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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 25, 2015 | 讬状讙 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sotah 30

From where do we derive that a second and third degree impurity can transmit impurity to聽sacred items belonging to the temple kodashim. 聽There are five聽rabbis who hold against Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in the mishna and say that a second degree impurity cannot transmit impurity to a non sacred item chulin. 聽The gemara derives from different texts how we know that each of those rabbis hold that way.
Study Guide Sotah 30


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

砖诇讬砖讬 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 砖谞讬 讚砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖

whose third-degree impurity came from contact with an item of second-degree impurity, in which case the item with the second-degree impurity is itself forbidden, i.e. impure, even if it is non-sacred food, isn鈥檛 it logical to infer that it should be able to impart fourth-degree impurity upon sacrificial food?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 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 讛讗 讗讬讬转讬谞讛 诪诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻专讻讬讛

And if you would say that the reason Rabbi Yosei did not employ this a fortiori inference is because it can be refuted as follows: What is unique about one who immersed that day is that prior to his immersion he was a primary source of impurity, this cannot be, as Rabbi Yosei brought proof for the existence of a fourth degree of impurity from the case of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, who was also a primary source of impurity prior to his immersion, and Rabbi Yosei clearly did not refute the proof due to this factor. Therefore, the reason Rabbi Yosei did not employ an a fortiori inference from the case of food that contracted impurity from one who immersed that day is clearly that he disagrees with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Consequently, Rabbi Yo岣nan concluded that he cannot understand Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘谉 讗讬住讬 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rav said, and some say Rabba ben Isi said that Rav said: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Eliezer all hold that an item of second-degree ritual impurity status cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity status to non-sacred items. Rav proceeds to prove this by attributing support from the rulings of each of these tanna鈥檌m.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讟注讜谉 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讘诪注砖专

Rabbi Meir is of this opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Para 11:5): Anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law renders sacrificial food impure upon contact, with second-degree impurity, and disqualifies teruma, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law is permitted for non-sacred food and for the second tithe, i.e., it does not render these items impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis prohibit one who has this degree of impurity from partaking of the second tithe. From the fact that Rabbi Meir permits him to partake of the second tithe, it is inferred that he maintains that an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity upon non-sacred items.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讚讗诐 讗讬转讬讛 诇讬讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬注讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖

It is evident that Rabbi Yosei is of this opinion from that which we have stated above, that he derives that sacrificial food can contract fourth-degree impurity, because if he holds that non-sacred items can contract third-degree impurity, he should have derived through his a fortiori inference that there is fourth-degree impurity vis-脿-vis teruma and fifth-degree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, since each of these categories has a unique level of impurity.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 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 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 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 讘拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yehoshua is of this opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 2:2): Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first-degree impurity assumes first-degree impurity. One who eats food with second-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first-degree impurity or food with second-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, and he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-脿-vis teruma.

讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

Eating an item with third-degree impurity is possible only in the case of non-sacred items, as eating impure teruma or sacrificial food is prohibited. However, generic non-sacred food cannot contract third-degree impurity at all. Therefore, the case of one who eats food with third-degree impurity refers specifically to non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma. By means of a vow, one can establish the purity status of non-sacred food items to be treated on the level of purity necessary for teruma.

注诇 讟讛专转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 诇讗

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 statement that yes, one is able to prepare items as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma; but one is not able to prepare items as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of sacrificial food, and such items would not contract third-degree impurity.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity upon ordinary non-sacred items that were not prepared on the level of the purity of teruma.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖转谉 砖讜讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讘拽讜讚砖 讜砖讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖讘转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Elazar is of this opinion, as it is taught in a mishna (Teharot 2:7): Rabbi Elazar says: The three of these are equal in their ability to impart ritual impurity to other items: An item of first-degree impurity, whether it is an item of sacrificial food, or of non-sacred food, or of teruma.

诪讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讘拽讜讚砖

With regard to sacrificial food, such an item renders impure two additional levels of contact, enabling the items that contracted ritual impurity from it to transfer that impurity to items that they in turn touch afterward. And it disqualifies one level afterward, imparting upon the food fourth-degree impurity, which cannot impart impurity to a fifth item.

