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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 25, 2020 | 讬壮 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 34

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Susan Jaeger in memory of her beloved mother, Beatrice Jaeger, “who died 22 years ago this month, and whose presence I still feel everyday in my life.”

Three opinions are brought to explain the Mishna Terumot 9:7 regarding saplings of impure truma that are planted – it removes the impurity but are forbidden to eat. To whom is it forbidden and why? Within the context of the second answer, the gemara brings a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the disqualification of one who does not watch his truma or sanctified items properly. What type of disqualification is it? The third answer assumes that truma and sanctified items are treated in a stricter manner than other things. Three other proofs are brought for this.

讘砖诇讬拽转讗 讜诪讗讬住转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘砖诇讬拽转讗 讜诪讗讬住转讗 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讙讘诇 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讛讬讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 讘讞讬讟讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇诇讜砖 讘讛谉 注讬住讛 讘讟讛专讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛讜 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖诇讬拽转讗 讜诪讗讬住转讗


This is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat, i.e., wheat that one boiled and then placed in a repulsive area, in which case he need not be concerned that this wheat will accidentally be eaten; so too here, it is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat. The Gemara asks: Where was Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation stated? It was stated with regard to this: As Rabbi Avin bar Rav A岣 said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Abba Shaul was the dough kneader of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 house, and they would heat water for him, to make dough, with wheat of ritually impure teruma, which was purchased from priests at a low price, in order to knead dough in ritual purity. The Gemara asks: Why did they do this? Let us be concerned lest they encounter a stumbling block by accidentally eating this wheat. With regard to this Rav Ashi said that it was only done when the wheat was boiled and repulsive and could only be used for lighting a fire.


讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 转谞讜 转专讜诪讜转 讘讬 专讘讛 驻讙注 讘讛讜 专讘讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 讘转专讜诪讜转 讚讘讬 诪专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞谉 砖转讬诇讬 转专讜诪讜转 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讜砖转诇谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪诇讟诪讗 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇 (讘转专讜诪讛) 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讟讛讜专讬谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇


After mentioning ways in which impure teruma was used, the Gemara mentions other halakhot pertaining to this issue. Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nanya bar Avin taught the tractate of Terumot in the school of Rabba. Rava bar Mattana met them and said to them: What novel idea can you say has been taught with regard to Terumot in the school of our Master, Rabba? They said to him: What is difficult for you? There must be some issue troubling you that has caused you to ask this question. He said to them: The following statement that we learned in the mishna in Terumot is unclear: Saplings of teruma that became ritually impure and were planted are pure such that they do not impart ritual impurity once they have been planted, but they are prohibited to be eaten as teruma. The question arises: If they do not impart ritual impurity, why is it prohibited to eat them? If their impurity has been eliminated then it should be permitted to eat them, like other ritually pure teruma.


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讝专讬诐 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪讛 转谞讬谞讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪讛


Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nanya bar Avin said to Rava bar Mattana: This is what Rabba said in explaining this mishna: What does it mean that they are prohibited to be eaten? It means that they are prohibited to be eaten by non-priests, but a priest may eat them. Once these saplings are planted, they lose their ritual impurity but retain their status as teruma. Rava bar Mattana challenged this answer: If this is the case, what is the mishna teaching us with this statement? Is it teaching us that growths of teruma are considered teruma? It is unnecessary to teach this principle, as we already learned: Growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from teruma that was planted in the ground, are considered teruma. Why, then, is it necessary to teach this principle again?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讟讘诇 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬砖转讬拽讜


And if you say as follows: This case is referring to the growths of growths of teruma, i.e., plants that grew from the original growths of teruma, and what is it teaching us? It is teaching that an item whose seed does not disintegrate when planted in the ground maintains its teruma status. While most seeds will disintegrate, other plants, such as onions and garlic, merely continue growing when planted. In that case, this mishna would be informing us that even the growths of growths of such plants retain their teruma status. However, we already learned that as well. As the mishna states: With regard to untithed produce [tevel], its growths, the produce that grows from it, are permitted in the case of items whose seed disintegrates; however, in the case of items where the seed does not disintegrate, it is prohibited to eat even the growths of growths unless they are tithed. There would be no need for the mishna to teach us this halakha a second time. They were silent and did not have an answer to this question.


