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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 24, 2015 | 讬状讘 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讜

  • 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.

Sotah 29

From where do we derive that a suspected Sotah is forbidden to marry a Kohen? 聽From where do we learn that a second level impure item聽can impart impurity to another item if it is truma?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖讛专讬 注砖讛 讘讛 住驻拽 讝讜谞讛 讻讝讜谞讛 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 拽专讗 砖讛专讬 注砖讛 讘讛 住驻拽 讝讜谞讛 讻讝讜谞讛

as the Torah has already rendered an uncertain case of a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona] as though she is certainly a zona, since a sota is forbidden to her husband after seclusion even though there are no witnesses that she committed adultery, and therefore it should be prohibited for her to marry a priest just like any zona, then with regard to her prohibition against partaking of teruma a verse should also not be necessary, as it is prohibited for a zona to partake of teruma. Therefore, the Torah renders an uncertain zona like a certain zona.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗专讘注讛 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讜讞讚 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 诇转专讜诪讛

Rather, it must be explained that according to Rabbi Akiva, the equivalent of four verses worthy of exposition are written with regard to the defilement of a sota, as he maintains that an additional halakha should be derived from the superfluous prefix vav in the verse: 鈥淎nd is defiled [venitma鈥檃]鈥 (Numbers 5:29). Therefore, one verse is written to forbid her to her husband, and one is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is to forbid her to marry into the priesthood, and one is to forbid her to partake of teruma.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讜讞讚 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讻讛讜谞讛 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

And Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he does not expound on the superfluous vav, and therefore maintains that only three verses are written: One is to forbid her to her husband, and one is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is to forbid her to partake of teruma. And her being prohibited to marry into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori inference, as described in the baraita.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讻讛讜谞讛 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜转专讜诪讛 砖专讬讗

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that the verse was necessary to teach the prohibition of a sota to partake of teruma, and her prohibition against marrying into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori inference? Perhaps the verse was necessary in order to teach that it is prohibited for the woman to marry into the priesthood, but teruma is permitted for her?

讗诪专 诇讱 诪住转讘专讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘注诇 讜讘讜注诇 诪讛 讘注诇 讜讘讜注诇 诪讞讬讬诐 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you: It is reasonable to derive from this verse a prohibition that is similar to the prohibitions derived from the other verses, i.e., that she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour even during the lifetime of her husband, so too, the prohibition against partaking of teruma applies also during the lifetime of her husband, to the exclusion of her prohibition against marrying into the priesthood, which is relevant only after the death of her husband. The reason is that if her husband would divorce her it would be prohibited for her to marry a priest anyway.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘注诇 讜讘讜注诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛

And how would Rabbi Akiva respond? The Gemara answers: He is not of the opinion that it is more reasonable to derive a prohibition from the phrase 鈥渁nd is defiled鈥 that is similar to the prohibitions involving her husband and her paramour, and therefore he requires two separate derivations; one for teruma and one for the priesthood.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

Or alternatively, perhaps he accepts the opinion that the halakha derived from 鈥渁nd is defiled鈥 should be similar to the prohibitions involving the husband and paramour, but nevertheless, in certain instances with regard to a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes explicitly. Therefore, although unnecessary, two verses are stated, one for teruma and one for the priesthood.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讚讗讬 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讗 住驻拽 讟诪讗 讜住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇

The Gemara continues discussing the baraita. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The halakha with regard to an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked and an entity that lacks awareness in order for it to be asked in cases of uncertain ritual impurity is derived from this verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). This would seem to indicate that specifically food that is impure for certain is that which shall not be eaten, but food for which it is uncertain whether it is impure and uncertain whether it is pure can be eaten.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讛讘砖专 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讚讗讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讚讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讛讗 住驻拽 讟诪讗 讜住驻拽 讟讛讜专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇

However, say the latter clause of the verse: 鈥淎nd as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), which would seem to indicate that specifically one who is pure for certain is one who shall eat meat, but one for whom it is uncertain whether he is impure and uncertain whether he is pure shall not eat. The two clauses in the verse seem to contradict one another with regard to the status of uncertain purity.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇

Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Torah differentiates between two different types of uncertainty? Here, the latter clause, which discusses 鈥渆very one that is pure,鈥 is referring to an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked, e.g., a person, who is considered impure if he is uncertain whether he contracted ritual impurity. There, the former clause which discusses impure meat presents the principle of an entity that lacks awareness in order for it to be asked, where an uncertain case of ritual impurity is deemed pure.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讙诪专 诪住讜讟讛 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讙诪专 诪住讜讟讛

