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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 20, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘讗讚专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

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

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

Shabbat 14

Which tannaitic opinion is reflected in the mishna in Zavim quoted by the gemara which listed that one who eats food that is a rishon/first degree or a sheni/second degree would disqualify teruma, but the teruma itself would not be able to pass on impurities (it would make the teruma a shlishi/third degree). Why does one who eats these impurites disqualify teruma? The gemara proceeds to go through the list of the other ordinances related to impurities and explain why the rabbis instituted each ordinance. The gemara then questions the fact that the students of Shamai and Hillel decreed that if one’s hands touch food, it disqualifies teruma – wasn’t this instituted by Shamai and Hillel themselves? After answering this question, the gemara then suggests that King Solomon decreed this – how can that be explained?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诇讗 诪讟诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 诇拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

do not render it impure; in other words, they do not render the teruma capable of transmitting impurity to other items? Rabba bar bar 岣na said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status assumes first degree ritual impurity status, and anything with first degree ritual impurity status renders teruma impure. And one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status assumes second degree ritual impurity status. One who eats food with third degree ritual impurity status assumes third degree ritual impurity status. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status assume second degree ritual impurity status. One with second degree ritual impurity status who comes into contact with teruma disqualifies it and does not render it impure. One who eats food with third degree ritual impurity status assumes second degree ritual impurity status vis-脿-vis consecrated items, and he does not assume second degree ritual impurity status vis-脿-vis teruma. Eating an item with third degree ritual impurity status is only feasible in the case of non-sacred items, as eating impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma.

讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讻讬诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖拽讬诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讜砖讚讬 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讜驻住讬诇 诇讛讜

With regard to the decree itself, the Gemara asks: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him, rendering him impure? The Gemara answers: Because at times one eats impure food, and takes liquids of teruma, and casts them into his mouth and disqualifies the liquids, as the impure food comes into contact with the liquid in his mouth and disqualifies it. To prevent this, the Sages decreed that one who eats impure food becomes impure and must refrain from touching teruma at all.

砖讜转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖拽讬诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讜砖讚讬 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讜驻住讬诇 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Similarly, the Gemara asks: One who drinks impure liquids; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? The Gemara answers: Because at times one drinks impure liquids, and takes teruma foods, and casts them in his mouth, and disqualifies them. The Gemara asks: This decree is the same as that decree as they were issued for one reason. Why did the mishna list them separately and consider them two different decrees? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this, people who eat impure food, is common; as it is common for one eating to drink. Consequently, one who eats impure food is likely to drink teruma liquid. And, however, that, one drinking impure liquids who would put food in his mouth while drinking is uncommon. As a result, it is conceivable to say that the Sages did not issue a decree in an uncommon case. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in that instance the Sages decreed impurity.

讜讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讬讜 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讘诪讬 诪注专讜转 诪讻讜谞住讬谉 讜住专讜讞讬谉 讜讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讜注砖讗讜诐 拽讘注 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛诐 讟讜诪讗讛

Among the eighteen decrees that the Sages issued on that day, we also learned: And one whose head and most of his body come into drawn water is impure by rabbinic decree. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? Rav Beivai said that Rav Asi said: The reason for this is that originally they would immerse to become purified in cave water that was collected, still, and foul. Although this water purified them, due to its stench, the people immersing themselves would pour on themselves drawn water in order to clean themselves. Once they began this custom and transformed it into an established part of the ritual, the Sages issued a decree on the drawn water, rendering it impure, to prevent them from washing with it after immersion.

诪讗讬 拽讘注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 拽讗 讟讘诇讬 讘讛谞讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this, that they transformed it into an established part of the ritual? Abaye said that they would say: The cave water is not what purifies; rather this, the cave water, and that, the drawn water, together purify. Rava said to him: What difference does it make if they say that? Ultimately, aren鈥檛 they immersing in the cave water? As long as they immersed themselves properly, it matters not if they misunderstand the reason. Rather, Rava said: The problem is that eventually they would say: This, the cave water, is not what purifies; rather, that, the drawn water, purifies. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of drawn water after purification.