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬驻住讬诇讜 诇讛讜 讘讛讬住讞 讛讚注转


They said to Rava bar Mattana: Have you heard something in this regard? He said to them: This is what Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of the word prohibited in this context? It means that it is prohibited for priests, since it has been disqualified for them due to the diversion of attention. Teruma and other consecrated property must be guarded, and when one fails to do so, it is treated as though it were impure. Therefore, these teruma saplings are treated as though they have become impure once the priest diverts attention from them, and they remain prohibited to him even after another generation grows from them.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that a diversion of attention constitutes an inherent disqualification, it works out well. According to this opinion, a diversion of attention does not disqualify teruma due to a concern that it became impure. Instead, there is an independent rabbinic decree rendering teruma that has not been watched impure even when this teruma could not possibly have become impure. According to this opinion, one can understand why this growth may not be eaten by a priest. But according to the one who says that a diversion of attention is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity, what is there to say? It is stated in the mishna that by planting these saplings they become pure, even if they were certainly ritually impure prior to being planted. If this is the case with regard to teruma that is certainly impure, all the more so should it apply to a case where there is only a chance that the teruma is ritually impure.


讚讗转诪专 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬


Apropos the discussion of diversion of attention, the Gemara cites a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to this issue, as it was stated: What is the nature of the disqualification of diversion of attention? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity that may have been contracted while one鈥檚 attention was diverted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is an inherent disqualification.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 砖讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬 砖讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜


The Gemara discusses the ramifications of this dispute: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity, if Elijah comes and renders it ritually pure then we will listen to him, because it was treated as impure only due to a doubt with regard to its actual status. However, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that it is an inherent disqualification, even if Elijah comes and renders it pure we will not listen to him. The reason for this is that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish believes that this decree is unrelated to the question of whether the object actually became impure.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜诇 拽讟谉 讛讬讛 讘讬谉 讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞 讘诪注专讘讜 砖诇 讻讘砖 砖砖诐 讛讬讜 讝讜专拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讘注讬 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 诇诪讛 诇讬 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish based on what is taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: There was a small gap between the ramp and the altar on the western side of the ramp, where they would throw disqualified birds that had been designated as sin-offerings. If birds became disqualified for any reason, such as a diversion of attention, they were left there until their form decayed, i.e., until the next morning, at which point they would be definitively disqualified due to remaining in the Temple overnight and could be taken out to the place designated for burning. Granted, if you say that a diversion of attention is a disqualification due to a concern for ritual impurity, for this reason it requires decay of form to ensure that the bird is certainly disqualified. Currently the bird is disqualified only due to uncertainty, and Elijah may come and render it ritually pure. However, if you say that it is an inherent disqualification, then why do I need to leave it until it has decay of form? It should be definitively disqualified once there has been a diversion of attention. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that this is the principle:


讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讘讚诐 讜讘讘注诇讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讟注讜谉 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛


Any offering that has a disqualification in the body of the animal, i.e., it has a definite disqualification with regard to the meat itself, should be burned immediately. If it has a disqualification in the blood of the animal, e.g., if the blood was spilled, or a disqualification of its owner, e.g., if the owner became impure, then it should be left until its form is decayed and taken out to the place designated for burning. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: This tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, is of the same opinion as the tanna who taught in the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said: Even piggul, an offering that was invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being offered, requires decay of form. Even with regard to an inherent disqualification in the meat of the offering, where the Torah says explicitly that the offering should be burned, as is the case with regard to piggul, the animal should be set aside until the next day, when its form has decayed.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞讟诪讗 讗讜 砖谞驻住诇 讛讘砖专 讗讜 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讝专讜拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讝专拽 讛讜专爪讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish based on another baraita, where it is taught: If the meat became impure or disqualified, or if it was taken out of the walls that delineate its permitted area, Rabbi Eliezer says: He sprinkles the blood of these offerings nonetheless, as in his opinion the blood may be sprinkled regardless of the status of the meat of the offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He does not sprinkle the blood unless the meat is fit to be brought as an offering. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if the blood was sprinkled, the offering is accepted.


