POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
1) USES OF TAMEI TERUMAH
(a) Question: Where did Rav Ashi teach about soaking to make
2) HESE'ACH HA'DA'AS
(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
(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
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
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
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
3) STRINGENCIES OF THINGS THAT ARE KODESH
(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.
i. (Beraisa): Any Pesul ha'Guf may be burned
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
(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;
(g) Answer (and rejection of assumption): No, the meat became
Pasul through a Tevul Yom.
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?
(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.)
(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;
2. If one was Mekadesh them and then did Hashakah, they
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
1. Or, were they stringent even regarding verbal
(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;
(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;
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
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
(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!
(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).
2. Answer: This is a stringency of Kodesh (mid'Oraisa,
Hashakah does not help);
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
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.]
Index to Outlines for Maseches Pesachim