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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 9, 2020 | 讻状讙 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.

Pesachim 18

There is a tannaitic debate on Pesachim 16a. According to Rabbi Yehuda, liquids pass on impurity by Torah law to everything, however the emoraim say that he changed his mind. About what did he change his mind? Did he say that liquids can’t pass on impurity at all by Torah law or is it limited to food but not vessels? They try to prove it from the mishna Para 9:5, about waters of a red heifer (mei chatat) that are swallowed by an cow who is then slaughtered. Rabbi Yehuda rules leniently which seems to infer that he changed his opinion entirely. However two explanations are brought that explain his opinion is either not a leniency or because the liquid there is no longer considered a liquid. So there is no conclusion regarding Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosi who holds that liquids pass on impurity to other foods, holds like Rabbi Akiva his rabbi, who ruled that the word “will become impure” can be read also as “will pass on impurity.” Rabbi Akiva learned from it that there is 3rd degree impurity also by non sacred items. From where to we derive that liquids only pass on impurity to foods by Torah law and not to other liquids and not to other vessels? Rava held that Rabbi Yosi did not hold like Rabbi Akiva, nor did Rabbi Akiva hold like Rabbi Yosi.

讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讻诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 诇讙诪专讬


The purification waters are nullified in its innards and do not impurify the meat of the cow. And if it enters your mind that it was from his ruling with regard to liquids transmitting impurity to vessels by Torah law that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion, but with regard to foods he holds in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that liquids transmit ritual impurity to food by Torah law, why does he say that the purification waters are nullified in its innards entirely and no longer transfer impurity at all?


谞讛讬 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪讬讛讗 谞讬讟诪讗讜


The Gemara elaborates: Although these waters do not transmit a severe form of ritual impurity to a person or vessel that comes into contact with them, in any event let them transmit a lesser form of impurity to food that comes into contact with them. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling with regard to the purification waters indicates that he retracted his previous opinion entirely and he maintains that there is no impurity of liquids by Torah law at all. Since this impurity is by rabbinic law, the Sages did not extend their decree to the uncommon circumstance of the purification waters.


诪讗讬 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讜 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪讟诪讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗讜 讛讗 讘砖专讛 讟诪讗 拽转谞讬


The Gemara rejects this contention: What, too, is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 phrase: They are nullified in its innards? It means that they are nullified only from a severe form of impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the purification waters transmit a lesser form of impurity. This proves by inference that the first tanna maintains that the purification waters also transmit a severe form of impurity to people and vessels. This is a problematic conclusion, as the first tanna teaches: Its flesh is impure, which clearly indicates that its flesh alone is impure, whereas the purification waters swallowed by the cow do not transmit impurity to people or vessels. The result is that according to this approach, there is no difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and the first tanna.


讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻专讛 砖砖转转讛 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘砖专讛 讟诪讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛


The Gemara answers: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: With regard to a cow that drank the purification waters, its flesh is impure. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a lesser form of impurity, but with regard to a severe form of purity, no, its flesh is not impure, as Rabbi Yehuda says: The waters are nullified in its innards and their status is no longer that of purification waters. Instead, their impurity is by rabbinic law, like any other liquid.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讛 住专讜讞


Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is possible to explain that the waters are nullified in its innards entirely from any type of impurity, as this issue is unrelated to the question of whether the impurity of liquids is by Torah law or rabbinic law. Rather, this halakha is due to the fact that purification waters become a foul liquid when ingested, and the principle is that offensive liquid can neither be rendered impure itself nor transfer impurity to other items.


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 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讚专讬砖 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗


It was taught in the baraita about uncertainty as to the impurity of liquids that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: With regard to foods that came into contact with impure liquid, the foods are impure. However, with regard to vessels that came into contact with impure liquid, the vessels are pure. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Yosei said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, who interpreted the term yitma, which is an intransitive verb in the simple conjugation meaning: It shall be impure, as though it were written yetamme, a transitive verb in the intensive conjugation meaning: It shall render impure, i.e., it transmits impurity to other items.


讚转谞谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 讞专砖 讗砖专 讬驻诇 诪讛诐 讜讙讜壮 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉


As we learned in a mishna: On that day, when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya the Nasi, Rabbi Akiva taught: 鈥淎nd every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it鈥 (Leviticus 11:33). The verse does not say: It is impure [tameh]; rather, it says: It shall be impure [yitma], indicating that an item in an impure earthenware vessel transmits impurity to other items. This verse teaches about a loaf with second-degree ritual impurity status, i.e., ritual impurity imparted through contact with a vessel impurified by a creeping animal, that the loaf renders other items impure with third-degree ritual impurity, even non-sacred items.


讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 讚专讬砖 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讘讻诇 讻诇讬 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗诪专转 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛


The Gemara inquires: And here, with regard to the ritual impurity of liquids, how does Rabbi Yosei interpret the verses? The Gemara cites the verse: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk in every vessel, shall be impure [yitma]鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). Rabbi Yosei interprets the end of the verse as: Shall render impure [yetamme], indicating that liquid also transmits impurity to foods. The Gemara discusses this derivation: Do you say that this expression teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to foods, or perhaps the verse is teaching only that it transmits impurity to other liquids, but not to food? You said in response: That was not the correct interpretation.


诪讗讬 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 砖注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛


The Gemara wonders about the unusual expression. What is the meaning of the phrase: That was not the correct interpretation? How can this difficulty be dismissed so easily? Rav Pappa said: It means that we did not find any case of ritual impurity that renders a similar item impure. Therefore, it must be that the verse teaches that this liquid transmits impurity to food.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讟诪讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讬讟诪讗 讚专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 谞讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜谞讬讻转讘讬谞讛讜 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讘讜讗 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讘讻诇 讻诇讬 讬讟诪讗


Ravina said: From an analysis of the verse itself you also cannot say that the term: Shall be impure, means that the liquid transmits ritual impurity only to liquids. As, if it enters your mind to say that the term: Shall be impure, in the latter portion of the verse means that it transmits ritual impurity only to liquids, then the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse, in reference to food, should also mean that it transmits ritual impurity only to liquids. And if that is so, let the verse combine the two cases and write them together as follows: From all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, and all drink that may be drunk in every vessel, shall be impure.


转专讬 讬讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讬讟诪讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


Ravina concludes his proof: Why do I need the term: Shall be impure, twice? Rather, it must be that the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse teaches that food transmits ritual impurity to liquids, while the term: Shall be impure, in the latter portion of the verse teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to food.


讜讗讬诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻诇讬 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: And say that the term teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to vessels. The Gemara rejects this contention: And isn鈥檛 it an a fortiori inference? Just as an impure vessel, which transmits impurity to liquid that comes into contact with it, nevertheless does not transmit impurity to another vessel, so too, liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, is it not right that they should not transmit impurity to vessels?


讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 诪讬 讻转讬讘讬


The Gemara suggests: And say that when liquids do not transmit ritual impurity to a vessel, that is in the case of liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with an impure vessel, as the vessel itself does not transmit impurity to another vessel. However, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, a more severe form of impurity, indeed, they should transmit impurity even to vessels. The Gemara rejects this contention: Are liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal stated explicitly in the Torah? The impure liquids mentioned in the verse became impure by contact with a vessel that came into contact with a dead creeping animal.


讜诇讗讜 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 拽讗转讬 讜诪讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 the impurity of liquids that came into contact with a creeping animal come from an a fortiori inference: Just as liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, which itself became impure due to contact with a creeping animal, transmit impurity, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, all the more so is it not clear that they transmit impurity to a vessel?


讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉


The Gemara answers: Since the basic halakha of these liquids is derived by means of an a fortiori inference, no stringencies are added to it, in accordance with the principle: It is sufficient [dayyo] for the conclusion that emerged from the a fortiori inference to be like the source of the inference. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. In this case, liquid that became impure through contact with a creeping animal transmits impurity to the same extent that liquid that became impure through contact with a vessel does.


讬讟诪讗 讚专讬砖讗 讛讬讻讬 讚专讬砖 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讘讜讗 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛讻诇讬


The Gemara asks: How does Rabbi Akiva interpret the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34)? He interprets the term: Shall be impure, as: Shall render impure. Food transmits ritual impurity to liquids. Do you say that the term teaches that food transmits impurity to liquids, or perhaps the term teaches only that food transmits impurity to a vessel?


讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪砖拽讛 砖诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 砖讛谉 注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛


The Gemara answers: You can say an a fortiori inference that negates this possibility: Just as liquid, which transmits impurity to food, does not transmit impurity to a vessel, with regard to food, which does not transmit impurity to food, is it not right that it should not transmit impurity to a vessel? If so, how then do I establish the meaning of the term: Shall be impure, which in this context indicates that food impurifies other items? This term indicates that food transmits impurity to liquids, which are susceptible to contracting impurity.


诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗


The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Akiva mention specifically that food impurifies liquids due to the fact that they are susceptible to contracting impurity? Let him derive this proof from the simple fact that there is no other item that food could render impure. As food does not transmit impurity to food, the only remaining alternative is that food impurifies liquids.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讞诪讜专 讚诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讬谉 谞讬讟诪讬讬讛 诇讻诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚诪砖拽讬谉 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖拽讬谉 注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛


The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: And lest you say that the impurity of food is severe, as evidenced by the fact that it transmits ritual impurity to liquids despite the fact that liquids do not transfer impurity to other liquids, and therefore let food transmit impurity to a vessel, despite the fact that liquid does not transmit impurity to a vessel; therefore, the Gemara states that the fact that food transmits impurity to liquids is actually a stringency characteristic of liquids, not of food. The impurity of food is not more severe than that of liquids; rather, food transmits impurity to liquids due to the fact that liquids are susceptible to contracting impurity.


讜诪讛 讛讬讗 注诇讬诇转谉 砖诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖专


And in what manner is their susceptibility manifest? It is manifest in the fact that they become ritually impure without being first rendered susceptible to impurity. Foods can become impure only after first coming into contact with one of seven liquids. Liquids do not require any preparatory stage before becoming impure.


讬讟诪讗 讚讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 讜谞驻诇 诪谞讘诇转诐 注诇讬讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讞讚 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讞讚 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬


Is the principle: Shall be impure teaches that ritual impurity does not render a similar item impure, e.g., that food does not transfer ritual impurity to other food, derived from here? It is derived from there: 鈥淏ut if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is inferred: It is impure; however, it does not transmit impurity to a similar item. Why is an additional source necessary to teach this same principle? The Gemara explains: Both verses are necessary, as one refers to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, while one verse refers to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with an impure vessel.


讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞诪讬专讬 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讚讞诪讬专讬 讗讬诪讗 注讜砖讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛


The Gemara adds: And both verses are necessary, as neither of the halakhot could have been derived from the other. As, had the verse taught us only the halakha with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, one might have thought that liquids do not transfer impurity to similar items only due to the fact that their impurity is not severe, as it did not result from contact with a primary source of impurity; however, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, which are impure with a severe form of impurity that resulted from contact with a primary source of impurity, say that they transmit impurity to a similar item.


讜诇砖诪注讬谞谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗


The Gemara asks: And let the verse teach us that liquids do not transmit impurity with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, and all the more so will that be the case with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as at times with regard to a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless unnecessarily wrote it explicitly.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But didn鈥檛 Rava say that Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the third-degree ritual impurity status of non-sacred items? Contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yosei maintains that an item with second-degree ritual impurity does not confer third-degree impurity status upon non-sacred items by Torah law.


讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And similarly, Rabbi Akiva does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fourth-degree impurity of consecrated property. The relevance of these observations to the issue at hand is that if Rabbi Yosei maintains that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law, he evidently interprets the verse as: Yetamme, just as Rabbi Akiva does. However, in that case, he would also hold that second-degree ritual impurity confers upon another non-sacred item third-degree impurity status, as that halakha is also derived from the term: Yetamme.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


Rav Ashi said to him: Rabbi Yosei said this halakha that liquids transmit impurity by Torah law in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher; however, he himself does not hold accordingly, as Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that liquids do not transmit impurity to other items by Torah law.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana with regard to Rava鈥檚 statement: Granted, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived with regard to a consecrated item with fourth-degree ritual impurity that it is only disqualified and does not transfer impurity to other objects?


讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 驻住讜诇 讘拽讜讚砖 砖诇讬砖讬 砖驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖


The baraita continues: And this halakha is a logical a fortiori inference: Just as one who lacks atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, who is permitted to eat teruma, disqualifies a consecrated item if he comes into contact with it, with regard to third-degree ritual impurity, which disqualifies teruma, and in that way is more severe than one who lacks atonement, is it not right that it should confer fourth-degree ritual impurity status upon a consecrated item? The status of an item with third-degree ritual impurity should be no less severe than that of a person who lacks atonement.


讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖诇讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专


The Gemara notes: And we derived third-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items from the Torah, and fourth-degree impurity of consecrated items by means of the above a fortiori inference. In light of the dayyo principle, one might have thought that this a fortiori inference cannot serve as the basis of the halakha that consecrated property can assume fourth-degree impurity status. Since the source of this inference is third-degree impurity status, the conclusion that emerges can be only that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status, like teruma itself. The Gemara explains that the dayyo principle does not apply in this case. If the a fortiori inference is rendered moot as a result of applying that principle, the principle is not applied. Because the fact that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status is derived from the verse, if that which emerges from the inference is that halakha itself, the a fortiori inference is moot. Therefore, the principle does not apply and the fact that consecrated objects can assume fourth-degree impurity status is derived from the inference.