诪讗讬 谞驻住诇 诇讗讜 讘讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪专爪讬 爪讬抓 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬 讗诪讗讬 讛讜专爪讛 (爪讬抓)


The Gemara clarifies: To what type of disqualification is the baraita referring? Is it not disqualification on account of a diversion of attention? It cannot be a case where it was disqualified due to impurity or being taken outside of the walls, since these are mentioned explicitly. Granted, if you say that a diversion of attention is a disqualification based on a concern about ritual impurity, this is how you can find a case that the offering is accepted because the frontplate atones for cases where there is a disqualification related to ritual impurity. But if you say that it is an inherent disqualification, why is the offering accepted according to Rabbi Yehoshua, given that it is a disqualified offering?


诪讗讬 谞驻住诇 谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟诪讗 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讟诪讗


Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish rejects this interpretation of the baraita: No, this is not a case where the offering was disqualified due to a diversion of attention. In what way was the offering disqualified? It was disqualified due to contact with one who immersed himself during the day. One who immersed himself during the day invalidates items due to ritual impurity. Although these items themselves are invalidated, they cannot in turn render other items ritually impure. The Gemara asks: If that is so, this is the same as the disqualification of ritual impurity. What, then, is the difference between this disqualification and that of ritual impurity previously mentioned by the baraita? The Gemara answers that two types of ritual impurity are mentioned here: One type of impurity can also impart impurity to other objects, and a second type can invalidate another object but will not impart impurity.


讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬转讘讬 讘讗专注讗 讚讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬转讜谉 砖诪注转转讗 讚诪讞砖讻讜 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讻讜 讛讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗


When Ravin ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha of Rav Sheshet before Rabbi Yirmeya. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because you dwell in a dark land, you state halakhot that are dim. Have you not heard this statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Oshaya?


诪讬 讛讞讙 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讛砖讬拽谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛砖讬拽谉 讟诪讗讬诐


Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to the water used for the water libation during the festival of Sukkot which was drawn over the course of the day in order to be poured the next day and consequently became impure, the following distinction applies: If it was brought into contact with a ritual bath of pure water and was then consecrated, it is ritually pure. However, if it was consecrated and was then brought into contact with the ritual bath, it is ritually impure.


诪讻讚讬 讝专讬注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 讛砖讬拽谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖谉 诪讛 诇讬 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛砖讬拽谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讝专讬注讛 诇讛拽讚砖 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讝专讬注讛 诇转专讜诪讛


The question arises: Since this type of purification is similar to planting, as when the impure water came in contact with the water of the ritual bath, it is considered as though the water was planted in the ground and thereby purified, what does it matter if it was brought into contact and then consecrated or consecrated and then brought into contact? Apparently planting is not effective with regard to consecrated items, i.e., such items are not purified through this process. Therefore, here too, planting is not effective with regard to teruma. Despite the fact that planting is generally effective in removing the impure status of the water, the Sages imposed higher standards with regard to consecrated items. Similarly, the Sages imposed higher standards for removing the teruma status of the plants. One can explain that the produce grown from teruma mentioned in the baraita remains prohibited for non-priests because it is still considered teruma.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘讻诇讬 拽讗诪专 讗讘诇 讘驻讛 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘驻讛 谞诪讬 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛


Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha that was stated by Rav Oshaya with regard to principle of bringing liquid into contact with a ritual bath. Abaye said to him: Did Rav Oshaya state his ruling that bringing a liquid into contact with a ritual bath is not effective for consecrated items with regard to a case where he consecrated the water by placing it in a sacred vessel, but if he consecrated it through speech then the Sages did not impose a higher standard, in which case the water can be purified by being brought into contact with a ritual bath? Or perhaps the Sages imposed a higher standard in a case where one consecrates it through speech as well?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讚专讻谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讚专讻谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讗 注谞讘讬诐 讚拽讚讜砖转 驻讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛


Rav Dimi said to him: I did not hear the halakha with regard to this case; however, I heard the halakha with regard to a similar case. As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure, if one trod on them and afterward consecrated them, they are pure. According to this opinion, the wine inside the grape does not become impure from the grape itself. However, if he consecrated the grapes and afterward pressed them, they are impure, because the halakha is especially stringent with regard consecrated items. And yet with regard to grapes which are only consecrated through speech, as the wine/grapes offered on the altar are not brought in a sacred vessel, even so, the Sages imposed a higher standard such that these grapes become impure after they have been consecrated.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注谞讘讬诐 拽讗诪专转 讛讻讗 讘注谞讘讬诐 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讚讜砖转 驻讛 讚讬讚讛讜 讻拽讚讜砖转 讻诇讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚讘注讬 讻诇讬 讘驻讛 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛


Rav Yosef said: This case does not serve as a proof since you spoke of grapes, and here we are dealing with grapes of teruma, whose consecration through speech is comparable to consecration in a sacred vessel, as teruma cannot be consecrated by being placed in a sacred vessel. However, with regard to those items that require a sacred vessel in order to be fully consecrated, such as water used for a libation, the Sages did not impose a higher standard in a case where one consecrated it through speech. Therefore, this case cannot be used to resolve Abaye鈥檚 question.


