(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 34


QUESTION: When a Kohen removes his attention from an item of Kodshim, that item becomes Pasul with the Pesul of "Hesech ha'Da'as."

The Gemara attempts to prove that the Pesul of "Hesech ha'Da'as" is a Pesul of *Tum'ah* (that is, since the Kohen removed his attention from it, we assume out of doubt that it became Tamei when he was not watching over it), as opposed to an independent Pesul, from a Tosefta in Zevachim. The Tosefta says that there was a small opening next to the Mizbe'ach into which the Kohen would throw a Chatas ha'Of (bird offering) which had become Pasul, in order to leave it there over night so that it would become Pasul with Linah, and then it could be burned. The Gemara assumes that the Tosefta is discussing a Chatas ha'Of that became Pasul with Hesech ha'Da'as. If Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pasul because of the possibility that the object of Kodshim became Tamei, then it is clear why it cannot be burned until the next day. There is only a *possibility* that it is Tamei, and one may not burn Kodshim unless they are *certainly* Pasul. If Hesech ha'Da'as is an independent, unqualified Pesul, though, then it would be permitted to burn it immediately and not wait until the next day, since there is no question as to the invalidity of the Chatas ha'Of.

RASHI (DH v'Te'ubar Tzurasah) asks, how do we know that the Pesul discussed in the Tosefta is one of Hesech ha'Da'as and not any other Pesul? Rashi says that we know it through the process of elimination. Every other Pesul is a Pesul ha'Guf (an inherent, independent Pesul in the Chatas ha'Of). Why would the Tosefta require leaving the Chatas ha'Of aside for the night unless it is referring to the Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as?

How can Rashi say that? The Gemara, in the very next line, mentions two Pesulim that are not Pesulei ha'Guf, for which Korbanos must be left overnight before burning -- if the Pesul is because the *blood* of the animal became Tamei and could not be cast on the Mizbe'ach, or if the Ba'alim (the owner) of the animal became disqualified from eating his Korban! (TOSFOS, DH Lama)


(a) TOSFOS disagrees with Rashi and explains that it is not because there is no other Pesul which is not a Pesul ha'Guf that we assume that the Chatas ha'Of was Pasul due to Hesech ha'Da'as. Rather, whatever Pesul it was that invalidated the Chatas ha'Of originally, once the Kohen threw it into the opening near the ramp, he removed his attention from it -- thus giving it an *additional* Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as! So no matter what Pesul it had, it is now Pasul because of Hesech ha'Da'as, because the Kohen took his mind off of it.

(b) How will Rashi answer this question? Why did Rashi not entertain the possibility that the Chatas ha'Of is Pasul due to a Pesul in the blood or its the owners? The first part of our answer is simple: Pesul Ba'alim is not applicable here, because even if the owner became Tamei, someone else could eat his Chatas ha'Of, so the Korban could still be offered. The Pesul of Ba'alim applies only to a Korban Pesach (as Rashi mentions later, 34b, DH u'v'Ba'alim), which *only* one who is "Manuy" (appointed to eat from the Korban prior to its slaughter) may eat, and to the Korban brought by a Nazir who became Tamei, who, by becoming Tamei, must begin his Nezirus anew and cannot bring his Korban.

However, why did Rashi reject the possibility of a Pesul Dam? The answer may be as follows. Normally, the blood of a Korban is received in a vessel, and from the vessel it is sprinkled upon the Mizbe'ach. During the time that it is in the vessel it could spill or touch something that renders it Tamei, thus becoming Pasul. A bird (Chatas ha'Of), though, is different. A bird's blood is sprinkled *directly* onto the Mizbe'ach from the body of the animal. Since it comes directly from the neck of the bird onto the Mizbe'ach, the blood is sprinkled immediately after the bird is killed and thus there is no opportunity for the blood to spill out or for the blood to become Tamei. Therefore, Pesul Dam is not a possibility either in the Chatas ha'Of. (M. Kornfeld)

(c) TOSFOS HA'ROSH, citing the MAHARAM M'ROTENBURG, suggests a different reason why there is no such thing as a Pesul Dam for a Chatas ha'Of. Since the blood of a Chatas ha'Of is sprinkled directly from the neck of the bird, the blood is considered to be part of the *body* of the Korban (i.e., it is like part of the fats that are offered on the Mizbe'ach, rather than a prerequisite to offering the Korban on the Mizbe'ach). Consequently, if the blood spills or becomes Tamei, then it is a Pesul in the Korban itself and not just in the blood, and the bird could be burned right away.