The Gemara explains the need for two separate derivations concerning uncertain contractions of ritual impurity: And the derivation that Rav Giddel said that Rav said was necessary, and it was also necessary to derive the principle of uncertain ritual impurity from sota; since if it were derived only through the derivation of Rav, I would say that it makes no difference whether the uncertain contraction of impurity occurred in the private domain or whether it occurred in the public domain. Therefore, it was necessary to derive from sota that uncertain impurity is considered impure only in the private domain.

讜讗讬 诪住讜讟讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讚注转 谞讜讙注 讜诪讙讬注 爪专讬讻讗

And if it is derived only from sota, I would say that similar to sota, where both the woman and the paramour possess awareness in order to be asked if they committed the act, so too, items with uncertain impurity should not be deemed impure unless there is awareness on the part of both the one who touches the impure item and the one who causes him to touch, i.e., the agent of impurity and the recipient of impurity are both competent people. Therefore, the derivation of Rav was necessary, as it teaches that in an uncertain case of impurity in the private domain, one is deemed impure even if only the contractor of impurity possesses the awareness to be asked.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 讞专砖 讻讜壮

搂 It is stated in the mishna: On that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the phrase 鈥渟hall be impure鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it鈥 (Leviticus 11:33), as indicating that a loaf that has second-degree ritual impurity can render other food with which it comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua related that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai had predicted that a future generation would purify a loaf that contracted third-degree impurity, as there is no explicit verse in the Torah stating that this degree of impurity exists.

讜诪讗讞专 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 诇诪讛 讟诪讗

The Gemara asks: But since the loaf does not have an explicit verse stating that it is impure, why did Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai himself maintain that it is impure?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讚讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讜诪讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诪讜转专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖驻住讜诇 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘转专讜诪讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai maintained that although it has no explicit basis from a verse in the Torah, it has proof for its impurity through an a fortiori inference: If even one who immersed in a ritual bath that day and will become completely purified after nightfall, who is therefore permitted to touch non-sacred articles, i.e., he does not transmit impurity to them, disqualifies teruma that he touches, then with regard to a loaf that has second-degree impurity as result of contact with an impure item of the first degree, which is disqualified, i.e., it is rendered impure, even if it is non-sacred, isn鈥檛 it logical that it should impart third-degree impurity upon teruma?

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻谉 讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara challenges: This a fortiori inference can be refuted. What is unique about one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed is that prior to his immersion, he was a primary source of impurity. He therefore retains his stringent status even after immersion with regard to his capability of disqualifying teruma. The loaf, by contrast, has second-degree impurity from the outset, and should therefore be treated more lightly.

转讬转讬

The Gemara answers: Derive this halakha

诪讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚砖专抓

from one who immersed that day who was never a primary source of impurity, as he was rendered impure only through contact with a creeping animal, and nevertheless he disqualifies teruma upon contact.

诪讛 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚砖专抓 砖讻谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara continues to challenge the inference: What is unique about the impurity of one who immersed that day who was rendered impure through contact with a creeping animal is that this impurity can apply to either a person or a utensil, as people and utensils are capable of achieving purity through immersion, and within its type there can be a primary source of impurity. A loaf, however, is food, which can never be a primary source of impurity. It can only be rendered impure as a secondary source of impurity.

讻诇讬 讞专砖 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: The halakhot of an earthenware vessel can prove that the fact that there are primary sources of impurity within its type is not a relevant factor. An earthenware vessel can never become a primary source of impurity, and nevertheless, if it is impure it disqualifies teruma upon contact.

诪讛 诇讻诇讬 讞专砖 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讜讬专讜

The Gemara challenges: What is unique about an earthenware vessel is that unlike a loaf, it can render items impure or it can itself become impure from its airspace. An earthenware vessel is the only vessel that does not require direct contact with another item in order to contract or transfer impurity, but can effect or contract impurity through its airspace.

讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: One who immersed that day can prove that being able to render items impure through airspace is not a relevant factor. Such an item disqualifies teruma, but imparts impurity only through direct contact and not through its airspace.