讚专讻谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 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


The Gemara asks about Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement with regard to wine pressed from impure grapes: The phrase if one tread upon them is stated without qualification, indicating that the wine is ritually pure even if he pressed many grapes at once. And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure grapes, one should tread on them less than an egg-bulk at a time. When there is less than an egg-bulk of grapes, they do not impart ritual impurity.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛转诐 讚谞讙注讜 诇讛讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讗讬谞讛讜 砖谞讬 讛讻讗 讚谞讙注讜 讘砖谞讬 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖诇讬砖讬


The Gemara answers: If you wish, say this answer: Here, too, it is to be understood that one must tread on less than an egg-bulk at a time. And if you wish, say this answer instead: There, where the Gemara requires less than an egg-bulk, it is a case where the grapes came into contact with an item that was impure with first-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with second-degree ritual impurity. When a liquid touches an object that is impure with second-degree ritual impurity, it becomes impure by rabbinic decree with first-degree ritual impurity. Therefore, in that case one must be careful to tread only on less than an egg-bulk at a time. Here, it is speaking of a case where they came into contact with an item that was impure with second-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with third-degree ritual impurity. In that case, the liquid that comes out of the grapes would not become ritually impure at all.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讗诇 讻诇讬 砖转讛讗 讞讬讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜谞转谉 讗诇诪讗 转诇讜砖讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜


Rava said: We, too, have learned that the Sages created higher standards with regard to consecrated items. As it was taught that the verse says with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd for the impure they shall take the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall put flowing water into a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17), which teaches that the flowing water from the spring should flow directly into the vessel in which it will be sanctified. On the other hand, the verse says 鈥渁nd he shall put,鈥 meaning that the water should be poured into the vessel. Apparently the water is detached, but it is clearly attached to the spring, as it was previously stated that the water must flow directly into the vessel.


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 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 34

讘砖诇讬拽转讗 讜诪讗讬住转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘砖诇讬拽转讗 讜诪讗讬住转讗 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讙讘诇 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讛讬讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 讘讞讬讟讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇诇讜砖 讘讛谉 注讬住讛 讘讟讛专讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛讜 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖诇讬拽转讗 讜诪讗讬住转讗


This is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat, i.e., wheat that one boiled and then placed in a repulsive area, in which case he need not be concerned that this wheat will accidentally be eaten; so too here, it is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat. The Gemara asks: Where was Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation stated? It was stated with regard to this: As Rabbi Avin bar Rav A岣 said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Abba Shaul was the dough kneader of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 house, and they would heat water for him, to make dough, with wheat of ritually impure teruma, which was purchased from priests at a low price, in order to knead dough in ritual purity. The Gemara asks: Why did they do this? Let us be concerned lest they encounter a stumbling block by accidentally eating this wheat. With regard to this Rav Ashi said that it was only done when the wheat was boiled and repulsive and could only be used for lighting a fire.


讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 转谞讜 转专讜诪讜转 讘讬 专讘讛 驻讙注 讘讛讜 专讘讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 讘转专讜诪讜转 讚讘讬 诪专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞谉 砖转讬诇讬 转专讜诪讜转 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讜砖转诇谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪诇讟诪讗 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇 (讘转专讜诪讛) 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讟讛讜专讬谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇


After mentioning ways in which impure teruma was used, the Gemara mentions other halakhot pertaining to this issue. Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nanya bar Avin taught the tractate of Terumot in the school of Rabba. Rava bar Mattana met them and said to them: What novel idea can you say has been taught with regard to Terumot in the school of our Master, Rabba? They said to him: What is difficult for you? There must be some issue troubling you that has caused you to ask this question. He said to them: The following statement that we learned in the mishna in Terumot is unclear: Saplings of teruma that became ritually impure and were planted are pure such that they do not impart ritual impurity once they have been planted, but they are prohibited to be eaten as teruma. The question arises: If they do not impart ritual impurity, why is it prohibited to eat them? If their impurity has been eliminated then it should be permitted to eat them, like other ritually pure teruma.