砖诇讬砖讬 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注


The Gemara elaborates. The fact that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status is derived from the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches


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.

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 18-24 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week will continue discussing the laws of purity and impurity and the difference between the Temple and outside the...
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...

Pesachim 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 18

讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讻诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 诇讙诪专讬


The purification waters are nullified in its innards and do not impurify the meat of the cow. And if it enters your mind that it was from his ruling with regard to liquids transmitting impurity to vessels by Torah law that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion, but with regard to foods he holds in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that liquids transmit ritual impurity to food by Torah law, why does he say that the purification waters are nullified in its innards entirely and no longer transfer impurity at all?


谞讛讬 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪讬讛讗 谞讬讟诪讗讜


The Gemara elaborates: Although these waters do not transmit a severe form of ritual impurity to a person or vessel that comes into contact with them, in any event let them transmit a lesser form of impurity to food that comes into contact with them. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling with regard to the purification waters indicates that he retracted his previous opinion entirely and he maintains that there is no impurity of liquids by Torah law at all. Since this impurity is by rabbinic law, the Sages did not extend their decree to the uncommon circumstance of the purification waters.


诪讗讬 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讜 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪讟诪讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗讜 讛讗 讘砖专讛 讟诪讗 拽转谞讬


The Gemara rejects this contention: What, too, is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 phrase: They are nullified in its innards? It means that they are nullified only from a severe form of impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the purification waters transmit a lesser form of impurity. This proves by inference that the first tanna maintains that the purification waters also transmit a severe form of impurity to people and vessels. This is a problematic conclusion, as the first tanna teaches: Its flesh is impure, which clearly indicates that its flesh alone is impure, whereas the purification waters swallowed by the cow do not transmit impurity to people or vessels. The result is that according to this approach, there is no difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and the first tanna.


讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻专讛 砖砖转转讛 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘砖专讛 讟诪讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛


The Gemara answers: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: With regard to a cow that drank the purification waters, its flesh is impure. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a lesser form of impurity, but with regard to a severe form of purity, no, its flesh is not impure, as Rabbi Yehuda says: The waters are nullified in its innards and their status is no longer that of purification waters. Instead, their impurity is by rabbinic law, like any other liquid.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讟诇讜 讘诪注讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讛 住专讜讞


Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is possible to explain that the waters are nullified in its innards entirely from any type of impurity, as this issue is unrelated to the question of whether the impurity of liquids is by Torah law or rabbinic law. Rather, this halakha is due to the fact that purification waters become a foul liquid when ingested, and the principle is that offensive liquid can neither be rendered impure itself nor transfer impurity to other items.


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 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讚专讬砖 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗


It was taught in the baraita about uncertainty as to the impurity of liquids that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: With regard to foods that came into contact with impure liquid, the foods are impure. However, with regard to vessels that came into contact with impure liquid, the vessels are pure. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Yosei said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, who interpreted the term yitma, which is an intransitive verb in the simple conjugation meaning: It shall be impure, as though it were written yetamme, a transitive verb in the intensive conjugation meaning: It shall render impure, i.e., it transmits impurity to other items.


讚转谞谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 讞专砖 讗砖专 讬驻诇 诪讛诐 讜讙讜壮 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉


As we learned in a mishna: On that day, when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya the Nasi, Rabbi Akiva taught: 鈥淎nd every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it鈥 (Leviticus 11:33). The verse does not say: It is impure [tameh]; rather, it says: It shall be impure [yitma], indicating that an item in an impure earthenware vessel transmits impurity to other items. This verse teaches about a loaf with second-degree ritual impurity status, i.e., ritual impurity imparted through contact with a vessel impurified by a creeping animal, that the loaf renders other items impure with third-degree ritual impurity, even non-sacred items.


讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 讚专讬砖 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讘讻诇 讻诇讬 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗诪专转 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛


The Gemara inquires: And here, with regard to the ritual impurity of liquids, how does Rabbi Yosei interpret the verses? The Gemara cites the verse: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk in every vessel, shall be impure [yitma]鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). Rabbi Yosei interprets the end of the verse as: Shall render impure [yetamme], indicating that liquid also transmits impurity to foods. The Gemara discusses this derivation: Do you say that this expression teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to foods, or perhaps the verse is teaching only that it transmits impurity to other liquids, but not to food? You said in response: That was not the correct interpretation.