讜讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讗

And the Sages decreed impurity upon a ritually pure person that three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon him? The reason for the decree is that if it were not for this decree that a ritually pure person, who does not require immersion, becomes impure when drawn water falls on him, then that, the first decree, would not stand. People would not distinguish between a person who was pure from the start and one who was just purified upon emerging from immersion.

讜住驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讬讜 诪爪谞讬注讬谉 讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讗爪诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专讜 讛讗讬 拽讚砖 讜讛讗讬 拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讞讝讜 讚拽讗转讜 诇讬讚讬 驻住讬讚讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: And a Torah scroll; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon it? Rav Mesharshiya said: Since at first, ignorant priests would conceal teruma foods alongside the Torah scroll, and they said in explaining that method of storage: This is sacred and that is sacred, and it is appropriate that they be stored together. Since the Sages saw that they were coming to ruin, as the mice who were attracted to the teruma foods would also gnaw at the Torah scrolls, the Sages decreed impurity upon it. Once they issued the decree of impurity on the Torah scroll, the priests no longer placed teruma near it.

讜讛讬讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讚讬诐 注住拽谞讬讜转 讛谉 转谞讗 讗祝 讬讚讬诐 讛讘讗讜转 诪讞诪转 住驻专 驻讜住诇讜转 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜讞讝 住驻专 转讜专讛 注专讜诐 谞拽讘专 注专讜诐 注专讜诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注专讜诐 讘诇讗 诪爪讜转 讘诇讗 诪爪讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注专讜诐 讘诇讗 讗讜转讛 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: And the hands; the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon them is because hands are busy. A person鈥檚 hands tend to touch dirty or impure objects. Since one does not always pay attention to what his hands touch, and it is inappropriate for holy food to be touched by dirty hands, the Sages decreed impurity. It was taught in a baraita: Even hands that come to be impure due to contact with a Torah scroll disqualify the teruma. The reason for this decree is because of the statement of Rabbi Parnakh, as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who holds a Torah scroll in a manner that the scroll is exposed without a covering; his punishment is that he is buried naked. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind to say that he will actually be buried naked? Why should he suffer such ignominy for this sin? Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: He is buried naked, i.e., without mitzvot. And the Gemara wonders further: Does it enter your mind to say that he should be buried naked in the sense of without mitzvot? Will he be stripped of all his merit due to that sin? Rather, say he is buried naked, i.e., without that mitzva. If he touches an uncovered Torah scroll, even for the purpose of performing a mitzva, he is not credited with that mitzva because he performed it inappropriately.

讛讬 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: Which of these decrees did the Sages issue first? If you say that they issued this decree, impurity of hands in general, first,

讻讬讜谉 讚讛讱 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讱 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讙讝讜专 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讬讚讬诐

once they decreed that first, why do I need that decree of impurity on hands that touch a sacred scroll as well? Once the Sages decreed impurity on hands in general, there is no longer a necessity to decree impurity on hands that touched a Torah scroll, as hands are impure in any case. Rather, certainly the Sages decreed impurity on this, hands that touched a Torah scroll, first. And then they decreed impurity on all hands.

讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讜讟讛专 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

Among the decrees listed in the mishna, there is the decree that contact with one who immersed himself during the day disqualifies teruma. The Gemara asks: One who immersed himself during the day transmits impurity by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淥ne who touches it remains impure until evening. He should not eat of the consecrated items and he must wash his flesh with water. And the sun sets and it is purified. Afterward, he may eat from the teruma, for it is his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:6鈥7). Consequently, until sunset he is prohibited by Torah law from touching consecrated items, and the same is true for teruma. The Gemara answers: Delete from here, from the list of decrees in the mishna, one who immersed himself during the day.

讜讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬诐 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓

And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the impurity of the foods that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: With liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, they are impure by Torah law, as it is written with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淎nd every liquid that is drunk in any vessel, will be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). Rather, the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with impure hands. The Sages issued this decree due to liquids that come to be impure through contact with a creeping animal.

讜讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚讝讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬专讜拽 讛讝讘 讘讟讛讜专 诪讛 砖讘讬讚 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讝讘

And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the vessels that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: Vessels that became impure due to contact with liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that they become impure due to contact with liquids secreted by a zav, e.g., spittle, urine, etc., they are impure by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a zav spits on a pure person and he should wash his clothes and wash in water and he is impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:8). The Sages interpreted homiletically: Whatever is in the hand of the pure person I made impure for you. Not only did the person who came into contact with the liquids of the zav become impure, but the objects in his hand did as well. Rather, here it is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, which by Torah law do not transmit impurity to vessels. And the Sages issued a decree with regard to those liquids due to their similarity to the liquids of a zav.