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讝专讬诐 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪讛 转谞讬谞讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪讛


Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nanya bar Avin said to Rava bar Mattana: This is what Rabba said in explaining this mishna: What does it mean that they are prohibited to be eaten? It means that they are prohibited to be eaten by non-priests, but a priest may eat them. Once these saplings are planted, they lose their ritual impurity but retain their status as teruma. Rava bar Mattana challenged this answer: If this is the case, what is the mishna teaching us with this statement? Is it teaching us that growths of teruma are considered teruma? It is unnecessary to teach this principle, as we already learned: Growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from teruma that was planted in the ground, are considered teruma. Why, then, is it necessary to teach this principle again?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讟讘诇 讙讬讚讜诇讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬 讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬砖转讬拽讜


And if you say as follows: This case is referring to the growths of growths of teruma, i.e., plants that grew from the original growths of teruma, and what is it teaching us? It is teaching that an item whose seed does not disintegrate when planted in the ground maintains its teruma status. While most seeds will disintegrate, other plants, such as onions and garlic, merely continue growing when planted. In that case, this mishna would be informing us that even the growths of growths of such plants retain their teruma status. However, we already learned that as well. As the mishna states: With regard to untithed produce [tevel], its growths, the produce that grows from it, are permitted in the case of items whose seed disintegrates; however, in the case of items where the seed does not disintegrate, it is prohibited to eat even the growths of growths unless they are tithed. There would be no need for the mishna to teach us this halakha a second time. They were silent and did not have an answer to this question.


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬驻住讬诇讜 诇讛讜 讘讛讬住讞 讛讚注转


They said to Rava bar Mattana: Have you heard something in this regard? He said to them: This is what Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of the word prohibited in this context? It means that it is prohibited for priests, since it has been disqualified for them due to the diversion of attention. Teruma and other consecrated property must be guarded, and when one fails to do so, it is treated as though it were impure. Therefore, these teruma saplings are treated as though they have become impure once the priest diverts attention from them, and they remain prohibited to him even after another generation grows from them.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that a diversion of attention constitutes an inherent disqualification, it works out well. According to this opinion, a diversion of attention does not disqualify teruma due to a concern that it became impure. Instead, there is an independent rabbinic decree rendering teruma that has not been watched impure even when this teruma could not possibly have become impure. According to this opinion, one can understand why this growth may not be eaten by a priest. But according to the one who says that a diversion of attention is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity, what is there to say? It is stated in the mishna that by planting these saplings they become pure, even if they were certainly ritually impure prior to being planted. If this is the case with regard to teruma that is certainly impure, all the more so should it apply to a case where there is only a chance that the teruma is ritually impure.


讚讗转诪专 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬


Apropos the discussion of diversion of attention, the Gemara cites a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to this issue, as it was stated: What is the nature of the disqualification of diversion of attention? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity that may have been contracted while one鈥檚 attention was diverted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is an inherent disqualification.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 砖讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬 砖讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜


The Gemara discusses the ramifications of this dispute: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity, if Elijah comes and renders it ritually pure then we will listen to him, because it was treated as impure only due to a doubt with regard to its actual status. However, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that it is an inherent disqualification, even if Elijah comes and renders it pure we will not listen to him. The reason for this is that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish believes that this decree is unrelated to the question of whether the object actually became impure.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜诇 拽讟谉 讛讬讛 讘讬谉 讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞 讘诪注专讘讜 砖诇 讻讘砖 砖砖诐 讛讬讜 讝讜专拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讜诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讘注讬 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专谞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 诇诪讛 诇讬 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish based on what is taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: There was a small gap between the ramp and the altar on the western side of the ramp, where they would throw disqualified birds that had been designated as sin-offerings. If birds became disqualified for any reason, such as a diversion of attention, they were left there until their form decayed, i.e., until the next morning, at which point they would be definitively disqualified due to remaining in the Temple overnight and could be taken out to the place designated for burning. Granted, if you say that a diversion of attention is a disqualification due to a concern for ritual impurity, for this reason it requires decay of form to ensure that the bird is certainly disqualified. Currently the bird is disqualified only due to uncertainty, and Elijah may come and render it ritually pure. However, if you say that it is an inherent disqualification, then why do I need to leave it until it has decay of form? It should be definitively disqualified once there has been a diversion of attention. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that this is the principle:


讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讘讚诐 讜讘讘注诇讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讟注讜谉 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛


Any offering that has a disqualification in the body of the animal, i.e., it has a definite disqualification with regard to the meat itself, should be burned immediately. If it has a disqualification in the blood of the animal, e.g., if the blood was spilled, or a disqualification of its owner, e.g., if the owner became impure, then it should be left until its form is decayed and taken out to the place designated for burning. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: This tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, is of the same opinion as the tanna who taught in the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said: Even piggul, an offering that was invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being offered, requires decay of form. Even with regard to an inherent disqualification in the meat of the offering, where the Torah says explicitly that the offering should be burned, as is the case with regard to piggul, the animal should be set aside until the next day, when its form has decayed.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞讟诪讗 讗讜 砖谞驻住诇 讛讘砖专 讗讜 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讝专讜拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讝专拽 讛讜专爪讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish based on another baraita, where it is taught: If the meat became impure or disqualified, or if it was taken out of the walls that delineate its permitted area, Rabbi Eliezer says: He sprinkles the blood of these offerings nonetheless, as in his opinion the blood may be sprinkled regardless of the status of the meat of the offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He does not sprinkle the blood unless the meat is fit to be brought as an offering. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if the blood was sprinkled, the offering is accepted.


诪讗讬 谞驻住诇 诇讗讜 讘讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪专爪讬 爪讬抓 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讛讜讬 讗诪讗讬 讛讜专爪讛 (爪讬抓)


The Gemara clarifies: To what type of disqualification is the baraita referring? Is it not disqualification on account of a diversion of attention? It cannot be a case where it was disqualified due to impurity or being taken outside of the walls, since these are mentioned explicitly. Granted, if you say that a diversion of attention is a disqualification based on a concern about ritual impurity, this is how you can find a case that the offering is accepted because the frontplate atones for cases where there is a disqualification related to ritual impurity. But if you say that it is an inherent disqualification, why is the offering accepted according to Rabbi Yehoshua, given that it is a disqualified offering?


诪讗讬 谞驻住诇 谞驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟诪讗 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讟诪讗


Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish rejects this interpretation of the baraita: No, this is not a case where the offering was disqualified due to a diversion of attention. In what way was the offering disqualified? It was disqualified due to contact with one who immersed himself during the day. One who immersed himself during the day invalidates items due to ritual impurity. Although these items themselves are invalidated, they cannot in turn render other items ritually impure. The Gemara asks: If that is so, this is the same as the disqualification of ritual impurity. What, then, is the difference between this disqualification and that of ritual impurity previously mentioned by the baraita? The Gemara answers that two types of ritual impurity are mentioned here: One type of impurity can also impart impurity to other objects, and a second type can invalidate another object but will not impart impurity.


讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬转讘讬 讘讗专注讗 讚讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬转讜谉 砖诪注转转讗 讚诪讞砖讻讜 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讻讜 讛讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗


When Ravin ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha of Rav Sheshet before Rabbi Yirmeya. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because you dwell in a dark land, you state halakhot that are dim. Have you not heard this statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Oshaya?


诪讬 讛讞讙 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讛砖讬拽谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛砖讬拽谉 讟诪讗讬诐


Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to the water used for the water libation during the festival of Sukkot which was drawn over the course of the day in order to be poured the next day and consequently became impure, the following distinction applies: If it was brought into contact with a ritual bath of pure water and was then consecrated, it is ritually pure. However, if it was consecrated and was then brought into contact with the ritual bath, it is ritually impure.


