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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 31, 2019 | 讻状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

Temurah 12

The mishna lists cases in which truma fell into items that were chullin and forbade the mixture. Then part of that mixture combined with other chullin. How does one calculate laws of nullification? Is there a way to use drawn water in a mikveh? How should the ashes be mixed with water to the purification waters – water first or ashes first? A field in which there is a dead body – if one plows, should one be concerned for the surrounding fields? Is substitution on a substituted animal effective? Can an offspring of a sanctified animal effect substitution? The gemara explains the debates surrounding these issues.


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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讝讘讞转


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Slaughtering a pregnant peace offering containing a non-sacred fetus is not subject to the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard. Do we read the verse: 鈥淚f the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), as applying to such a case? This verse prohibits the slaughter of non-sacred animals in the Temple, but only those that could be slaughtered elsewhere. But here, he had no choice but to slaughter the pregnant mother in the Temple, since it was a peace offering.


讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讜诇讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讜砖讞讟讛 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讗讜 诇讗


Abaye posed the opposite dilemma to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan that fetuses can be consecrated, if one consecrated the fetus, but not its mother, as a peace offering, such that it, the mother, is non-sacred, and its offspring is a peace offering, and he slaughtered it outside the Temple courtyard as a non-sacred animal, what is the halakha? Is one liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or not?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讛讘讬讗诐 诇讛壮


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Do we read the verse: 鈥淭hat they may bring them to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:5), as applying to this case? The full passage reads: 鈥淎ny man of the house of Israel who shall slaughter a bull, or a lamb, or a goat鈥nd has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥hat man shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥5). The passage indicates that the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple applies only to those offerings that are fit to be slaughtered inside. But this fetus is not fit to be slaughtered at all until it is born.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讗讜讬 诇驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓


The Gemara cites another version of this answer. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The verse states: 鈥淎nd has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.鈥 This teaches that one is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it is fit to come through the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., to be sacrificed in the Temple. This fetus is not yet fit.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诪讚诪注 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉


MISHNA: If teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to teruma was less than one hundred to one, the teruma is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture renders it a mixture of teruma only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture.


讜讗讬谉 讛诪讞讜诪抓 诪讞诪抓 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉


And dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the teruma is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original teruma leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. And if three log of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty se鈥檃 to complete the requisite forty se鈥檃, the ritual bath is invalidated. But drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, as explained in the Gemara.


讜讗讬谉 诪讬 讞讟讗转 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 注诐 诪转谉 讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛驻专住 注讜砖讬谉 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讗讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讗讞专 转专讜诪讛


And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a beit haperas. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma.


讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛拽讚砖 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛


And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Sages said to him: A consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, but the offspring does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.


讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a mixture of teruma produce and non-sacred produce was intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture is prohibited only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


讚转谞谉 住讗讛 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞讚诪注讜 讜谞驻诇 诪谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讚诪注 讻转专讜诪讛 讜讚讗讬 (砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 住讗讛 砖谞驻诇讛 讛讬讗 砖注诇转讛)


As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:6): If a se鈥檃 of teruma fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce and thereby caused it to become a prohibited mixture, since the amount of teruma is too great to be nullified by the non-sacred produce, and a se鈥檃 from the mixture subsequently fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se鈥檃 from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture as definite teruma would, in the same ratio, since I say: It is possible that the same se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into the first mixture was not mixed evenly throughout, and it all came out of it intact and fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification as if it were unadulterated teruma.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讚诪注转 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖讘讛


And the Rabbis say: The se鈥檃 from the original prohibited mixture renders the derivative mixture prohibited only according to the calculation of actual teruma in the entire mixture, calculated as if the teruma were evenly distributed throughout the first mixture. The mishna evidently follows the opinion of the Rabbis.


讜讗讬谉 讛诪讞讜诪抓 诪讞诪抓 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


搂 The mishna teaches: And if a portion of dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞讬诪爪讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 讗讬住讜专 讘住讜祝 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓


As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In a case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma that fell together into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element to fall into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the forbidden item fell in last, it is prohibited only if there is enough of the prohibited leaven itself to cause the dough to leaven.