讜讬讚讬诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讙讝讜专 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讙讝讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 讜讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬砖 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转讬拽谉 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗砖讛 讜讙讝专 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讛讬讚讬诐

Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yo岣nan of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shata岣 instituted the formula of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖诪讗讬 讜住讬注转讜 讜讛诇诇 讜住讬注转讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讙讝专讜 讜讘砖诪谞讛 注砖专 谞讞诇拽讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讛诇诇 讜砖诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞讞诇拽讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 诇转诇讜转 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讬讛讜 讜讙讝专讜 诇砖专讜祝 讜讛讗诪专 讗讬诇驻讗 讬讚讬诐 转讞诇转 讙讝讬专转谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讬讛讜 讙讝专讜 讜拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

And if you say that the baraita is referring to Shammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with hands would be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burn teruma that came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. Didn鈥檛 Ilfa, one of the Sages, say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. Teruma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a decree and the people did not accept the decree from them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they accepted it from them.

讜讗讻转讬 砖诇诪讛 讙讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖转讬拽谉 砖诇诪讛 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讜谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讘谞讬 讗诐 讞讻诐 诇讘讱 讬砖诪讞 诇讘讬 讙诐 讗谞讬 讞讻诐 讘谞讬 讜砖诪讞 诇讘讬 讜讗砖讬讘讛 讞讜专驻讬 讚讘专 讗转讗

The Gemara asks further: Still, the matter is not clear, as the decree of hands was issued by King Solomon. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: At the time that Solomon instituted the ordinances of eiruv and of washing hands to purify them from their impurity, a Divine Voice emerged and said in his praise: 鈥淢y son, if your heart is wise my heart will be glad, even mine鈥 (Proverbs 23:15), and so too: 鈥淢y son, be wise and make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt me鈥 (Proverbs 27: 11). The Gemara responds: Came

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One week at a Time -Shabbat 12-18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz6ZWYxaTc   This week we will learn key concepts from Daf 12-18 including the Laws of Purity and...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 14: Making the Torah Off-Limits

The impurity of the Sefer Torah - what? Why?! Busy hands. With a note that pure/impure are not value judgements....
Ilana Kurshan

Daf Yomi in the Time of Corona- Vayakhel-Pekudei

I began learning Masechet Shabbat against the backdrop of the Corona Crisis, as I gradually realized that people all over...

Shabbat 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 14

诇讗 诪讟诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 诇拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

do not render it impure; in other words, they do not render the teruma capable of transmitting impurity to other items? Rabba bar bar 岣na said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status assumes first degree ritual impurity status, and anything with first degree ritual impurity status renders teruma impure. And one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status assumes second degree ritual impurity status. One who eats food with third degree ritual impurity status assumes third degree ritual impurity status. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status assume second degree ritual impurity status. One with second degree ritual impurity status who comes into contact with teruma disqualifies it and does not render it impure. One who eats food with third degree ritual impurity status assumes second degree ritual impurity status vis-脿-vis consecrated items, and he does not assume second degree ritual impurity status vis-脿-vis teruma. Eating an item with third degree ritual impurity status is only feasible in the case of non-sacred items, as eating impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma.

讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讻讬诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖拽讬诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讜砖讚讬 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讜驻住讬诇 诇讛讜

With regard to the decree itself, the Gemara asks: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him, rendering him impure? The Gemara answers: Because at times one eats impure food, and takes liquids of teruma, and casts them into his mouth and disqualifies the liquids, as the impure food comes into contact with the liquid in his mouth and disqualifies it. To prevent this, the Sages decreed that one who eats impure food becomes impure and must refrain from touching teruma at all.