诪讻讚讬 讝专讬注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 讛砖讬拽谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖谉 诪讛 诇讬 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛砖讬拽谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讝专讬注讛 诇讛拽讚砖 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讝专讬注讛 诇转专讜诪讛


The question arises: Since this type of purification is similar to planting, as when the impure water came in contact with the water of the ritual bath, it is considered as though the water was planted in the ground and thereby purified, what does it matter if it was brought into contact and then consecrated or consecrated and then brought into contact? Apparently planting is not effective with regard to consecrated items, i.e., such items are not purified through this process. Therefore, here too, planting is not effective with regard to teruma. Despite the fact that planting is generally effective in removing the impure status of the water, the Sages imposed higher standards with regard to consecrated items. Similarly, the Sages imposed higher standards for removing the teruma status of the plants. One can explain that the produce grown from teruma mentioned in the baraita remains prohibited for non-priests because it is still considered teruma.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘讻诇讬 拽讗诪专 讗讘诇 讘驻讛 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘驻讛 谞诪讬 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛


Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha that was stated by Rav Oshaya with regard to principle of bringing liquid into contact with a ritual bath. Abaye said to him: Did Rav Oshaya state his ruling that bringing a liquid into contact with a ritual bath is not effective for consecrated items with regard to a case where he consecrated the water by placing it in a sacred vessel, but if he consecrated it through speech then the Sages did not impose a higher standard, in which case the water can be purified by being brought into contact with a ritual bath? Or perhaps the Sages imposed a higher standard in a case where one consecrates it through speech as well?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讚专讻谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 讛拽讚讬砖谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讚专讻谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讗 注谞讘讬诐 讚拽讚讜砖转 驻讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛


Rav Dimi said to him: I did not hear the halakha with regard to this case; however, I heard the halakha with regard to a similar case. As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure, if one trod on them and afterward consecrated them, they are pure. According to this opinion, the wine inside the grape does not become impure from the grape itself. However, if he consecrated the grapes and afterward pressed them, they are impure, because the halakha is especially stringent with regard consecrated items. And yet with regard to grapes which are only consecrated through speech, as the wine/grapes offered on the altar are not brought in a sacred vessel, even so, the Sages imposed a higher standard such that these grapes become impure after they have been consecrated.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 注谞讘讬诐 拽讗诪专转 讛讻讗 讘注谞讘讬诐 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讚讜砖转 驻讛 讚讬讚讛讜 讻拽讚讜砖转 讻诇讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚讘注讬 讻诇讬 讘驻讛 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛


Rav Yosef said: This case does not serve as a proof since you spoke of grapes, and here we are dealing with grapes of teruma, whose consecration through speech is comparable to consecration in a sacred vessel, as teruma cannot be consecrated by being placed in a sacred vessel. However, with regard to those items that require a sacred vessel in order to be fully consecrated, such as water used for a libation, the Sages did not impose a higher standard in a case where one consecrated it through speech. Therefore, this case cannot be used to resolve Abaye鈥檚 question.


讚专讻谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 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


The Gemara asks about Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement with regard to wine pressed from impure grapes: The phrase if one tread upon them is stated without qualification, indicating that the wine is ritually pure even if he pressed many grapes at once. And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure grapes, one should tread on them less than an egg-bulk at a time. When there is less than an egg-bulk of grapes, they do not impart ritual impurity.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛转诐 讚谞讙注讜 诇讛讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讗讬谞讛讜 砖谞讬 讛讻讗 讚谞讙注讜 讘砖谞讬 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖诇讬砖讬


The Gemara answers: If you wish, say this answer: Here, too, it is to be understood that one must tread on less than an egg-bulk at a time. And if you wish, say this answer instead: There, where the Gemara requires less than an egg-bulk, it is a case where the grapes came into contact with an item that was impure with first-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with second-degree ritual impurity. When a liquid touches an object that is impure with second-degree ritual impurity, it becomes impure by rabbinic decree with first-degree ritual impurity. Therefore, in that case one must be careful to tread only on less than an egg-bulk at a time. Here, it is speaking of a case where they came into contact with an item that was impure with second-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with third-degree ritual impurity. In that case, the liquid that comes out of the grapes would not become ritually impure at all.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讗诇 讻诇讬 砖转讛讗 讞讬讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜谞转谉 讗诇诪讗 转诇讜砖讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜


Rava said: We, too, have learned that the Sages created higher standards with regard to consecrated items. As it was taught that the verse says with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd for the impure they shall take the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall put flowing water into a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17), which teaches that the flowing water from the spring should flow directly into the vessel in which it will be sanctified. On the other hand, the verse says 鈥渁nd he shall put,鈥 meaning that the water should be poured into the vessel. Apparently the water is detached, but it is clearly attached to the spring, as it was previously stated that the water must flow directly into the vessel.


Scroll To Top