讜讞讜讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖驻讜住诇 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讚驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛

And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common denominator is that non-sacred food they come into contact with is permitted, i.e., is not rendered impure, but they disqualify teruma. Therefore, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai infers a fortiori that all the more so, a loaf that contracted second-degree impurity, which is disqualified, i.e., rendered impure, even if it is non-sacred, should also disqualify teruma with which it comes into contact. This was Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 logical a fortiori inference that led him to rule that a loaf of second-degree impurity status disqualifies teruma.

讜讚讜专 讗讞专 驻专讬讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讞诪讜专

And another generation, i.e., the later generation that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai predicted would deem teruma that came into contact with second-degree impurity pure, would refute this inference as follows: What is unique about their common denominator is that both cases have a stringent aspect that does not exist in other impure items.

讜专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 爪讚 讞诪讜专 诇讗 驻专讬讱

And Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai maintained that teruma that came into contact with second-degree impurity is pure, as he would not refute an inference that is based on two sources due to the fact that both sources have a stringent aspect, since each source鈥檚 stringency is not shared by the other.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 砖驻住讜诇

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, 岣giga 3:18) that Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived with regard to sacrificial food with fourth-degree ritual impurity that it is disqualified although it is not capable of imparting impurity to other items?

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

It is derived through logical inference: Just as one who is lacking atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, who is permitted to partake of teruma, nevertheless disqualifies sacrificial food if he comes into contact with it, so too, with regard to an item of third-degree impurity status, which disqualifies teruma and is therefore more severe than one who is lacking atonement, is it not logical that it should render sacrificial food with which it comes into contact as having fourth-degree impurity?

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

The baraita concludes: And we have therefore derived that third-degree impurity applies to sacrificial food from an explicit verse in the Torah, and we have derived that fourth-degree impurity applies to sacrificial food by means of the above a fortiori inference.

砖诇讬砖讬 诇拽讜讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讙注 讘砖谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara asks: From where in the Torah do we derive that third-degree impurity applies to sacrificial food? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). Are we not dealing in the verse with meat that touches even an item of second-degree impurity? And the Merciful One states that it 鈥渟hall not be eaten,鈥 indicating that it assumes third-degree impurity. Therefore, fourth-degree impurity can be derived by means of the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Yosei, as we stated above.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讟注诐 讘专讬讘讬 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讛专讬 转砖讜讘转讜 讘爪讚讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 砖驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the reasoning behind the Distinguished Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 a fortiori inference, I do not know what it is, as the response to his inference is right by its side: Food whose impurity came from contact with one who immersed that day can prove that a degree of impurity that disqualifies teruma does not necessarily impart fourth-degree impurity to sacrificial food, as this food disqualifies teruma upon contact, but it does not impart fourth-degree impurity upon sacrificial food.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 转讞讬诇讛 诇拽讜讚砖 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讞讚

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 1:4) that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who immersed that day, until sunset he is treated as one who is impure with first-degree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, in that he is able to render two items of sacrificial food impure and to disqualify one additional item. In other words, the first item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of a second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first one assumes third-degree impurity. A third item that comes into contact with the second assumes fourth-degree impurity and is therefore disqualified from being eaten, though it cannot impart impurity to other items.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讗讞讚 讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诐 砖驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讜诪砖拽讬 转专讜诪讛 讻讱 驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 拽讜讚砖 讜诪砖拽讬 拽讜讚砖

Rabbi Meir says: One who immersed that day is considered im-pure with second-degree impurity, even vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, and as such renders only one item impure and disqualifies one additional item. And the Rabbis say: Just as he merely disqualifies teruma foods and teruma liquids, without transferring to them impurity that can then be transferred further, so too, he merely disqualifies sacrificial foods and sacrificial liquids. In other words, the impurity imparted by one who immersed that day can reach only third-degree impurity and not fourth-degree impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 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 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讞讚

Rav Pappa objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 argument: From where is the presumption derived that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? Perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who says that one who immersed that day is able to render two items of sacrificial food impure, and to disqualify one additional item.

