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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 24, 2020 | 讟壮 讘讟讘转 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.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 33

Today鈥檚 Daf is dedicated by Leora Secemski for a refuah shleima for Mordechai ben Raizel. “Wishing you a complete and quick refuah. We love you! Leora, David, Ari, Rose, and Elisheva.” And by Sharon Russ (and Keren Gluch) in memory of their father’s 3rd yartzeit, David ben Avraham z”l. “It is exactly one year since the Siyum HaShas for Women in Jerusalem, where I was so inspired and listened to the first daf on the way home. Our loving father, born and raised in Jamaica, did not have the privilege of a Jewish education. He was a proud devoted Jew, and his shul became his second home, davening 3 times a day and attending shiurim as often as possible. My hope is to finish Shas Daf Yomi in his memory.”

The gemara proves from a braita and Rav Papa’s question on an explanation of that braita that Rav Papa himself changed his mind and no longer things that when Abba Shaul said the measurement for being obligated for eating truma is the value of a coin, he did not mean that it needs to have also the value of a coin in addition to being an olive bulk. The gemara brings two other explanations to explain the braita that was brought. The gemara goes back to the braita quoted in Pesachim 32, in the debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and asks what is the source for the halacha at the end of the braita that stated that the issues discussed were only regarding truma that was taken before the item leavened but truma that was taken from a leavened item on Pesach would not be considered truma at all. Two different answers are brought, each one being a derivation from different words in the same verse. The gemara shifts to discuss impurities of foods, particularly the status of liquids squeezed out of fruits – is the liquid considered a separate entity from the fruit that can be removed from it, i.e. if the fruit is impure, there may be a way to remove the juice without the juice becoming impure, Or is it part of the fruit and if the fruit is impure, so is the juice. The discussion eventually gets back to another line from the braita on Pesachim 32 which discusses mulberries and grapes that become impure and aren’t valid for use at all. When are we concerned that people will mess up and when are we not. This issue comes up with truma foods that are impure and can be used for something – but can we leave them around and not be concerned that people will forget or won’t know that they are impure?

讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讬转讛 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛


that one who intentionally misuses consecrated items is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who intentionally misuses consecrated items, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. The Rabbis say: he violates a warning, a standard prohibition, and is flogged.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙诪专 讞讟讗 讞讟讗 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讬转讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? From where does he derive his opinion? Rabbi Abbahu said: He derives it by means of a verbal analogy between the word sin stated with regard to misuse of consecrated items and the word sin stated with regard to teruma. With regard to misuse of consecrated items, the verse states: 鈥淚f any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:15); with regard to teruma, the verse states: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die due to it, if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi makes the following comparison: Just as eating teruma is punishable by the death penalty, so too, misusing consecrated items is punishable by the death penalty.


讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 诪注讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转


From this verbal analogy, the comparison between teruma and misuse of consecrated property can be extended to other issues as well: Just as one is punished only for eating at least an olive-bulk of teruma, so too, one is punished for misusing consecrated items only if there is at least an olive-bulk of consecrated items. This indicates that the baraita cannot be explained in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who requires that the item be worth at least a peruta.


讜诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讻讝讬转


Rav Pappa strongly objects to Rav Sheshet and Rabba鈥檚 rejection of the explanation of the baraita: From where do you know that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one is only punished after eating an olive-bulk of teruma? Perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said one is liable for eating teruma provided the food contains the value of a peruta of teruma, even if it is less than an olive-bulk. As the halakhot of misuse of consecrated items are derived from teruma, one is liable for eating both teruma and consecrated items only if the object is worth at least a peruta. As such, Rav 岣yya bar Avin鈥檚 explanation of the baraita should not be rejected.


讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 转专转讬 讘注讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛


With regard to the issue mentioned previously, the Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 Rav Pappa the one who said that Abba Shaul said that it requires two conditions, that the object be worth a peruta and that it be an olive-bulk in volume? Rather, learn from this that Rav Pappa retracted his statement with regard to Abba Shaul鈥檚 opinion.


诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛谉 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讻诪转讻讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 砖驻讟讜专 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讞诪诐 讘讙讬讝讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞转讞诪诐 讘讙讬讝讬 注讜诇讛 砖诪注诇


Mar, son of Rabbana, said the following to resolve the difficulty in the baraita: This is what it is saying: No, if you say that one is exempt from an offering with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, where acting without intent is not treated as though one acted with intent, i.e., if one intended to cut something that is detached from the ground on Shabbat, which is not prohibited by Torah law, and mistakenly cut something that is attached to the ground, then he is exempt because he acted without intent; shall you also say the same with regard to misuse of consecrated items, about which the halakha is stringent, such that if one intended to warm himself with non-sacred wool shearings, and owing to an error or lack of information he warmed himself with shearings from a burnt-offering, then he has misused consecrated property? Thus, misuse of consecrated property is more stringent than other commandments, in that one violates it even when acting without intent, and one cannot deduce the halakha in the case of misuse of consecrated property from the halakha in the case of the rest of the mitzvot.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讻谉 诇讗 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 砖讗讬谉 诪转注住拽 讻诪转注住拽 砖讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 砖驻讟讜专 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讗诐 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇讻诇讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讞驻抓 讜住讱 讬讚讜 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 砖诪注诇


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the baraita should be understood differently, and this is what it is saying: No, if you say this leniency with regard to rest of the mitzvot, where one who is acting unawares is not liable in the same way as one who is acting aware of his actions, such as in a case where one intended to perform a permitted act and mistakenly performed a prohibited one, i.e., if one intended to lift something that is detached from the ground, but his knife happened to cut something that is attached to the ground, in violation of the act of harvesting on Shabbat, then he is exempt; shall you also say the same with regard to misuse of consecrated items, where if one places his hand in a vessel to take an object and unknowingly places his hand in consecrated oil then he has misused consecrated items? Therefore, misuse of consecrated items is more stringent than other commandments, as one commits the sin of misusing consecrated property even if he uses the consecrated object while attempting to perform a different action and is unaware that he is performing a prohibited act.


讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪驻专讬砖 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讗讘诇 讛驻专讬砖 讞诪抓 转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛


The Master said above in the baraita: In what case is this statement said that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the obligation to pay for teruma of leavened bread? It is said with regard to a case where one separated teruma in a permitted manner and it became leavened during Passover. However, if he separated teruma from leavened bread during Passover, everyone agrees that it is not consecrated since it is worthless.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 转转谉 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讜


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that a worthless item cannot be designated as teruma? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the verse states: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), and not to his fire. One must give the priest something that he can use for any purpose, and not something that the priest will be forced to burn as fuel. Even those who permit one to derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover agree that it may not be eaten, and therefore leavened bread cannot be consecrated as teruma in this case.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛讟诪讗讛 诇讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诐 转专诐 讘砖讜讙讙 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讛讻讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection based on that which was taught in a mishna: One may not separate teruma from ritually impure produce for ritually pure produce, but if one unwittingly separated it in this manner then his teruma is valid teruma. And why should this be valid teruma? Let the priest say: The verse requires that the teruma be given 鈥渢o him鈥 and not to his fire, and this ritually impure teruma must be burned. In that case, why should this produce actually become teruma? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. There, in the case of impure teruma, it had a period of fitness, and it could have been given as teruma before it became impure. Here, in the case of leavened bread, it did not ever have a period of fitness, and therefore it cannot be consecrated as teruma.