砖讜转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖拽讬诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讜砖讚讬 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讜驻住讬诇 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Similarly, the Gemara asks: One who drinks impure liquids; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? The Gemara answers: Because at times one drinks impure liquids, and takes teruma foods, and casts them in his mouth, and disqualifies them. The Gemara asks: This decree is the same as that decree as they were issued for one reason. Why did the mishna list them separately and consider them two different decrees? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this, people who eat impure food, is common; as it is common for one eating to drink. Consequently, one who eats impure food is likely to drink teruma liquid. And, however, that, one drinking impure liquids who would put food in his mouth while drinking is uncommon. As a result, it is conceivable to say that the Sages did not issue a decree in an uncommon case. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in that instance the Sages decreed impurity.

讜讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讬讜 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讘诪讬 诪注专讜转 诪讻讜谞住讬谉 讜住专讜讞讬谉 讜讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讜注砖讗讜诐 拽讘注 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛诐 讟讜诪讗讛

Among the eighteen decrees that the Sages issued on that day, we also learned: And one whose head and most of his body come into drawn water is impure by rabbinic decree. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? Rav Beivai said that Rav Asi said: The reason for this is that originally they would immerse to become purified in cave water that was collected, still, and foul. Although this water purified them, due to its stench, the people immersing themselves would pour on themselves drawn water in order to clean themselves. Once they began this custom and transformed it into an established part of the ritual, the Sages issued a decree on the drawn water, rendering it impure, to prevent them from washing with it after immersion.

诪讗讬 拽讘注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 拽讗 讟讘诇讬 讘讛谞讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 诪讟讛专讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this, that they transformed it into an established part of the ritual? Abaye said that they would say: The cave water is not what purifies; rather this, the cave water, and that, the drawn water, together purify. Rava said to him: What difference does it make if they say that? Ultimately, aren鈥檛 they immersing in the cave water? As long as they immersed themselves properly, it matters not if they misunderstand the reason. Rather, Rava said: The problem is that eventually they would say: This, the cave water, is not what purifies; rather, that, the drawn water, purifies. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of drawn water after purification.

讜讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讗

And the Sages decreed impurity upon a ritually pure person that three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon him? The reason for the decree is that if it were not for this decree that a ritually pure person, who does not require immersion, becomes impure when drawn water falls on him, then that, the first decree, would not stand. People would not distinguish between a person who was pure from the start and one who was just purified upon emerging from immersion.

讜住驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讬讜 诪爪谞讬注讬谉 讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 讗爪诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专讜 讛讗讬 拽讚砖 讜讛讗讬 拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讞讝讜 讚拽讗转讜 诇讬讚讬 驻住讬讚讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: And a Torah scroll; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon it? Rav Mesharshiya said: Since at first, ignorant priests would conceal teruma foods alongside the Torah scroll, and they said in explaining that method of storage: This is sacred and that is sacred, and it is appropriate that they be stored together. Since the Sages saw that they were coming to ruin, as the mice who were attracted to the teruma foods would also gnaw at the Torah scrolls, the Sages decreed impurity upon it. Once they issued the decree of impurity on the Torah scroll, the priests no longer placed teruma near it.

讜讛讬讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讚讬诐 注住拽谞讬讜转 讛谉 转谞讗 讗祝 讬讚讬诐 讛讘讗讜转 诪讞诪转 住驻专 驻讜住诇讜转 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜讞讝 住驻专 转讜专讛 注专讜诐 谞拽讘专 注专讜诐 注专讜诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注专讜诐 讘诇讗 诪爪讜转 讘诇讗 诪爪讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注专讜诐 讘诇讗 讗讜转讛 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: And the hands; the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon them is because hands are busy. A person鈥檚 hands tend to touch dirty or impure objects. Since one does not always pay attention to what his hands touch, and it is inappropriate for holy food to be touched by dirty hands, the Sages decreed impurity. It was taught in a baraita: Even hands that come to be impure due to contact with a Torah scroll disqualify the teruma. The reason for this decree is because of the statement of Rabbi Parnakh, as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who holds a Torah scroll in a manner that the scroll is exposed without a covering; his punishment is that he is buried naked. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind to say that he will actually be buried naked? Why should he suffer such ignominy for this sin? Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: He is buried naked, i.e., without mitzvot. And the Gemara wonders further: Does it enter your mind to say that he should be buried naked in the sense of without mitzvot? Will he be stripped of all his merit due to that sin? Rather, say he is buried naked, i.e., without that mitzva. If he touches an uncovered Torah scroll, even for the purpose of performing a mitzva, he is not credited with that mitzva because he performed it inappropriately.