讜讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞转 住讗讛 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 诪诪诇讗 讘讻转祝 转砖注 注砖专讛 住讗讛 讜驻讜转拽谉 诇诪拽讜讛


搂 The mishna further teaches: And drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 4:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If a ritual bath contains twenty-one se鈥檃 of rainwater, the majority of a valid ritual bath of forty se鈥檃, what can one do to render it valid? One fills drawn water in a bucket carried on the shoulder in the amount of nineteen se鈥檃, and with it fills a pit adjacent to the ritual bath, and one lets the water flow [ufotekan] through a passage from the pit into the ritual bath,


讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讛砖讗讬讘讛 诪讟讛专转 讘专讘讬讬讛 讜讘讛诪砖讻讛


and in this manner all forty se鈥檃 are ritually pure. The reason is that drawn water is purified by a majority of fit water that was already present in the ritual bath and by the drawn water flowing into the ritual bath. This is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation: One calculates the amount of drawn water that flowed into the ritual bath, as the ritual bath is invalid only if most of the forty se鈥檃 is of that drawn water.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讚讘专讘讬讬讛 讜讘讛诪砖讻讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗讜讘讛 砖讛诪砖讬讻讜讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


The Gemara asks: If this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov alone, one must conclude by inference that the Rabbis hold that the ritual bath is not fit even by a majority of fit water and by the flowing of the drawn water. But if so, consider that which Ravin said when he came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, namely, that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A ritual bath that consists in its entirety of drawn water that one made flow into it is pure. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath even if it flowed into it, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who holds that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath if it constitutes a majority of the forty se鈥檃.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讬 讛讬讗


Rather, Rabba says: The mishna鈥檚 ruling, that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, is not referring to drawn water that flowed. Instead, it means according to the calculation of the number of vessels from which the drawn water was directly poured into the ritual bath, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben 岣ni.


讚转谞讬讗 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇诪讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讻诇讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻诇讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讻诇讬诐 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛


As it is taught in a baraita: If three log of drawn water fell into the water of a ritual bath that lacked the requisite measure, from two or three vessels, with each containing at least one log of drawn water, or even from four or five vessels, where no whole log fell in at once, it invalidates the ritual bath. Yosef ben 岣ni says: It is only if the drawn water was in two or three vessels that the water invalidates the ritual bath. But if the drawn water was in four or five vessels, the water does not invalidate the ritual bath. This is what the mishna means.


讜讗讬谉 诪讬 讞讟讗转 谞注砖讛 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讻讜壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


搂 The mishna teaches: And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by the placement of water onto the ashes. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讚转谞讬讗 讛拽讚讬诐 注驻专 诇诪讬诐 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专


As it is taught in a baraita: A sota, a woman suspected of unfaithfulness by her husband, must drink bitter waters prepared in the Temple. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take and put it into the water鈥 (Numbers 5:17). This verse teaches that the water must be placed in the vessel first, and the dust is placed on top of it. If one places the dust in the vessel before the water, the mixture is unfit, but Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讜 诇讟诪讗 诪注驻专 砖专驻转 讛讞讟讗转 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 注驻专 讛讜讗 讜讛诇讗 讗驻专 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd for the impure they shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin, and place on it flowing water in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: But is it dust [afar] that is taken? Isn鈥檛 it really ashes [efer]?


砖讬谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪诪砖诪注讜 诇讚讜谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注驻专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注驻专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注驻专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注驻专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 讛拽讚讬诐 注驻专 诇诪讬诐 讻砖专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛拽讚讬诐 注驻专 诇诪讬诐 讻砖专


Evidently the verse altered its standard usage and referred to ashes as dust in order to derive a verbal analogy from it: 鈥淒ust鈥 is stated in the verse here, and 鈥渄ust鈥 is stated there, with regard to the sota. Just as there, in the case of the sota, the verse teaches that the dust must be placed on top of the water, so too here, with regard to the red heifer, the dust, i.e., ashes, must be placed on top of the water. And likewise, just as here, with regard to the red heifer, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact, so too there, in the case of the sota, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact.