讜讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讞诪讬抓 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗讘诇 讗讞诪讬抓 讘转诇讜砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚拽讚砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讙讝讬专转 注讬专讬谉 驻转讙诪讗 讜讘诪讗诪专 拽讚讬砖讬谉 砖讗讬诇转讗 讜讻谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讻讜讜转讬


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which this leavened bread did not have a period of fitness even on Passover? This could have happened only in a case where it became leavened while it was still attached to the ground and could not yet become teruma. However, if it became leavened after being detached from the ground, then can this leavened bread indeed become consecrated as teruma, even though the baraita indicates that no leavened bread can be designated as teruma during Passover? Rav Na岣an bar Yitzhak said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Yes, this is indeed the case despite this puzzling limitation, and the biblical expression can be applied homiletically: 鈥淭he matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the sacred ones鈥 (Daniel 4:14). The Sages, who are compared to celestial beings, agree with my statement. And so too, in the study hall, they teach in accordance with my opinion, despite the puzzling nature of this ruling.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注


When Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came,


讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉


he said that the verse states: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), implying that its remnants are recognizable for an Israelite, as the notion of a first part indicates that there is another portion remaining which is fit to be consumed by the Israelite. This teruma is excluded as there is no recognizable remnant left that may be consumed by the Israelite, because it is leavened bread. Since even after this portion has been separated the remainder of the produce may not be eaten, that which was separated does not become teruma.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讚讜专讻谉 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讜讬讬谞谉 讻砖专 诇谞住讻讬谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚讬 诇讗讬诪转 拽讗 诪讬讟诪讗讬 诇讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 诇讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 诇讬转讬讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬讛


Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya sat before Rav 岣sda, and he sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure, one should tread on them less than an egg-bulk at a time, and the wine that comes from them is kosher even for libations because it is ritually pure. Apparently Rabbi Yo岣nan holds: The liquid is stored inside the grape, as the juice is not considered to be part of the grape itself but rather stored in the grape as though contained in a receptacle. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, when do these liquids become ritually impure? This occurs only when one squeezes them, and prior to this the juice remains pure even if the grape was impure. And when one squeezes them, there is less than the minimum measure of grape flesh that would transfer ritual impurity, as food can impart ritual impurity only if it is at least an egg-bulk in size.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讘讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讚讛转谞谉 讟诪讗 诪转 砖住讞讟 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讻讘讬爪讛 诪讻讜讜谞转 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛转诐 讚讗讬 注讘讚 讛讻讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 讬讜转专 诪讻讘讬爪讛


The Gemara challenges this statement: If that is so, then even if he squeezes an egg-bulk of grapes, the juice will still not become impure. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: In the case of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and who squeezed olives or grapes in the exact amount of an egg-bulk, the liquid is ritually pure. Once the first drop of liquid is squeezed out, less than an egg-bulk of food remains, and it cannot render the liquid impure. In that case, why did Rabbi Yo岣nan permit squeezing only less than an egg-bulk? The Gemara answers: There, it was speaking of a case where the ruling was after the fact; however, here, it is discussing the ruling ab initio, and the mishna states that one may press juice only from less than an egg-bulk of grapes due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to perform the act of squeezing on more than an egg-bulk, causing the liquid to become impure.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗谉 爪讬讬转 诇讱 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讱 讜讻讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘讛谉 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讻讛 讗诇诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬讘诇注 讘诇讬注讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讟诪讜 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讗讬讟诪讜 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讬谉


Rav 岣sda said to Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya: Who will listen to you and to Rabbi Yo岣nan your teacher with regard to this issue? As, where did the impurity that was in the grape juice go? The Gemara notes that apparently Rav 岣sda holds: Liquids are absorbed within the fruit and are therefore considered to be part of the grape itself. And since the flesh of the grape became ritually impure, the liquid became ritually impure as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗转 诇讗 转讬住讘专讗 讚诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚讬 讜讛转谞谉 讟诪讗 诪转 砖住讞讟 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讻讜讜谞转 讻讘讬爪讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬讘诇注 讘诇讬注讬 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专讬谉