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 诪讗讜讻诇 砖讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: If it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, he should have brought proof for the existence of a fourth degree of ritual impurity with regard to sacrificial food from the case of food whose impurity came from one who immersed that day, as follows:

讜诪讛 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专转 注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讜讻诇

Just as with regard to food whose impurity came from one who immersed that day, while the one who immersed that day is himself permitted to consume non-sacred food, nevertheless you say that the food imparts fourth-degree impurity status upon sacrificial food, then with regard to food

  • 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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sotah 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 29

砖讛专讬 注砖讛 讘讛 住驻拽 讝讜谞讛 讻讝讜谞讛 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 拽专讗 砖讛专讬 注砖讛 讘讛 住驻拽 讝讜谞讛 讻讝讜谞讛

as the Torah has already rendered an uncertain case of a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona] as though she is certainly a zona, since a sota is forbidden to her husband after seclusion even though there are no witnesses that she committed adultery, and therefore it should be prohibited for her to marry a priest just like any zona, then with regard to her prohibition against partaking of teruma a verse should also not be necessary, as it is prohibited for a zona to partake of teruma. Therefore, the Torah renders an uncertain zona like a certain zona.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗专讘注讛 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讜讞讚 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 诇转专讜诪讛

Rather, it must be explained that according to Rabbi Akiva, the equivalent of four verses worthy of exposition are written with regard to the defilement of a sota, as he maintains that an additional halakha should be derived from the superfluous prefix vav in the verse: 鈥淎nd is defiled [venitma鈥檃]鈥 (Numbers 5:29). Therefore, one verse is written to forbid her to her husband, and one is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is to forbid her to marry into the priesthood, and one is to forbid her to partake of teruma.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讜讞讚 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讻讛讜谞讛 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

And Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he does not expound on the superfluous vav, and therefore maintains that only three verses are written: One is to forbid her to her husband, and one is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is to forbid her to partake of teruma. And her being prohibited to marry into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori inference, as described in the baraita.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讻讛讜谞讛 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜转专讜诪讛 砖专讬讗

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that the verse was necessary to teach the prohibition of a sota to partake of teruma, and her prohibition against marrying into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori inference? Perhaps the verse was necessary in order to teach that it is prohibited for the woman to marry into the priesthood, but teruma is permitted for her?

讗诪专 诇讱 诪住转讘专讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘注诇 讜讘讜注诇 诪讛 讘注诇 讜讘讜注诇 诪讞讬讬诐 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讚诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you: It is reasonable to derive from this verse a prohibition that is similar to the prohibitions derived from the other verses, i.e., that she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour even during the lifetime of her husband, so too, the prohibition against partaking of teruma applies also during the lifetime of her husband, to the exclusion of her prohibition against marrying into the priesthood, which is relevant only after the death of her husband. The reason is that if her husband would divorce her it would be prohibited for her to marry a priest anyway.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讘注诇 讜讘讜注诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛

And how would Rabbi Akiva respond? The Gemara answers: He is not of the opinion that it is more reasonable to derive a prohibition from the phrase 鈥渁nd is defiled鈥 that is similar to the prohibitions involving her husband and her paramour, and therefore he requires two separate derivations; one for teruma and one for the priesthood.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

Or alternatively, perhaps he accepts the opinion that the halakha derived from 鈥渁nd is defiled鈥 should be similar to the prohibitions involving the husband and paramour, but nevertheless, in certain instances with regard to a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes explicitly. Therefore, although unnecessary, two verses are stated, one for teruma and one for the priesthood.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讚讗讬 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讗 住驻拽 讟诪讗 讜住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇

The Gemara continues discussing the baraita. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The halakha with regard to an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked and an entity that lacks awareness in order for it to be asked in cases of uncertain ritual impurity is derived from this verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). This would seem to indicate that specifically food that is impure for certain is that which shall not be eaten, but food for which it is uncertain whether it is impure and uncertain whether it is pure can be eaten.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讛讘砖专 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讚讗讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讚讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讛讗 住驻拽 讟诪讗 讜住驻拽 讟讛讜专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇

However, say the latter clause of the verse: 鈥淎nd as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), which would seem to indicate that specifically one who is pure for certain is one who shall eat meat, but one for whom it is uncertain whether he is impure and uncertain whether he is pure shall not eat. The two clauses in the verse seem to contradict one another with regard to the status of uncertain purity.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇

Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Torah differentiates between two different types of uncertainty? Here, the latter clause, which discusses 鈥渆very one that is pure,鈥 is referring to an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked, e.g., a person, who is considered impure if he is uncertain whether he contracted ritual impurity. There, the former clause which discusses impure meat presents the principle of an entity that lacks awareness in order for it to be asked, where an uncertain case of ritual impurity is deemed pure.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讙诪专 诪住讜讟讛 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讙诪专 诪住讜讟讛

The Gemara explains the need for two separate derivations concerning uncertain contractions of ritual impurity: And the derivation that Rav Giddel said that Rav said was necessary, and it was also necessary to derive the principle of uncertain ritual impurity from sota; since if it were derived only through the derivation of Rav, I would say that it makes no difference whether the uncertain contraction of impurity occurred in the private domain or whether it occurred in the public domain. Therefore, it was necessary to derive from sota that uncertain impurity is considered impure only in the private domain.