诪讟诪讗 讗讞讚 讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讘转专讜诪讛

With regard to teruma, an item of first-degree impurity renders impure one additional level of contact, i.e., it imparts second-level impurity to teruma food with which it comes into contact, and that item in turn disqualifies one additional level afterward, as that teruma food imparts third-degree impurity upon teruma.

讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讘讞讜诇讬谉

And with regard to non-sacred food, an item of first-degree impurity merely disqualifies one additional level of non-sacred food. Evidently, non-sacred items cannot go beyond a second-degree impurity.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞诇讛 谞讬讟诇转 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 砖转讬 注讬住讜转 讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讟诪讗讛 谞讜讟诇 讻讚讬 讞诇讛 诪注讬住讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讛 讞诇转讛 讜谞讜转谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讘讗诪爪注 讻讚讬 诇讬讟讜诇 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝

Rabbi Eliezer also agrees with this principle, as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 2:8): Rabbi Eliezer says: 岣lla can be taken from ritually pure dough on behalf of ritually impure dough. How so? If there are two batches of dough, one of which is pure and one of which is impure, one takes the required amount of dough for separating 岣lla for both of the batches from the pure dough when its 岣lla has not yet been separated for itself, and then places less than an egg-bulk of dough, which is not susceptible becoming ritually impure due to its size, in the middle, between the impure dough and the pure dough set aside for being used as the separated 岣lla. This joins all of the dough together, so that one can fulfill the requirement to take dough for separating 岣lla from dough that is situated near the dough it comes to exempt.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

And the Rabbis prohibit separating 岣lla in this manner.

讜转谞讬讗 讻讘讬爪讛

And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer even allows the ritually pure dough placed in the middle to be as large as an egg-bulk, even though dough of that size is susceptible to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

住讘专讜讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘注讬住讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 诇讗 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜

The Gemara now explains the reasoning of those who tried to prove from here that Rabbi Eliezer is of the opinion that second-degree ritual impurity cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity upon non-sacred items: They assumed that both this mishna and this baraita are referring to cases where the dough is of first-degree impurity. And furthermore, they assumed that all the tanna鈥檌m agree that non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla, as its 岣lla has not yet been separated, is not treated like 岣lla as far as its ability to contract third-degree ritual impurity. Rather, it is regarded as generic non-sacred food, which is susceptible only to second-degree impurity.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

Based on these assumptions the Gemara explains how these authorities understood the tannaitic dispute: What, is it not clear that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the following matter: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity to non-sacred items. Therefore, there is no problem placing an egg-bulk of pure dough in the middle, as although it will touch the impure dough and will thereby contract second-degree impurity, nevertheless it is unable to transmit impurity to the pure dough.

讜诪专 住讘专 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that an item of second-degree impurity can impart third-degree ritual impurity to non-sacred items. They therefore prohibit placing an egg-bulk of dough in the middle, as it will assume second-degree impurity status, which, in their opinion, can impart third-degree impurity status upon the pure dough.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said that the dispute can be understood differently: Everyone agrees that an item of second-degree ritual impurity cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity to non-sacred items. But here, the dispute concerns another matter, as they disagree with regard to the status of non-sacred food that is untithed vis-脿-vis 岣lla, as its 岣lla has not yet been separated. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is treated like 岣lla with regard to its ability to contract third-degree impurity, and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is not treated like 岣lla and cannot contract third-degree impurity. Therefore, he permits separating 岣lla in this manner.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 诇讗 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讜转专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

And if you wish, say instead that they disagree with regard to a different issue: Everyone agrees that non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla is not treated like 岣lla and cannot contract third-degree impurity, and that an item of second-degree ritual impurity cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity to non-sacred items. But here, they disagree with regard to whether or not it is permitted to cause ritual impurity to non-sacred food that is in Eretz Yisrael.