讜讛讻讗 诪谞诇谉 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇诪讗 讗驻专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讻转讬讘 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讗诇 讻诇讬 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专爪讛 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 专爪讛 注驻专 诇诪注诇讛


The Gemara asks: And here, with regard to the red heifer, from where do we derive that the mixture is fit even if the dust is placed first? Two phrases are written. First it is written: 鈥淭hey shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it.鈥 Apparently, the ashes should be placed in the vessel first and the water afterward. And then it is written: 鈥淩unning water in a vessel,鈥 indicating that the water should be placed in the vessel first, while it is still empty. How can these texts be reconciled? They can be reconciled by concluding that if he desires to place the dust, i.e., the ashes of the red heifer, below, and put water on top, he may do so; and if he desires he may place the water first and then place the dust above the water.


讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚讜拽讗 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 诇注专讘谉


And the tanna of our mishna, who deems the mixture unfit if the ashes are placed first, what is his reasoning? He could say to you that the last clause of the verse: 鈥淩unning water in a vessel,鈥 is meant specifically, i.e., the water must be placed first. And when the verse states beforehand: 鈥淭hey shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it,鈥 this teaches only that after placing the ashes upon the water one is required to mix the ashes with the water, so that the water covers the ashes.


诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗诪专转 住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚讜拽讗 讚诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 讚讜拽讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讻砖讬专 诇诪注诇讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讻砖讬专 诇诪注诇讛


The Gemara objects: But one could just as easily say the opposite. What did you see that led you to say that the last clause of the verse is meant specifically? Perhaps the first clause of the verse is meant specifically. The Gemara answers: You cannot say so, as just as we find in every instance that the facilitating item goes above, e.g., in the case of a sota the dust, which enables the water to be used, goes on top of the water, so too here, in the case of the red heifer, the facilitating item must go above. The water must be placed first, and only then the ashes.


讜讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛驻专住 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住


搂 The mishna further teaches: And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 17:2) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One beit haperas creates another beit haperas. If one plowed from a beit haperas into another field, that field is also ritually impure.


讜专讘谞谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗


The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, how far does a beit haperas extend? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said:


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!

Temurah 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 12

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讝讘讞转


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Slaughtering a pregnant peace offering containing a non-sacred fetus is not subject to the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard. Do we read the verse: 鈥淚f the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), as applying to such a case? This verse prohibits the slaughter of non-sacred animals in the Temple, but only those that could be slaughtered elsewhere. But here, he had no choice but to slaughter the pregnant mother in the Temple, since it was a peace offering.


讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讜诇讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讜砖讞讟讛 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讗讜 诇讗


Abaye posed the opposite dilemma to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan that fetuses can be consecrated, if one consecrated the fetus, but not its mother, as a peace offering, such that it, the mother, is non-sacred, and its offspring is a peace offering, and he slaughtered it outside the Temple courtyard as a non-sacred animal, what is the halakha? Is one liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or not?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讛讘讬讗诐 诇讛壮


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Do we read the verse: 鈥淭hat they may bring them to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:5), as applying to this case? The full passage reads: 鈥淎ny man of the house of Israel who shall slaughter a bull, or a lamb, or a goat鈥nd has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥hat man shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥5). The passage indicates that the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple applies only to those offerings that are fit to be slaughtered inside. But this fetus is not fit to be slaughtered at all until it is born.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讗讜讬 诇驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓


The Gemara cites another version of this answer. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The verse states: 鈥淎nd has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.鈥 This teaches that one is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it is fit to come through the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., to be sacrificed in the Temple. This fetus is not yet fit.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诪讚诪注 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉


MISHNA: If teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to teruma was less than one hundred to one, the teruma is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture renders it a mixture of teruma only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture.


讜讗讬谉 讛诪讞讜诪抓 诪讞诪抓 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉


And dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the teruma is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original teruma leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. And if three log of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty se鈥檃 to complete the requisite forty se鈥檃, the ritual bath is invalidated. But drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, as explained in the Gemara.