Rav A岣 said to him: Do you not hold that liquids are stored inside the grape? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: In the case of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and who squeezed olives or grapes in the exact amount of an egg-bulk, using a flat wooden utensil without touching the liquid itself, the liquid is ritually pure. Granted, if you say that the juice is stored inside the grapes, then it is due to that reason that the liquid is pure. But if you say that the liquid is absorbed within the grapes, why is the juice pure? According to this opinion, once the grape itself becomes impure, the juice, which is attached to it and absorbed in it, becomes impure as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讗讬诪转 诪转讻砖专讬 诇讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 讘爪讬专 诇讛讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇转专讜诪转 转讜转讬谉 (讝讬转讬诐) 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 讛讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讚专讬讱 诇讛讜 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛


Rav 岣sda said to him: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the grapes have not been rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, since they have not come in contact with liquids. When do they become susceptible to ritual impurity? This is only once one presses them and they become wet with their own juice. However, when he presses them, they decrease in volume and are lacking the measure of volume required to become impure. This must be the explanation, for if you do not say so, it is difficult to reconcile this mishna with that which was taught in the baraita cited above: To what may this case of teruma of leavened bread be compared? It may be compared to teruma of berries, olives, and grapes that became impure, which can neither be eaten nor burned. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement they may even be eaten, as if one wishes he may tread less than an egg-bulk at a time.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛讜 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇转拽诇讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘驻转 讜讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛注爪讬诐 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 专诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讻诇讬 诪讗讜住


Rava said: It is possible to reject this proof, as even if this action is permitted in principle, there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting it lest he encounter a stumbling block. If one keeps ritually impure fruit of teruma in order to press it for its juice, it is possible that he will forget its status and accidentally eat it. Abaye said to him: Are we concerned about this type of stumbling block? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may light a fire with bread and oil of teruma that became ritually impure? It can be deduced from this baraita that there is no concern that a person will forget and eat these foods. Rava said to him: Bread is only permitted when one throws it among the wood used for fuel so that it is ruined and no longer considered edible. Teruma oil is permitted only when one puts it into a repulsive vessel so that no one will drink it.


讙讜驻讗 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘驻转 讜讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 诪专转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻转 讗讘诇 讞讬讟讬 诇讗 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讘讛谉 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讟讬 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛谉 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬


With regard to the matter itself, it was taught: One may light with bread and oil of teruma that became ritually impure. The Sages limited the application of this halakha, as Abaye said in the name of 岣zkiya and Rava said in the name of the Sages from the school of Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Marta that Rav Huna said: They taught that one may use impure teruma as firewood only with regard to bread; however, with regard to wheat, no, one may not light a fire with it, lest one encounter a stumbling block and eat it, because wheat will not become inedible by being placed among the firewood. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even wheat may be used as fuel. The Gemara asks: And why does he permit this? Let us be concerned lest he encounter a stumbling block. The Gemara answers based on what Rav Ashi said with regard to a different issue:

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.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 Daf 32-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time with Dr Tamara Spitz

This week we will learn the consequence of eating Chametz on Pesach that was also Terumah and therefore forbidden to...

Pesachim 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 33

讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讬转讛 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛


that one who intentionally misuses consecrated items is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who intentionally misuses consecrated items, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. The Rabbis say: he violates a warning, a standard prohibition, and is flogged.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙诪专 讞讟讗 讞讟讗 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讬转讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? From where does he derive his opinion? Rabbi Abbahu said: He derives it by means of a verbal analogy between the word sin stated with regard to misuse of consecrated items and the word sin stated with regard to teruma. With regard to misuse of consecrated items, the verse states: 鈥淚f any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:15); with regard to teruma, the verse states: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die due to it, if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi makes the following comparison: Just as eating teruma is punishable by the death penalty, so too, misusing consecrated items is punishable by the death penalty.


讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 诪注讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转


From this verbal analogy, the comparison between teruma and misuse of consecrated property can be extended to other issues as well: Just as one is punished only for eating at least an olive-bulk of teruma, so too, one is punished for misusing consecrated items only if there is at least an olive-bulk of consecrated items. This indicates that the baraita cannot be explained in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who requires that the item be worth at least a peruta.


讜诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讻讝讬转


Rav Pappa strongly objects to Rav Sheshet and Rabba鈥檚 rejection of the explanation of the baraita: From where do you know that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one is only punished after eating an olive-bulk of teruma? Perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said one is liable for eating teruma provided the food contains the value of a peruta of teruma, even if it is less than an olive-bulk. As the halakhot of misuse of consecrated items are derived from teruma, one is liable for eating both teruma and consecrated items only if the object is worth at least a peruta. As such, Rav 岣yya bar Avin鈥檚 explanation of the baraita should not be rejected.


讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 转专转讬 讘注讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛


With regard to the issue mentioned previously, the Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 Rav Pappa the one who said that Abba Shaul said that it requires two conditions, that the object be worth a peruta and that it be an olive-bulk in volume? Rather, learn from this that Rav Pappa retracted his statement with regard to Abba Shaul鈥檚 opinion.


诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛谉 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讻诪转讻讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 砖驻讟讜专 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛转讞诪诐 讘讙讬讝讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞转讞诪诐 讘讙讬讝讬 注讜诇讛 砖诪注诇


Mar, son of Rabbana, said the following to resolve the difficulty in the baraita: This is what it is saying: No, if you say that one is exempt from an offering with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, where acting without intent is not treated as though one acted with intent, i.e., if one intended to cut something that is detached from the ground on Shabbat, which is not prohibited by Torah law, and mistakenly cut something that is attached to the ground, then he is exempt because he acted without intent; shall you also say the same with regard to misuse of consecrated items, about which the halakha is stringent, such that if one intended to warm himself with non-sacred wool shearings, and owing to an error or lack of information he warmed himself with shearings from a burnt-offering, then he has misused consecrated property? Thus, misuse of consecrated property is more stringent than other commandments, in that one violates it even when acting without intent, and one cannot deduce the halakha in the case of misuse of consecrated property from the halakha in the case of the rest of the mitzvot.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讻谉 诇讗 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 砖讗讬谉 诪转注住拽 讻诪转注住拽 砖讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 砖驻讟讜专 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讗诐 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇讻诇讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讞驻抓 讜住讱 讬讚讜 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 砖诪注诇


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the baraita should be understood differently, and this is what it is saying: No, if you say this leniency with regard to rest of the mitzvot, where one who is acting unawares is not liable in the same way as one who is acting aware of his actions, such as in a case where one intended to perform a permitted act and mistakenly performed a prohibited one, i.e., if one intended to lift something that is detached from the ground, but his knife happened to cut something that is attached to the ground, in violation of the act of harvesting on Shabbat, then he is exempt; shall you also say the same with regard to misuse of consecrated items, where if one places his hand in a vessel to take an object and unknowingly places his hand in consecrated oil then he has misused consecrated items? Therefore, misuse of consecrated items is more stringent than other commandments, as one commits the sin of misusing consecrated property even if he uses the consecrated object while attempting to perform a different action and is unaware that he is performing a prohibited act.


讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪驻专讬砖 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讗讘诇 讛驻专讬砖 讞诪抓 转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛


The Master said above in the baraita: In what case is this statement said that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the obligation to pay for teruma of leavened bread? It is said with regard to a case where one separated teruma in a permitted manner and it became leavened during Passover. However, if he separated teruma from leavened bread during Passover, everyone agrees that it is not consecrated since it is worthless.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 转转谉 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讜