诪专 住讘专 诪讜转专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗住讜专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred food that is in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, since the dough placed in the middle cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity status upon the dough designated for 岣lla, there is no reason to prohibit doing so. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is prohibited to cause impurity to non-sacred food that is in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, although the dough of the ritually pure batch will not become impure, nevertheless the Rabbis prohibit separating 岣lla in this manner, as causing the dough in the middle to become impure is prohibited.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮

搂 It is stated in the mishna: On that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted one of the contradictory verses with regard to the amount of land surrounding the Levite cities as teaching that one may not travel beyond a two-thousand-cubit radius around his city limits on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, on the other hand, interprets the contradictory verses as referring to different types of land left for the Levites around their cities.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakhic matter do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the halakha of Shabbat boundaries is mandated by Torah law, as he bases it on a verse; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, holds that the halakha of Shabbat boundaries is mandated by rabbinic law, and he therefore derives other matters from the verse.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖注讛 砖注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讬诐 谞转谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诇讜诪专 砖讬专讛 讜讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 讻讙讚讜诇 讛诪拽专讗 讗转 讛诇诇 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 专讗砖讬 驻专拽讬诐 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮

The Sages taught: On that same day Rabbi Akiva taught that at the time that the Jewish people ascended from the split sea they set their eyes on reciting a song of gratitude to God. And how did they recite the song? In the same manner as an adult man reciting hallel on behalf of a congregation, as his reading enables all who hear to fulfill their obligation, and the congregation listening merely recite after him the chapter headings of hallel. So too, by the sea, Moses said: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1), and the people said after Moses: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord.鈥 Moses continued and said: 鈥淔or He is highly exalted鈥 (Exodus 15:1), and they said once again the chapter heading: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord.鈥

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讻拽讟谉 讛诪拽专讗 讗转 讛诇诇 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 讻诇 诪讛 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: The Jewish people sang just like a minor boy reciting hallel and the congregation who hear him repeat after him all that he says, word for word, as hearing the recital of a minor is insufficient for fulfilling one鈥檚 obligation. So too, by the sea, Moses said: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1), and the people said after Moses: 鈥淚 will sing to the Lord.鈥 Moses said: 鈥淔or He is highly exalted,鈥 and they said after him the same words: 鈥淔or He is highly exalted.鈥

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻住讜驻专 讛驻讜专住 注诇 砖诪注 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讛讜讗 驻讜转讞 转讞讬诇讛 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜

Rabbi Ne岣mya says: They sang the song of the sea like a scribe, a cantor, who recites aloud the introductory prayers and blessings before Shema in the synagogue; as he begins by saying the first words of the blessing, and they repeat after him the initial words and continue reciting the rest of Shema together with him in unison. So too, in the song of the sea, Moses began and then everyone recited the entire song together with him.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗诪专 讗诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淭hen Moses and the children of Israel sang this song unto the Lord, and said, saying鈥 (Exodus 15:1). Rabbi Akiva holds that the word 鈥渟aying,鈥 which indicates that the people sang after Moses, is referring only to the first words of the song, which the people continually repeated: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1).

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住讘专 诇讗诪专 讗讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住讘专 讜讬讗诪专讜 讚讗诪讜专 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗诪专 讚驻转讞 诪砖讛 讘专讬砖讗

And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, holds that the word 鈥渟aying鈥 is referring to every single word, as they would repeat after Moses every word. And Rabbi Ne岣mya holds that the phrase 鈥渁nd they said鈥 (Exodus 15:1) indicates that everyone recited the song of the sea together, and the word 鈥渟aying鈥 means that Moses began singing the song first; and then the rest of the people sang the beginning after him and they all continued in unison.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讘砖注讛 砖注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讬诐 谞转谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诇讜诪专 砖讬专讛 讜讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 注讜诇诇 诪讜讟诇 注诇 讘专讻讬 讗诪讜 讜转讬谞讜拽 讬讜谞拽 诪砖讚讬 讗诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖专讗讜 讗转 讛砖讻讬谞讛 注讜诇诇 讛讙讘讬讛 爪讜讗专讜 讜转讬谞讜拽 砖诪讟 讚讚 诪驻讬讜 讜讗诪专讜 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 砖谞讗诪专 诪驻讬 注讜诇诇讬诐 讜讬谞拽讬诐 讬住讚转 注讝

The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: At the time that the Jewish people ascended from the sea they resolved to sing a song of gratitude to God. And how did they recite this song? If a baby was lying on his mother鈥檚 lap or an infant was nursing from his mother鈥檚 breasts, once they saw the Divine Presence, the baby straightened his neck and the infant dropped the breast from his mouth, and they recited: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2). As it is stated: 鈥淥ut of the mouths of babies and sucklings You have founded strength鈥 (Psalms 8:3).

讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 注讜讘专讬诐 砖讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专

Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even fetuses in their mother鈥檚 womb recited the song at the sea? As it is stated:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 30

砖诇讬砖讬 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 砖谞讬 讚砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖注讜砖讛 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖

whose third-degree impurity came from contact with an item of second-degree impurity, in which case the item with the second-degree impurity is itself forbidden, i.e. impure, even if it is non-sacred food, isn鈥檛 it logical to infer that it should be able to impart fourth-degree impurity upon sacrificial food?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 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 讛讗 讗讬讬转讬谞讛 诪诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻专讻讬讛

And if you would say that the reason Rabbi Yosei did not employ this a fortiori inference is because it can be refuted as follows: What is unique about one who immersed that day is that prior to his immersion he was a primary source of impurity, this cannot be, as Rabbi Yosei brought proof for the existence of a fourth degree of impurity from the case of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, who was also a primary source of impurity prior to his immersion, and Rabbi Yosei clearly did not refute the proof due to this factor. Therefore, the reason Rabbi Yosei did not employ an a fortiori inference from the case of food that contracted impurity from one who immersed that day is clearly that he disagrees with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Consequently, Rabbi Yo岣nan concluded that he cannot understand Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘谉 讗讬住讬 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rav said, and some say Rabba ben Isi said that Rav said: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Eliezer all hold that an item of second-degree ritual impurity status cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity status to non-sacred items. Rav proceeds to prove this by attributing support from the rulings of each of these tanna鈥檌m.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讟注讜谉 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讘诪注砖专

Rabbi Meir is of this opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Para 11:5): Anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law renders sacrificial food impure upon contact, with second-degree impurity, and disqualifies teruma, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law is permitted for non-sacred food and for the second tithe, i.e., it does not render these items impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis prohibit one who has this degree of impurity from partaking of the second tithe. From the fact that Rabbi Meir permits him to partake of the second tithe, it is inferred that he maintains that an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity upon non-sacred items.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讚讗诐 讗讬转讬讛 诇讬讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬注讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖

It is evident that Rabbi Yosei is of this opinion from that which we have stated above, that he derives that sacrificial food can contract fourth-degree impurity, because if he holds that non-sacred items can contract third-degree impurity, he should have derived through his a fortiori inference that there is fourth-degree impurity vis-脿-vis teruma and fifth-degree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, since each of these categories has a unique level of impurity.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 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 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 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 讘拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yehoshua is of this opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 2:2): Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first-degree impurity assumes first-degree impurity. One who eats food with second-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first-degree impurity or food with second-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-脿-vis sacrificial food, and he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-脿-vis teruma.

讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

Eating an item with third-degree impurity is possible only in the case of non-sacred items, as eating impure teruma or sacrificial food is prohibited. However, generic non-sacred food cannot contract third-degree impurity at all. Therefore, the case of one who eats food with third-degree impurity refers specifically to non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma. By means of a vow, one can establish the purity status of non-sacred food items to be treated on the level of purity necessary for teruma.

注诇 讟讛专转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 诇讗

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 statement that yes, one is able to prepare items as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma; but one is not able to prepare items as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of sacrificial food, and such items would not contract third-degree impurity.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity upon ordinary non-sacred items that were not prepared on the level of the purity of teruma.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖转谉 砖讜讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讘拽讜讚砖 讜砖讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖讘转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Elazar is of this opinion, as it is taught in a mishna (Teharot 2:7): Rabbi Elazar says: The three of these are equal in their ability to impart ritual impurity to other items: An item of first-degree impurity, whether it is an item of sacrificial food, or of non-sacred food, or of teruma.

诪讟诪讗 砖谞讬诐 讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讘拽讜讚砖

With regard to sacrificial food, such an item renders impure two additional levels of contact, enabling the items that contracted ritual impurity from it to transfer that impurity to items that they in turn touch afterward. And it disqualifies one level afterward, imparting upon the food fourth-degree impurity, which cannot impart impurity to a fifth item.

诪讟诪讗 讗讞讚 讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讘转专讜诪讛

With regard to teruma, an item of first-degree impurity renders impure one additional level of contact, i.e., it imparts second-level impurity to teruma food with which it comes into contact, and that item in turn disqualifies one additional level afterward, as that teruma food imparts third-degree impurity upon teruma.