讜讗讬 诪住讜讟讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讚注转 谞讜讙注 讜诪讙讬注 爪专讬讻讗

And if it is derived only from sota, I would say that similar to sota, where both the woman and the paramour possess awareness in order to be asked if they committed the act, so too, items with uncertain impurity should not be deemed impure unless there is awareness on the part of both the one who touches the impure item and the one who causes him to touch, i.e., the agent of impurity and the recipient of impurity are both competent people. Therefore, the derivation of Rav was necessary, as it teaches that in an uncertain case of impurity in the private domain, one is deemed impure even if only the contractor of impurity possesses the awareness to be asked.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 讞专砖 讻讜壮

搂 It is stated in the mishna: On that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the phrase 鈥渟hall be impure鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it鈥 (Leviticus 11:33), as indicating that a loaf that has second-degree ritual impurity can render other food with which it comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua related that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai had predicted that a future generation would purify a loaf that contracted third-degree impurity, as there is no explicit verse in the Torah stating that this degree of impurity exists.

讜诪讗讞专 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 诇诪讛 讟诪讗

The Gemara asks: But since the loaf does not have an explicit verse stating that it is impure, why did Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai himself maintain that it is impure?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讚讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讜诪讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诪讜转专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖驻住讜诇 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘转专讜诪讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai maintained that although it has no explicit basis from a verse in the Torah, it has proof for its impurity through an a fortiori inference: If even one who immersed in a ritual bath that day and will become completely purified after nightfall, who is therefore permitted to touch non-sacred articles, i.e., he does not transmit impurity to them, disqualifies teruma that he touches, then with regard to a loaf that has second-degree impurity as result of contact with an impure item of the first degree, which is disqualified, i.e., it is rendered impure, even if it is non-sacred, isn鈥檛 it logical that it should impart third-degree impurity upon teruma?

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻谉 讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara challenges: This a fortiori inference can be refuted. What is unique about one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed is that prior to his immersion, he was a primary source of impurity. He therefore retains his stringent status even after immersion with regard to his capability of disqualifying teruma. The loaf, by contrast, has second-degree impurity from the outset, and should therefore be treated more lightly.

转讬转讬

The Gemara answers: Derive this halakha

诪讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚砖专抓

from one who immersed that day who was never a primary source of impurity, as he was rendered impure only through contact with a creeping animal, and nevertheless he disqualifies teruma upon contact.

诪讛 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚砖专抓 砖讻谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara continues to challenge the inference: What is unique about the impurity of one who immersed that day who was rendered impure through contact with a creeping animal is that this impurity can apply to either a person or a utensil, as people and utensils are capable of achieving purity through immersion, and within its type there can be a primary source of impurity. A loaf, however, is food, which can never be a primary source of impurity. It can only be rendered impure as a secondary source of impurity.

讻诇讬 讞专砖 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: The halakhot of an earthenware vessel can prove that the fact that there are primary sources of impurity within its type is not a relevant factor. An earthenware vessel can never become a primary source of impurity, and nevertheless, if it is impure it disqualifies teruma upon contact.

诪讛 诇讻诇讬 讞专砖 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讜讬专讜

The Gemara challenges: What is unique about an earthenware vessel is that unlike a loaf, it can render items impure or it can itself become impure from its airspace. An earthenware vessel is the only vessel that does not require direct contact with another item in order to contract or transfer impurity, but can effect or contract impurity through its airspace.

讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: One who immersed that day can prove that being able to render items impure through airspace is not a relevant factor. Such an item disqualifies teruma, but imparts impurity only through direct contact and not through its airspace.