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that a worthless item cannot be designated as teruma? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the verse states: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), and not to his fire. One must give the priest something that he can use for any purpose, and not something that the priest will be forced to burn as fuel. Even those who permit one to derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover agree that it may not be eaten, and therefore leavened bread cannot be consecrated as teruma in this case.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛讟诪讗讛 诇讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诐 转专诐 讘砖讜讙讙 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讛讻讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection based on that which was taught in a mishna: One may not separate teruma from ritually impure produce for ritually pure produce, but if one unwittingly separated it in this manner then his teruma is valid teruma. And why should this be valid teruma? Let the priest say: The verse requires that the teruma be given 鈥渢o him鈥 and not to his fire, and this ritually impure teruma must be burned. In that case, why should this produce actually become teruma? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. There, in the case of impure teruma, it had a period of fitness, and it could have been given as teruma before it became impure. Here, in the case of leavened bread, it did not ever have a period of fitness, and therefore it cannot be consecrated as teruma.


讜讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讞诪讬抓 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗讘诇 讗讞诪讬抓 讘转诇讜砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚拽讚砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讙讝讬专转 注讬专讬谉 驻转讙诪讗 讜讘诪讗诪专 拽讚讬砖讬谉 砖讗讬诇转讗 讜讻谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讻讜讜转讬


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which this leavened bread did not have a period of fitness even on Passover? This could have happened only in a case where it became leavened while it was still attached to the ground and could not yet become teruma. However, if it became leavened after being detached from the ground, then can this leavened bread indeed become consecrated as teruma, even though the baraita indicates that no leavened bread can be designated as teruma during Passover? Rav Na岣an bar Yitzhak said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Yes, this is indeed the case despite this puzzling limitation, and the biblical expression can be applied homiletically: 鈥淭he matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the sacred ones鈥 (Daniel 4:14). The Sages, who are compared to celestial beings, agree with my statement. And so too, in the study hall, they teach in accordance with my opinion, despite the puzzling nature of this ruling.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注


When Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came,


讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉


he said that the verse states: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), implying that its remnants are recognizable for an Israelite, as the notion of a first part indicates that there is another portion remaining which is fit to be consumed by the Israelite. This teruma is excluded as there is no recognizable remnant left that may be consumed by the Israelite, because it is leavened bread. Since even after this portion has been separated the remainder of the produce may not be eaten, that which was separated does not become teruma.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讚讜专讻谉 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讜讬讬谞谉 讻砖专 诇谞住讻讬谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚讬 诇讗讬诪转 拽讗 诪讬讟诪讗讬 诇讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 诇讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 诇讬转讬讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬讛


Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya sat before Rav 岣sda, and he sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure, one should tread on them less than an egg-bulk at a time, and the wine that comes from them is kosher even for libations because it is ritually pure. Apparently Rabbi Yo岣nan holds: The liquid is stored inside the grape, as the juice is not considered to be part of the grape itself but rather stored in the grape as though contained in a receptacle. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, when do these liquids become ritually impure? This occurs only when one squeezes them, and prior to this the juice remains pure even if the grape was impure. And when one squeezes them, there is less than the minimum measure of grape flesh that would transfer ritual impurity, as food can impart ritual impurity only if it is at least an egg-bulk in size.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讘讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讚讛转谞谉 讟诪讗 诪转 砖住讞讟 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讻讘讬爪讛 诪讻讜讜谞转 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛转诐 讚讗讬 注讘讚 讛讻讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 讬讜转专 诪讻讘讬爪讛


The Gemara challenges this statement: If that is so, then even if he squeezes an egg-bulk of grapes, the juice will still not become impure. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: In the case of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and who squeezed olives or grapes in the exact amount of an egg-bulk, the liquid is ritually pure. Once the first drop of liquid is squeezed out, less than an egg-bulk of food remains, and it cannot render the liquid impure. In that case, why did Rabbi Yo岣nan permit squeezing only less than an egg-bulk? The Gemara answers: There, it was speaking of a case where the ruling was after the fact; however, here, it is discussing the ruling ab initio, and the mishna states that one may press juice only from less than an egg-bulk of grapes due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to perform the act of squeezing on more than an egg-bulk, causing the liquid to become impure.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗谉 爪讬讬转 诇讱 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讱 讜讻讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘讛谉 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讻讛 讗诇诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬讘诇注 讘诇讬注讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讟诪讜 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讗讬讟诪讜 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讬谉