讜讗讬谉 诪讬 讞讟讗转 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 注诐 诪转谉 讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛驻专住 注讜砖讬谉 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讗讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讗讞专 转专讜诪讛


And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a beit haperas. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma.


讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛拽讚砖 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛


And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Sages said to him: A consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, but the offspring does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.


讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a mixture of teruma produce and non-sacred produce was intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture is prohibited only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


讚转谞谉 住讗讛 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞讚诪注讜 讜谞驻诇 诪谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讚诪注 讻转专讜诪讛 讜讚讗讬 (砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 住讗讛 砖谞驻诇讛 讛讬讗 砖注诇转讛)


As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:6): If a se鈥檃 of teruma fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce and thereby caused it to become a prohibited mixture, since the amount of teruma is too great to be nullified by the non-sacred produce, and a se鈥檃 from the mixture subsequently fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se鈥檃 from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture as definite teruma would, in the same ratio, since I say: It is possible that the same se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into the first mixture was not mixed evenly throughout, and it all came out of it intact and fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification as if it were unadulterated teruma.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讚诪注转 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖讘讛


And the Rabbis say: The se鈥檃 from the original prohibited mixture renders the derivative mixture prohibited only according to the calculation of actual teruma in the entire mixture, calculated as if the teruma were evenly distributed throughout the first mixture. The mishna evidently follows the opinion of the Rabbis.


讜讗讬谉 讛诪讞讜诪抓 诪讞诪抓 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


搂 The mishna teaches: And if a portion of dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞讬诪爪讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 讗讬住讜专 讘住讜祝 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓


As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In a case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma that fell together into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element to fall into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the forbidden item fell in last, it is prohibited only if there is enough of the prohibited leaven itself to cause the dough to leaven.


讜讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞转 住讗讛 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 诪诪诇讗 讘讻转祝 转砖注 注砖专讛 住讗讛 讜驻讜转拽谉 诇诪拽讜讛


搂 The mishna further teaches: And drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 4:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If a ritual bath contains twenty-one se鈥檃 of rainwater, the majority of a valid ritual bath of forty se鈥檃, what can one do to render it valid? One fills drawn water in a bucket carried on the shoulder in the amount of nineteen se鈥檃, and with it fills a pit adjacent to the ritual bath, and one lets the water flow [ufotekan] through a passage from the pit into the ritual bath,


讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讛砖讗讬讘讛 诪讟讛专转 讘专讘讬讬讛 讜讘讛诪砖讻讛


and in this manner all forty se鈥檃 are ritually pure. The reason is that drawn water is purified by a majority of fit water that was already present in the ritual bath and by the drawn water flowing into the ritual bath. This is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation: One calculates the amount of drawn water that flowed into the ritual bath, as the ritual bath is invalid only if most of the forty se鈥檃 is of that drawn water.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讚讘专讘讬讬讛 讜讘讛诪砖讻讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗讜讘讛 砖讛诪砖讬讻讜讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


The Gemara asks: If this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov alone, one must conclude by inference that the Rabbis hold that the ritual bath is not fit even by a majority of fit water and by the flowing of the drawn water. But if so, consider that which Ravin said when he came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, namely, that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A ritual bath that consists in its entirety of drawn water that one made flow into it is pure. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath even if it flowed into it, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who holds that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath if it constitutes a majority of the forty se鈥檃.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讬 讛讬讗


Rather, Rabba says: The mishna鈥檚 ruling, that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, is not referring to drawn water that flowed. Instead, it means according to the calculation of the number of vessels from which the drawn water was directly poured into the ritual bath, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben 岣ni.


讚转谞讬讗 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇诪讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讻诇讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讻诇讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讻诇讬诐 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛


As it is taught in a baraita: If three log of drawn water fell into the water of a ritual bath that lacked the requisite measure, from two or three vessels, with each containing at least one log of drawn water, or even from four or five vessels, where no whole log fell in at once, it invalidates the ritual bath. Yosef ben 岣ni says: It is only if the drawn water was in two or three vessels that the water invalidates the ritual bath. But if the drawn water was in four or five vessels, the water does not invalidate the ritual bath. This is what the mishna means.