讜驻讜住诇 讗讞讚 讘讞讜诇讬谉

And with regard to non-sacred food, an item of first-degree impurity merely disqualifies one additional level of non-sacred food. Evidently, non-sacred items cannot go beyond a second-degree impurity.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞诇讛 谞讬讟诇转 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 砖转讬 注讬住讜转 讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讟诪讗讛 谞讜讟诇 讻讚讬 讞诇讛 诪注讬住讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讛 讞诇转讛 讜谞讜转谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讘讗诪爪注 讻讚讬 诇讬讟讜诇 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝

Rabbi Eliezer also agrees with this principle, as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 2:8): Rabbi Eliezer says: 岣lla can be taken from ritually pure dough on behalf of ritually impure dough. How so? If there are two batches of dough, one of which is pure and one of which is impure, one takes the required amount of dough for separating 岣lla for both of the batches from the pure dough when its 岣lla has not yet been separated for itself, and then places less than an egg-bulk of dough, which is not susceptible becoming ritually impure due to its size, in the middle, between the impure dough and the pure dough set aside for being used as the separated 岣lla. This joins all of the dough together, so that one can fulfill the requirement to take dough for separating 岣lla from dough that is situated near the dough it comes to exempt.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

And the Rabbis prohibit separating 岣lla in this manner.

讜转谞讬讗 讻讘讬爪讛

And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer even allows the ritually pure dough placed in the middle to be as large as an egg-bulk, even though dough of that size is susceptible to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

住讘专讜讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘注讬住讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 诇讗 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜

The Gemara now explains the reasoning of those who tried to prove from here that Rabbi Eliezer is of the opinion that second-degree ritual impurity cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity upon non-sacred items: They assumed that both this mishna and this baraita are referring to cases where the dough is of first-degree impurity. And furthermore, they assumed that all the tanna鈥檌m agree that non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla, as its 岣lla has not yet been separated, is not treated like 岣lla as far as its ability to contract third-degree ritual impurity. Rather, it is regarded as generic non-sacred food, which is susceptible only to second-degree impurity.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

Based on these assumptions the Gemara explains how these authorities understood the tannaitic dispute: What, is it not clear that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the following matter: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity to non-sacred items. Therefore, there is no problem placing an egg-bulk of pure dough in the middle, as although it will touch the impure dough and will thereby contract second-degree impurity, nevertheless it is unable to transmit impurity to the pure dough.

讜诪专 住讘专 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that an item of second-degree impurity can impart third-degree ritual impurity to non-sacred items. They therefore prohibit placing an egg-bulk of dough in the middle, as it will assume second-degree impurity status, which, in their opinion, can impart third-degree impurity status upon the pure dough.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said that the dispute can be understood differently: Everyone agrees that an item of second-degree ritual impurity cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity to non-sacred items. But here, the dispute concerns another matter, as they disagree with regard to the status of non-sacred food that is untithed vis-脿-vis 岣lla, as its 岣lla has not yet been separated. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is treated like 岣lla with regard to its ability to contract third-degree impurity, and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is not treated like 岣lla and cannot contract third-degree impurity. Therefore, he permits separating 岣lla in this manner.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 诇讗 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讜转专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

And if you wish, say instead that they disagree with regard to a different issue: Everyone agrees that non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla is not treated like 岣lla and cannot contract third-degree impurity, and that an item of second-degree ritual impurity cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity to non-sacred items. But here, they disagree with regard to whether or not it is permitted to cause ritual impurity to non-sacred food that is in Eretz Yisrael.

诪专 住讘专 诪讜转专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗住讜专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred food that is in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, since the dough placed in the middle cannot impart third-degree ritual impurity status upon the dough designated for 岣lla, there is no reason to prohibit doing so. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is prohibited to cause impurity to non-sacred food that is in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, although the dough of the ritually pure batch will not become impure, nevertheless the Rabbis prohibit separating 岣lla in this manner, as causing the dough in the middle to become impure is prohibited.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮

搂 It is stated in the mishna: On that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted one of the contradictory verses with regard to the amount of land surrounding the Levite cities as teaching that one may not travel beyond a two-thousand-cubit radius around his city limits on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, on the other hand, interprets the contradictory verses as referring to different types of land left for the Levites around their cities.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakhic matter do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the halakha of Shabbat boundaries is mandated by Torah law, as he bases it on a verse; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, holds that the halakha of Shabbat boundaries is mandated by rabbinic law, and he therefore derives other matters from the verse.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖注讛 砖注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讬诐 谞转谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诇讜诪专 砖讬专讛 讜讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 讻讙讚讜诇 讛诪拽专讗 讗转 讛诇诇 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 专讗砖讬 驻专拽讬诐 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮

The Sages taught: On that same day Rabbi Akiva taught that at the time that the Jewish people ascended from the split sea they set their eyes on reciting a song of gratitude to God. And how did they recite the song? In the same manner as an adult man reciting hallel on behalf of a congregation, as his reading enables all who hear to fulfill their obligation, and the congregation listening merely recite after him the chapter headings of hallel. So too, by the sea, Moses said: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1), and the people said after Moses: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord.鈥 Moses continued and said: 鈥淔or He is highly exalted鈥 (Exodus 15:1), and they said once again the chapter heading: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord.鈥

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讻拽讟谉 讛诪拽专讗 讗转 讛诇诇 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 讻诇 诪讛 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 诪砖讛 讗诪专 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: The Jewish people sang just like a minor boy reciting hallel and the congregation who hear him repeat after him all that he says, word for word, as hearing the recital of a minor is insufficient for fulfilling one鈥檚 obligation. So too, by the sea, Moses said: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1), and the people said after Moses: 鈥淚 will sing to the Lord.鈥 Moses said: 鈥淔or He is highly exalted,鈥 and they said after him the same words: 鈥淔or He is highly exalted.鈥

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻住讜驻专 讛驻讜专住 注诇 砖诪注 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讛讜讗 驻讜转讞 转讞讬诇讛 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜

Rabbi Ne岣mya says: They sang the song of the sea like a scribe, a cantor, who recites aloud the introductory prayers and blessings before Shema in the synagogue; as he begins by saying the first words of the blessing, and they repeat after him the initial words and continue reciting the rest of Shema together with him in unison. So too, in the song of the sea, Moses began and then everyone recited the entire song together with him.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗诪专 讗诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淭hen Moses and the children of Israel sang this song unto the Lord, and said, saying鈥 (Exodus 15:1). Rabbi Akiva holds that the word 鈥渟aying,鈥 which indicates that the people sang after Moses, is referring only to the first words of the song, which the people continually repeated: 鈥淚 will sing unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1).

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住讘专 诇讗诪专 讗讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住讘专 讜讬讗诪专讜 讚讗诪讜专 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗诪专 讚驻转讞 诪砖讛 讘专讬砖讗

And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, holds that the word 鈥渟aying鈥 is referring to every single word, as they would repeat after Moses every word. And Rabbi Ne岣mya holds that the phrase 鈥渁nd they said鈥 (Exodus 15:1) indicates that everyone recited the song of the sea together, and the word 鈥渟aying鈥 means that Moses began singing the song first; and then the rest of the people sang the beginning after him and they all continued in unison.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讘砖注讛 砖注诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讬诐 谞转谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诇讜诪专 砖讬专讛 讜讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 注讜诇诇 诪讜讟诇 注诇 讘专讻讬 讗诪讜 讜转讬谞讜拽 讬讜谞拽 诪砖讚讬 讗诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖专讗讜 讗转 讛砖讻讬谞讛 注讜诇诇 讛讙讘讬讛 爪讜讗专讜 讜转讬谞讜拽 砖诪讟 讚讚 诪驻讬讜 讜讗诪专讜 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 砖谞讗诪专 诪驻讬 注讜诇诇讬诐 讜讬谞拽讬诐 讬住讚转 注讝

The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: At the time that the Jewish people ascended from the sea they resolved to sing a song of gratitude to God. And how did they recite this song? If a baby was lying on his mother鈥檚 lap or an infant was nursing from his mother鈥檚 breasts, once they saw the Divine Presence, the baby straightened his neck and the infant dropped the breast from his mouth, and they recited: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2). As it is stated: 鈥淥ut of the mouths of babies and sucklings You have founded strength鈥 (Psalms 8:3).

讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 注讜讘专讬诐 砖讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专

Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even fetuses in their mother鈥檚 womb recited the song at the sea? As it is stated:

Scroll To Top