诪讗讬 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讟讜诪讗讛 砖注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛


The Gemara wonders about the unusual expression. What is the meaning of the phrase: That was not the correct interpretation? How can this difficulty be dismissed so easily? Rav Pappa said: It means that we did not find any case of ritual impurity that renders a similar item impure. Therefore, it must be that the verse teaches that this liquid transmits impurity to food.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讟诪讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讬讟诪讗 讚专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 谞讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜谞讬讻转讘讬谞讛讜 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讘讜讗 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讘讻诇 讻诇讬 讬讟诪讗


Ravina said: From an analysis of the verse itself you also cannot say that the term: Shall be impure, means that the liquid transmits ritual impurity only to liquids. As, if it enters your mind to say that the term: Shall be impure, in the latter portion of the verse means that it transmits ritual impurity only to liquids, then the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse, in reference to food, should also mean that it transmits ritual impurity only to liquids. And if that is so, let the verse combine the two cases and write them together as follows: From all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, and all drink that may be drunk in every vessel, shall be impure.


转专讬 讬讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讬讟诪讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


Ravina concludes his proof: Why do I need the term: Shall be impure, twice? Rather, it must be that the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse teaches that food transmits ritual impurity to liquids, while the term: Shall be impure, in the latter portion of the verse teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to food.


讜讗讬诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻诇讬 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: And say that the term teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to vessels. The Gemara rejects this contention: And isn鈥檛 it an a fortiori inference? Just as an impure vessel, which transmits impurity to liquid that comes into contact with it, nevertheless does not transmit impurity to another vessel, so too, liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, is it not right that they should not transmit impurity to vessels?


讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讟诪讗讜 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 诪讬 讻转讬讘讬


The Gemara suggests: And say that when liquids do not transmit ritual impurity to a vessel, that is in the case of liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with an impure vessel, as the vessel itself does not transmit impurity to another vessel. However, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, a more severe form of impurity, indeed, they should transmit impurity even to vessels. The Gemara rejects this contention: Are liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal stated explicitly in the Torah? The impure liquids mentioned in the verse became impure by contact with a vessel that came into contact with a dead creeping animal.


讜诇讗讜 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 拽讗转讬 讜诪讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 the impurity of liquids that came into contact with a creeping animal come from an a fortiori inference: Just as liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, which itself became impure due to contact with a creeping animal, transmit impurity, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, all the more so is it not clear that they transmit impurity to a vessel?


讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉


The Gemara answers: Since the basic halakha of these liquids is derived by means of an a fortiori inference, no stringencies are added to it, in accordance with the principle: It is sufficient [dayyo] for the conclusion that emerged from the a fortiori inference to be like the source of the inference. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. In this case, liquid that became impure through contact with a creeping animal transmits impurity to the same extent that liquid that became impure through contact with a vessel does.


讬讟诪讗 讚专讬砖讗 讛讬讻讬 讚专讬砖 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讘讜讗 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讬讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛讻诇讬


The Gemara asks: How does Rabbi Akiva interpret the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34)? He interprets the term: Shall be impure, as: Shall render impure. Food transmits ritual impurity to liquids. Do you say that the term teaches that food transmits impurity to liquids, or perhaps the term teaches only that food transmits impurity to a vessel?


讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪砖拽讛 砖诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 砖讛谉 注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛


The Gemara answers: You can say an a fortiori inference that negates this possibility: Just as liquid, which transmits impurity to food, does not transmit impurity to a vessel, with regard to food, which does not transmit impurity to food, is it not right that it should not transmit impurity to a vessel? If so, how then do I establish the meaning of the term: Shall be impure, which in this context indicates that food impurifies other items? This term indicates that food transmits impurity to liquids, which are susceptible to contracting impurity.


诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗


The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Akiva mention specifically that food impurifies liquids due to the fact that they are susceptible to contracting impurity? Let him derive this proof from the simple fact that there is no other item that food could render impure. As food does not transmit impurity to food, the only remaining alternative is that food impurifies liquids.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讜讻诇 讞诪讜专 讚诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讬谉 谞讬讟诪讬讬讛 诇讻诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚诪砖拽讬谉 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖拽讬谉 注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛


The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: And lest you say that the impurity of food is severe, as evidenced by the fact that it transmits ritual impurity to liquids despite the fact that liquids do not transfer impurity to other liquids, and therefore let food transmit impurity to a vessel, despite the fact that liquid does not transmit impurity to a vessel; therefore, the Gemara states that the fact that food transmits impurity to liquids is actually a stringency characteristic of liquids, not of food. The impurity of food is not more severe than that of liquids; rather, food transmits impurity to liquids due to the fact that liquids are susceptible to contracting impurity.


