Previous Daf

PESACHIM 34

Ask A Question

1) USES OF TAMEI TERUMAH

(a) Question: Where did Rav Ashi teach about soaking to make something repulsive?
(b) Answer (R. Avin bar Rav Acha): Aba Sha'ul was the kneader for Rebbi's house - they would use wheat of Tamei Terumah to heat water for him for kneading [even though he kneaded] in Taharah.
(c) Question: We should be concerned for Takalah!
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): He cooked it and then made it repulsive.
(e) (Mishnah): If stalks of Terumah became Tamei and were planted, they are Tehorim, but may not be eaten.
(f) Question (Rava bar Masnah) If they are Tehorim, why are they forbidden to eat?
(g) Answer #1 (Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin): It means that they are forbidden to Zarim.
(h) Objection: Is the Chidush that Gidulei (what grows from Terumah) is Terumah?! We already learn this from another Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): Gidulei Terumah are Terumah.

(i) Answer: The extra Mishnah teaches that Gidulim of Gidulei Terumah are Terumah.
(j) Objection: Does this teach about something in which the seed does not disintegrate?! We already learn this from another Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): Gidulei Tevel of seeds that disintegrate are permitted; if the seed does not disintegrate, even Gidulim of Gidulei Tevel are forbidden to eat.

(k) Abaye and Rav Chananya could not answer.
(l) Answer #2 (Rava bar Masnah citing Rav Sheshes): They are forbidden to Kohanim on account of Hese'ach ha'Da'as (once they became Tamei he ceased to guard them - this is not "Mishmeres Terumosai").

(a) Question: This is like the opinion that Hese'ach ha'Da'as is Pesul ha'Guf (this itself is Posel) - but according to the opinion that it is a Pasul of Tum'ah (mi'Safek, lest it became Tamei), how can we answer? (Even though it surely was Tamei, planting was Metaher it! The Gemara explains these opinions before answering the question.)
(b) (R. Yochanan): Hese'ach ha'Da'as is a Pesul of Tum'ah - if [a prophet, e.g.] Eliyahu would tell us that it is Tahor, it would be permitted;
(c) (Reish Lakish): It is an intrinsic Pesul - even if Eliyahu would Metaher it, it is forbidden.
(d) Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa - R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah): There was a small gap between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach on the west side - there they would throw Pasul Chata'os ha'Of; after Ibur Tzurah (letting them become Nosar), they are burned in Beis ha'Sereifah.

1. If Hese'ach ha'Da'as is a Pesul of Tum'ah, we understand why Ibur Tzurah is required - if perhaps Eliyahu will Metaher it;
2. But if it is an intrinsic Pesul, why is Ibur Tzurah required?

i. (Beraisa): Any Pesul ha'Guf may be burned immediately;
ii. A Pesul of the blood (e.g. it was spilled) or the owners (e.g. a Chaburah cannot eat Pesach) is burned in Beis ha'Sereifah after Ibur Tzurah [but not immediately, because the meat itself is fine].

(e) Answer (Reish Lakish): The Beraisa is like Tana d'vei Rabah bar Avuha, who holds that even Pigul [which was never permitted] requires Ibur Tzurah.
(f) Question (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If the meat became Tamei, Pasul, or left the Azarah, we throw the blood;

1. R. Yehoshua says, we do not throw it;
2. R. Yehoshua admits that if Zerikah was done, Hurtzah (the owner fulfilled his obligation).
3. Assumption: Since it also mentions Tamei and Yotzei, 'Pasul' must refer to Hese'ach ha'Da'as!
4. If Hese'ach ha'Da'as is a Pesul of Tum'ah , we understand this - the Tzitz is Meratzeh (makes it acceptable even if it was Tamei);

i. But if Hese'ach ha'Da'as is a Pesul ha'Guf, why was it Hurtzah?

(g) Answer (and rejection of assumption): No, the meat became Pasul through a Tevul Yom.
(h) Objection: If so, this is just like becoming Tamei (why were both taught)?