讜讞讜讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖驻讜住诇 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讚驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛

And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common denominator is that non-sacred food they come into contact with is permitted, i.e., is not rendered impure, but they disqualify teruma. Therefore, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai infers a fortiori that all the more so, a loaf that contracted second-degree impurity, which is disqualified, i.e., rendered impure, even if it is non-sacred, should also disqualify teruma with which it comes into contact. This was Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 logical a fortiori inference that led him to rule that a loaf of second-degree impurity status disqualifies teruma.

讜讚讜专 讗讞专 驻专讬讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讞诪讜专

And another generation, i.e., the later generation that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai predicted would deem teruma that came into contact with second-degree impurity pure, would refute this inference as follows: What is unique about their common denominator is that both cases have a stringent aspect that does not exist in other impure items.

讜专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 爪讚 讞诪讜专 诇讗 驻专讬讱

And Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai maintained that teruma that came into contact with second-degree impurity is pure, as he would not refute an inference that is based on two sources due to the fact that both sources have a stringent aspect, since each source鈥檚 stringency is not shared by the other.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 砖驻住讜诇

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, 岣giga 3:18) that Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived with regard to sacrificial food with fourth-degree ritual impurity that it is disqualified although it is not capable of imparting impurity to other items?

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

It is derived through logical inference: Just as one who is lacking atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, who is permitted to partake of teruma, nevertheless disqualifies sacrificial food if he comes into contact with it, so too, with regard to an item of third-degree impurity status, which disqualifies teruma and is therefore more severe than one who is lacking atonement, is it not logical that it should render sacrificial food with which it comes into contact as having fourth-degree impurity?

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

The baraita concludes: And we have therefore derived that third-degree impurity applies to sacrificial food from an explicit verse in the Torah, and we have derived that fourth-degree impurity applies to sacrificial food by means of the above a fortiori inference.

砖诇讬砖讬 诇拽讜讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讙注 讘砖谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara asks: From where in the Torah do we derive that third-degree impurity applies to sacrificial food? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). Are we not dealing in the verse with meat that touches even an item of second-degree impurity? And the Merciful One states that it 鈥渟hall not be eaten,鈥 indicating that it assumes third-degree impurity. Therefore, fourth-degree impurity can be derived by means of the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Yosei, as we stated above.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讟注诐 讘专讬讘讬 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讛专讬 转砖讜讘转讜 讘爪讚讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 砖驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the reasoning behind the Distinguished Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 a fortiori inference, I do not know what it is, as the response to his inference is right by its side: Food whose impurity came from contact with one who immersed that day can prove that a degree of impurity that disqualifies teruma does not necessarily impart fourth-degree impurity to sacrificial food, as this food disqualifies teruma upon contact, but it does not impart fourth-degree impurity upon sacrificial food.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 转讞讬诇讛 诇拽讜讚砖 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讞讚

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 1:4) that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who immersed that day, until sunset he is treated as one who is impure with first-degree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, in that he is able to render two items of sacrificial food impure and to disqualify one additional item. In other words, the first item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of a second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first one assumes third-degree impurity. A third item that comes into contact with the second assumes fourth-degree impurity and is therefore disqualified from being eaten, though it cannot impart impurity to other items.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讗讞讚 讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诐 砖驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讜诪砖拽讬 转专讜诪讛 讻讱 驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 拽讜讚砖 讜诪砖拽讬 拽讜讚砖

Rabbi Meir says: One who immersed that day is considered im-pure with second-degree impurity, even vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, and as such renders only one item impure and disqualifies one additional item. And the Rabbis say: Just as he merely disqualifies teruma foods and teruma liquids, without transferring to them impurity that can then be transferred further, so too, he merely disqualifies sacrificial foods and sacrificial liquids. In other words, the impurity imparted by one who immersed that day can reach only third-degree impurity and not fourth-degree impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 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 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讞讚

Rav Pappa objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 argument: From where is the presumption derived that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? Perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who says that one who immersed that day is able to render two items of sacrificial food impure, and to disqualify one additional item.

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 诪讗讜讻诇 砖讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: If it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, he should have brought proof for the existence of a fourth degree of ritual impurity with regard to sacrificial food from the case of food whose impurity came from one who immersed that day, as follows:

讜诪讛 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专转 注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讜讻诇

Just as with regard to food whose impurity came from one who immersed that day, while the one who immersed that day is himself permitted to consume non-sacred food, nevertheless you say that the food imparts fourth-degree impurity status upon sacrificial food, then with regard to food

Scroll To Top