, which are in the ground. The Gemara rejects this contention: What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淪hall be pure鈥? This phrase means that one who immerses in this water is purified from his ritual impurity, and does not refer to the impurity of liquids at all.

讜转诇讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讚讬讬谉 砖讛谉 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

The Gemara stated that both water detached from its source and water still attached to its source render food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: And does water detached from its source render food susceptible to contract impurity? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, say: With regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple, not only are they pure, but neither do they render produce susceptible to ritual impurity? Apparently, water detached from its source does not render food susceptible to impurity by Torah law. The fact that the Sages suspend the capacity of certain liquids to render produce susceptible to impurity indicates that the fact that water removed from its source renders food susceptible to impurity must be by rabbinic decree. Otherwise, that capability could not have been suspended in the Temple.

转讬专讙诪讗 注诇 讚诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讛讗专抓 转砖驻讻谞讜 讻诪讬诐 讚诐 砖谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara rejects this contention: Explain this statement as referring to blood. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina was not referring to all liquids in the Temple, but only to blood. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived with regard to blood of consecrated offerings that it does not render produce susceptible to impurity? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall surely not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:16). The Sages derived from this verse: Blood that is poured like water, i.e., blood from a non-sacred domesticated animal that pours out when it is slaughtered and is not received in a vessel as sacrificial blood assumes the legal status of water and renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity.

讚诐 砖讗讬谞讜 谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗诪讬 讛专讬 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讚谞砖驻讱 讻诪讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专

Conversely, blood that is not poured out like water but is received in a vessel to be sprinkled on the altar does not render produce susceptible to contract impurity. Rav Shmuel bar Ami strongly objects to this: There is the blood squeezed from an animal after slaughter once the initial spurt of blood has concluded, which is poured like water, as it is unfit for sprinkling upon the altar. And nevertheless, this blood does not render produce susceptible to impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛谞讞 诇讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讻砖讬专

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Leave aside the blood squeezed after the initial spurt, which is an exceptional case, as even from non-sacred animals it does not render produce susceptible to ritual impurity either. With regard to the halakha that blood renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity, the legal status of blood squeezed after the initial spurt is not that of blood at all.

拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 专拽 讞讝拽 诇讘诇转讬 讗讻诇 讛讚诐 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讛谞驻砖 讚诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 拽专讜讬 讚诐 讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 拽专讜讬 讚诐

The Gemara comments: Rav Shmuel bar Ami accepted this statement from Rabbi Zeira and cited a verse that supports it. As the Merciful One states: 鈥淥nly be strong not to eat the blood; for the blood is the soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23). This verse indicates: Blood with regard to which the soul leaves the body when it is spilled is called blood; however, blood with regard to which the soul does not leave the body when it is spilled, but which is squeezed out afterward, is not called blood.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛

The Gemara cites an additional proof that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law. Come and hear: With regard to blood that became ritually impure, and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, the following distinction applies: If he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, blood becomes ritually impure by Torah law, even if it does not transmit impurity to other items. The Gemara rejects this contention: This impurity is by rabbinic law, and this ruling is not in accordance with Rav鈥檚 explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida, as he maintains that sacrificial blood does not become impure at all.

转讗 砖诪注 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara cites a proof from another mishna. Come and hear: For what does the frontplate of the High Priest atone and thereby allow the blood of the offering to be sprinkled? It atones for the blood, and for the meat, and for the fat that became impure, whether one caused it to become impure unwittingly or intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond his control or willfully, and whether it is the offering of an individual or that of a community. Apparently, the blood of an offering can become impure.

诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讚诇讗 (讻讬讜住祝) 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: The mishna is referring to blood that is impure by rabbinic law, and here too, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida, who says that consecrated blood does not become impure at all.

转讗 砖诪注 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara cites an additional proof: Come and hear another verse written about the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the consecrated objects, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God鈥 (Exodus 28:38).

讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛 注讜谉 讛讜讗 谞讜砖讗 讗诐 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讗诐 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘

And the Sages expounded: Which sin does it bear? If you say it atones for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat the offering after the permitted time, it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7). If you say it atones for notar, i.e., meat of an offering left after the time that one was permitted to eat it, it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it鈥 (Leviticus 7:18).

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讟讜诪讗转 讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 拽诪爪讬诐

Evidently, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity in the offering of an individual, as in some circumstances, impurity was exempted from its general prohibition on behalf of the community. It was permitted to sacrifice communal offerings in the Temple in a state of impurity. What, does this not apply to impure blood as well? Apparently, blood can also become impure. Rav Pappa said: No, the reference is not to impure blood but to the impurity of handfuls of flour separated by the priest from a meal-offering. The handful of flour renders the meal-offering permitted to be eaten by the priests, parallel to the blood of an animal offering.

转讗 砖诪注 讛谉 讬砖讗 讗讬砖 讘砖专 拽讚砖 讘讻谞祝 讘讙讚讜 讜谞讙注 讘讻谞驻讜 讗诇 讛诇讞诐 讜讗诇 讛谞讝讬讚 讜讗诇 讛讬讬谉 讜讗诇 砖诪谉 讜讗诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讛讬拽讚砖 讜讬注谞讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讗 (讬拽讚砖)

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear that which was said to the prophet Haggai: 鈥淭hus said the Lord of Hosts: Ask now the priests with regard to the Torah, saying: If a person bears hallowed flesh in the corner of his garment, and with his garment he touches bread, or stew, or wine, or oil, or any food, shall it be sacred? And the priests answered and said: No鈥 (Haggai 2:11鈥12). This question is asked with regard to the flesh of a creeping animal and whether or not the substances that come into contact with it become impure.

Scroll To Top