讜诪讛 讛讬讗 注诇讬诇转谉 砖诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖专


And in what manner is their susceptibility manifest? It is manifest in the fact that they become ritually impure without being first rendered susceptible to impurity. Foods can become impure only after first coming into contact with one of seven liquids. Liquids do not require any preparatory stage before becoming impure.


讬讟诪讗 讚讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 讜谞驻诇 诪谞讘诇转诐 注诇讬讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讞讚 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讞讚 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬


Is the principle: Shall be impure teaches that ritual impurity does not render a similar item impure, e.g., that food does not transfer ritual impurity to other food, derived from here? It is derived from there: 鈥淏ut if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is inferred: It is impure; however, it does not transmit impurity to a similar item. Why is an additional source necessary to teach this same principle? The Gemara explains: Both verses are necessary, as one refers to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, while one verse refers to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with an impure vessel.


讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞诪讬专讬 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讚讞诪讬专讬 讗讬诪讗 注讜砖讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛


The Gemara adds: And both verses are necessary, as neither of the halakhot could have been derived from the other. As, had the verse taught us only the halakha with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, one might have thought that liquids do not transfer impurity to similar items only due to the fact that their impurity is not severe, as it did not result from contact with a primary source of impurity; however, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, which are impure with a severe form of impurity that resulted from contact with a primary source of impurity, say that they transmit impurity to a similar item.


讜诇砖诪注讬谞谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讻诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗


The Gemara asks: And let the verse teach us that liquids do not transmit impurity with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, and all the more so will that be the case with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as at times with regard to a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless unnecessarily wrote it explicitly.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But didn鈥檛 Rava say that Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the third-degree ritual impurity status of non-sacred items? Contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yosei maintains that an item with second-degree ritual impurity does not confer third-degree impurity status upon non-sacred items by Torah law.


讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And similarly, Rabbi Akiva does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fourth-degree impurity of consecrated property. The relevance of these observations to the issue at hand is that if Rabbi Yosei maintains that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law, he evidently interprets the verse as: Yetamme, just as Rabbi Akiva does. However, in that case, he would also hold that second-degree ritual impurity confers upon another non-sacred item third-degree impurity status, as that halakha is also derived from the term: Yetamme.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


Rav Ashi said to him: Rabbi Yosei said this halakha that liquids transmit impurity by Torah law in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher; however, he himself does not hold accordingly, as Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that liquids do not transmit impurity to other items by Torah law.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana with regard to Rava鈥檚 statement: Granted, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived with regard to a consecrated item with fourth-degree ritual impurity that it is only disqualified and does not transfer impurity to other objects?


讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 驻住讜诇 讘拽讜讚砖 砖诇讬砖讬 砖驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖


The baraita continues: And this halakha is a logical a fortiori inference: Just as one who lacks atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, who is permitted to eat teruma, disqualifies a consecrated item if he comes into contact with it, with regard to third-degree ritual impurity, which disqualifies teruma, and in that way is more severe than one who lacks atonement, is it not right that it should confer fourth-degree ritual impurity status upon a consecrated item? The status of an item with third-degree ritual impurity should be no less severe than that of a person who lacks atonement.


讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖诇讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专


The Gemara notes: And we derived third-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items from the Torah, and fourth-degree impurity of consecrated items by means of the above a fortiori inference. In light of the dayyo principle, one might have thought that this a fortiori inference cannot serve as the basis of the halakha that consecrated property can assume fourth-degree impurity status. Since the source of this inference is third-degree impurity status, the conclusion that emerges can be only that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status, like teruma itself. The Gemara explains that the dayyo principle does not apply in this case. If the a fortiori inference is rendered moot as a result of applying that principle, the principle is not applied. Because the fact that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status is derived from the verse, if that which emerges from the inference is that halakha itself, the a fortiori inference is moot. Therefore, the principle does not apply and the fact that consecrated objects can assume fourth-degree impurity status is derived from the inference.


砖诇讬砖讬 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注


The Gemara elaborates. The fact that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status is derived from the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches


Scroll To Top