讛讬 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: Which of these decrees did the Sages issue first? If you say that they issued this decree, impurity of hands in general, first,

讻讬讜谉 讚讛讱 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讱 讙讝讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讙讝讜专 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讬讚讬诐

once they decreed that first, why do I need that decree of impurity on hands that touch a sacred scroll as well? Once the Sages decreed impurity on hands in general, there is no longer a necessity to decree impurity on hands that touched a Torah scroll, as hands are impure in any case. Rather, certainly the Sages decreed impurity on this, hands that touched a Torah scroll, first. And then they decreed impurity on all hands.

讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讜讟讛专 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

Among the decrees listed in the mishna, there is the decree that contact with one who immersed himself during the day disqualifies teruma. The Gemara asks: One who immersed himself during the day transmits impurity by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淥ne who touches it remains impure until evening. He should not eat of the consecrated items and he must wash his flesh with water. And the sun sets and it is purified. Afterward, he may eat from the teruma, for it is his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:6鈥7). Consequently, until sunset he is prohibited by Torah law from touching consecrated items, and the same is true for teruma. The Gemara answers: Delete from here, from the list of decrees in the mishna, one who immersed himself during the day.

讜讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讗砖专 讬砖转讛 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬诐 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓

And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the impurity of the foods that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: With liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, they are impure by Torah law, as it is written with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淎nd every liquid that is drunk in any vessel, will be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). Rather, the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with impure hands. The Sages issued this decree due to liquids that come to be impure through contact with a creeping animal.

讜讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚讝讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬专讜拽 讛讝讘 讘讟讛讜专 诪讛 砖讘讬讚 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讝讘

And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the vessels that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: Vessels that became impure due to contact with liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that they become impure due to contact with liquids secreted by a zav, e.g., spittle, urine, etc., they are impure by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a zav spits on a pure person and he should wash his clothes and wash in water and he is impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:8). The Sages interpreted homiletically: Whatever is in the hand of the pure person I made impure for you. Not only did the person who came into contact with the liquids of the zav become impure, but the objects in his hand did as well. Rather, here it is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, which by Torah law do not transmit impurity to vessels. And the Sages issued a decree with regard to those liquids due to their similarity to the liquids of a zav.

讜讬讚讬诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讙讝讜专 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讙讝讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 讜讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬砖 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转讬拽谉 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗砖讛 讜讙讝专 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讛讬讚讬诐

Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yo岣nan of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shata岣 instituted the formula of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖诪讗讬 讜住讬注转讜 讜讛诇诇 讜住讬注转讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讙讝专讜 讜讘砖诪谞讛 注砖专 谞讞诇拽讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讛诇诇 讜砖诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞讞诇拽讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 诇转诇讜转 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讬讛讜 讜讙讝专讜 诇砖专讜祝 讜讛讗诪专 讗讬诇驻讗 讬讚讬诐 转讞诇转 讙讝讬专转谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讬讛讜 讙讝专讜 讜拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

And if you say that the baraita is referring to Shammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with hands would be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burn teruma that came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. Didn鈥檛 Ilfa, one of the Sages, say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. Teruma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a decree and the people did not accept the decree from them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they accepted it from them.

讜讗讻转讬 砖诇诪讛 讙讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖转讬拽谉 砖诇诪讛 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讜谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讘谞讬 讗诐 讞讻诐 诇讘讱 讬砖诪讞 诇讘讬 讙诐 讗谞讬 讞讻诐 讘谞讬 讜砖诪讞 诇讘讬 讜讗砖讬讘讛 讞讜专驻讬 讚讘专 讗转讗

The Gemara asks further: Still, the matter is not clear, as the decree of hands was issued by King Solomon. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: At the time that Solomon instituted the ordinances of eiruv and of washing hands to purify them from their impurity, a Divine Voice emerged and said in his praise: 鈥淢y son, if your heart is wise my heart will be glad, even mine鈥 (Proverbs 23:15), and so too: 鈥淢y son, be wise and make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt me鈥 (Proverbs 27: 11). The Gemara responds: Came

Scroll To Top