讜讗讬谉 诪讬 讞讟讗转 谞注砖讛 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讻讜壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


搂 The mishna teaches: And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by the placement of water onto the ashes. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讚转谞讬讗 讛拽讚讬诐 注驻专 诇诪讬诐 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专


As it is taught in a baraita: A sota, a woman suspected of unfaithfulness by her husband, must drink bitter waters prepared in the Temple. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take and put it into the water鈥 (Numbers 5:17). This verse teaches that the water must be placed in the vessel first, and the dust is placed on top of it. If one places the dust in the vessel before the water, the mixture is unfit, but Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讜 诇讟诪讗 诪注驻专 砖专驻转 讛讞讟讗转 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 注驻专 讛讜讗 讜讛诇讗 讗驻专 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd for the impure they shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin, and place on it flowing water in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: But is it dust [afar] that is taken? Isn鈥檛 it really ashes [efer]?


砖讬谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪诪砖诪注讜 诇讚讜谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注驻专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注驻专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注驻专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注驻专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 讛拽讚讬诐 注驻专 诇诪讬诐 讻砖专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛拽讚讬诐 注驻专 诇诪讬诐 讻砖专


Evidently the verse altered its standard usage and referred to ashes as dust in order to derive a verbal analogy from it: 鈥淒ust鈥 is stated in the verse here, and 鈥渄ust鈥 is stated there, with regard to the sota. Just as there, in the case of the sota, the verse teaches that the dust must be placed on top of the water, so too here, with regard to the red heifer, the dust, i.e., ashes, must be placed on top of the water. And likewise, just as here, with regard to the red heifer, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact, so too there, in the case of the sota, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact.


讜讛讻讗 诪谞诇谉 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇诪讗 讗驻专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讻转讬讘 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讗诇 讻诇讬 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专爪讛 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 专爪讛 注驻专 诇诪注诇讛


The Gemara asks: And here, with regard to the red heifer, from where do we derive that the mixture is fit even if the dust is placed first? Two phrases are written. First it is written: 鈥淭hey shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it.鈥 Apparently, the ashes should be placed in the vessel first and the water afterward. And then it is written: 鈥淩unning water in a vessel,鈥 indicating that the water should be placed in the vessel first, while it is still empty. How can these texts be reconciled? They can be reconciled by concluding that if he desires to place the dust, i.e., the ashes of the red heifer, below, and put water on top, he may do so; and if he desires he may place the water first and then place the dust above the water.


讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚讜拽讗 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讜 诇注专讘谉


And the tanna of our mishna, who deems the mixture unfit if the ashes are placed first, what is his reasoning? He could say to you that the last clause of the verse: 鈥淩unning water in a vessel,鈥 is meant specifically, i.e., the water must be placed first. And when the verse states beforehand: 鈥淭hey shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it,鈥 this teaches only that after placing the ashes upon the water one is required to mix the ashes with the water, so that the water covers the ashes.


诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗诪专转 住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚讜拽讗 讚诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 讚讜拽讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讻砖讬专 诇诪注诇讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讻砖讬专 诇诪注诇讛


The Gemara objects: But one could just as easily say the opposite. What did you see that led you to say that the last clause of the verse is meant specifically? Perhaps the first clause of the verse is meant specifically. The Gemara answers: You cannot say so, as just as we find in every instance that the facilitating item goes above, e.g., in the case of a sota the dust, which enables the water to be used, goes on top of the water, so too here, in the case of the red heifer, the facilitating item must go above. The water must be placed first, and only then the ashes.


讜讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛驻专住 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住


搂 The mishna further teaches: And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 17:2) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One beit haperas creates another beit haperas. If one plowed from a beit haperas into another field, that field is also ritually impure.


讜专讘谞谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗


The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, how far does a beit haperas extend? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said:


Scroll To Top