(a) Answer #3 (to Question 1:f - R. Yirmeyah): Reish Lakish taught that if Mei ha'Chag (water poured on the Mizbe'ach on Sukos) became Tamei:

1. If one did Hashakah and was Mekadesh them, they are Tehorim; (Hashakah is connecting water to a Mikveh to Metaher it. Immersion does not Metaher food or drink - rather, it is Tahor on account of 'Zeri'ah' - anything connected to the ground cannot be Tamei.)
2. If one was Mekadesh them and then did Hashakah, they are Temei'im.
3. Question: In both cases, this is Zeri'ah - why does it matter whether they were Hukdash before or after?
4. Answer: Zeri'ah [of water, i.e. Hashakah] does not help for Hekdesh (Tosfos - mid'Oraisa; Rashi - this is a mid'Rabanan stringency of Hekdesh);
5. Summation of answer #3: Similarly, Zeri'ah [of seeds, i.e. planting] does not help for Terumah [mid'Rabanan]!

(b) Question (Abaye): Is this only when the water was Hukdash in a Keli - but if the Hekdesh was only verbal, Chachamim were not stringent to say that Zeri'ah does not Metaher;

1. Or, were they stringent even regarding verbal Hekdesh?

(c) Answer (Rav Dimi): I did not hear this explicitly, but I heard another law from which we can learn:

1. (R. Yochanan): If one stomped Tamei grapes and then was Makdish them, the wine is Tahor;
2. If the was Makdish Tamei grapes and then stomped them, the wine is Tamei.
3. Hekdesh of the grapes was verbal, nevertheless Chachamim made a stringency [to Metamei juice inside Tamei grapes]!

(d) Rejection (Rav Yosef): The 'Hekdesh' R. Yochanan discusses is declaration to be Terumah - they are not Hukdash in a Keli, therefore we are stringent after verbal 'Hekdesh' alone;

1. Mei ha'Chag must be Hukdash in a Keli, therefore we are stringent only after this was done.

(e) Inference: R. Yochanan is Metaher when one stomped Tamei grapes before Hekdesh - he did not limit the amount stomped;
(f) Contradiction (R. Yochanan): If grapes became Tamei, one may stomp less than k'Beitzah at a time.
(g) Answer #1: Here also, he discusses stomping less than k'Beitzah at a time.
(h) Answer #2: There [he is stringent because] he discusses grapes that touched a Rishon, they are a Sheni; here he discusses grapes that touched a Sheni, they are a Shelishi. (The grapes cannot be Terumah, for we are stringent to Metamei the juice inside Tamei Terumah! Rather, they are Chulin which one guards [from Tum'ah] like Terumah, which can become a Shelishi.)
(i) Version #1 (Tosfos) Support #1 (for R. Yirmeyah - Rava - Beraisa): "V'Nosan Alav Mayim Chayim El Keli" - [even when] the water is Chai in the Keli (flowing, i.e. in the river), it says "V'Nosan" [connoting that it is like detached water, i.e. it is Mekabel Tum'ah];

1. Question: Connected water is not Mekabel Tum'ah!
2. Answer: This is a stringency of Kodesh (mid'Oraisa, Hashakah does not help);

(j) Version #2 (Rashi) Support (for Rav Dimi and R. Yirmeyah - Rava - Beraisa): "V'Nosan Alav Mayim Chayim El Keli" - [Kidush (mixing with the ashes) must be in] the [same] Keli in which the water was Chai (i.e. when it was drawn from the river).

1. Question: Surely one may transfer them to another Keli - it says "V'Nosan"!
2. Answer: Indeed, this is true [mid'Oraisa - the verse is an Asmachta (an allusion to a mid'Rabanan law,] we are stringent [to require the same Keli, even though this is like Kedushas Peh, for the Keli is Chulin - Ginzei Yosef on Maharsha); (end of Version #2)
3. Similarly, we are stringent here [to say that Zeri'ah does not Metaher Terumah! According to Rashi, the coming Amora'im (35A) do not solidly support R. Yirmeyah, for they only show that there are mid'Oraisa stringencies of Kodesh.]