Rav 岣sda said to Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya: Who will listen to you and to Rabbi Yo岣nan your teacher with regard to this issue? As, where did the impurity that was in the grape juice go? The Gemara notes that apparently Rav 岣sda holds: Liquids are absorbed within the fruit and are therefore considered to be part of the grape itself. And since the flesh of the grape became ritually impure, the liquid became ritually impure as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗转 诇讗 转讬住讘专讗 讚诪砖拽讬谉 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚讬 讜讛转谞谉 讟诪讗 诪转 砖住讞讟 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讻讜讜谞转 讻讘讬爪讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬讘诇注 讘诇讬注讬 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专讬谉


Rav A岣 said to him: Do you not hold that liquids are stored inside the grape? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: In the case of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and who squeezed olives or grapes in the exact amount of an egg-bulk, using a flat wooden utensil without touching the liquid itself, the liquid is ritually pure. Granted, if you say that the juice is stored inside the grapes, then it is due to that reason that the liquid is pure. But if you say that the liquid is absorbed within the grapes, why is the juice pure? According to this opinion, once the grape itself becomes impure, the juice, which is attached to it and absorbed in it, becomes impure as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讗讬诪转 诪转讻砖专讬 诇讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 讻讬 住讞讬讟 诇讛讜 讘爪讬专 诇讛讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇转专讜诪转 转讜转讬谉 (讝讬转讬诐) 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 讛讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讚专讬讱 诇讛讜 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛


Rav 岣sda said to him: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the grapes have not been rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, since they have not come in contact with liquids. When do they become susceptible to ritual impurity? This is only once one presses them and they become wet with their own juice. However, when he presses them, they decrease in volume and are lacking the measure of volume required to become impure. This must be the explanation, for if you do not say so, it is difficult to reconcile this mishna with that which was taught in the baraita cited above: To what may this case of teruma of leavened bread be compared? It may be compared to teruma of berries, olives, and grapes that became impure, which can neither be eaten nor burned. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement they may even be eaten, as if one wishes he may tread less than an egg-bulk at a time.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛讜 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇转拽诇讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘驻转 讜讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛注爪讬诐 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 专诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讻诇讬 诪讗讜住


Rava said: It is possible to reject this proof, as even if this action is permitted in principle, there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting it lest he encounter a stumbling block. If one keeps ritually impure fruit of teruma in order to press it for its juice, it is possible that he will forget its status and accidentally eat it. Abaye said to him: Are we concerned about this type of stumbling block? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may light a fire with bread and oil of teruma that became ritually impure? It can be deduced from this baraita that there is no concern that a person will forget and eat these foods. Rava said to him: Bread is only permitted when one throws it among the wood used for fuel so that it is ruined and no longer considered edible. Teruma oil is permitted only when one puts it into a repulsive vessel so that no one will drink it.


讙讜驻讗 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘驻转 讜讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 诪专转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻转 讗讘诇 讞讬讟讬 诇讗 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讘讛谉 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讟讬 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛谉 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬


With regard to the matter itself, it was taught: One may light with bread and oil of teruma that became ritually impure. The Sages limited the application of this halakha, as Abaye said in the name of 岣zkiya and Rava said in the name of the Sages from the school of Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Marta that Rav Huna said: They taught that one may use impure teruma as firewood only with regard to bread; however, with regard to wheat, no, one may not light a fire with it, lest one encounter a stumbling block and eat it, because wheat will not become inedible by being placed among the firewood. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even wheat may be used as fuel. The Gemara asks: And why does he permit this? Let us be concerned lest he encounter a stumbling block. The Gemara answers based on what Rav Ashi said with regard to a different issue:

Scroll To Top