QUESTION: The Gemara asserts that "Ein Zeri'ah l'Terumah," Zeri'ah (replanting a fruit of Terumah that became Tamei) does not make that fruit Tahor. This is a "Ma'alah," a special Halachah, which the Rabanan enacted for Terumah and for Kodshim due to their sanctity, even though mid'Oraisa the fruit would become Tahor through Zeri'ah. The Gemara cites three proofs to this Halachah that "Ein Zeri'ah l'Terumah."

1. The first proof is from the water used for Mei Chatas. The Beraisa derives from a verse that the water must be "Chiyusan b'Kli," which Rashi explains to mean that the water must be filled from the wellspring with the same vessel in which it will be mixed with the ashes of the Parah Adumah. The Beraisa continues and points out that the verse also says, "v'Nasan," which implies that the water *may* be given from one vessel to another, and the ashes do not have to be added to it in the same vessel in which it was collected from the wellspring! It must be that the Rabanan enacted a Ma'alah for Mei Chatas; even though mid'Oraisa it may be passed from one vessel to another, the Rabanan decreed that it must be taken from the wellspring by the vessel in which the ashes will be added. This is supposed to be a proof that the Rabanan made a Ma'alah for Terumah and decreed that Zeri'ah does not work to be Metaher fruits of Terumah.

What does Mei Chatas have to do with Zeri'ah? What sort of proof is the Gemara bringing to the Halachah that Zeri'ah does not work for Kodshim and Terumah?

The other two proofs that the Gemara cites also seem unrelated to Zeri'ah:

2. One proof is from the fact that a person who was Tamei, who has immersed and the sun has set, may eat Terumah, but he may not eat Kodshim until he brings his Korban the next day. Even though he is Tahor when the sun sets, he may not eat Kodshim until he brings his Korban the next day. This is a Ma'alah of Kodshim. But it has nothing to do with the Ma'alah that Zeri'ah does not work for Terumah! What is the Gemara's proof from there?

3. The final proof is from the Beraisa which derives from a verse that even Etzim u'Levonah (wood and incense used in the Beis ha'Mikdash) can become Tamei, even though they are not food items. What does that have to do with the Ma'alah that Zeri'ah does not work to be Metaher Kodshim?

ANSWERS: (a) According to Rashi, the following may be suggested:
1. The Gemara is proving from Mei Chatas that the Rabanan are entitled to devise a Ma'aleh for an item that only has Kedushas Peh and not Kedushas Kli, a point which the Gemara had just been discussing (Rashi DH Af Anan -- see next Insight for an explanation of how this applies to Mei Chatas.)

2. The next proof the Gemara brings -- from the Mishnah which says that sunset and becoming Tahor is not enough to permit one to eat Kodshim, but one must wait until the next day when he brings his Korban -- shows us that the Torah itself made a Ma'alah for Kodshim, Rashi explains. This teaches us why the Rabanan have the license to make Ma'alos for Kodshim; "k'Ein d'Oraisa Takun."

3. The third proof teaches us a further Chidush. The Ma'alah that the Rabanan made for Terumah not only has no source in the Torah, but is counterintuitive. We know that something which is planted is considered attached to the ground, and anything attached to the ground *cannot* be Tamei from any type of Tum'ah. How, then, could the Rabanan say the opposite and decree that when Terumah which is Tamei is planted into the ground, it remains Tamei? For this the Gemara brings its third proof. We know non-food items normally cannot become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin at all. Yet we find that the Rabanan enacted that due to Chibas ha'Kodesh, even Etzim u'Levonah of Kodshim can become Tamei! This demonstrates that the Rabanan may prescribe a Ma'alah which gives Tum'ah even to things which normally cannot be Mekabel Tum'ah.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL and TOSFOS (DH v'Nasan) and other Rishonim explain the proof from Mei Chatas entirely differently than Rashi:
1. The Gemara is not talking about pouring the water from one vessel to another, or removing the water from the wellspring with the same vessel to which ashes will be added. Rather, "Chiyusan b'Kli" merely means that one must fill the water with a vessel from the wellspring, and one may not take the water from the wellspring with an object which is not a vessel. The Beraisa's question is that one verse implies that one must place a vessel *into* the well to fill it up, while the other verse ("v'Nasan") implies that one may *pour* the water into the vessel, and the vessel need not be in the well at the time it is filled. It must be that mid'Oraisa, even water that is attached to the ground is considered *detached* with respect to certain laws.

The Torah is teaching that for Tum'ah of Terumah and Kodshim, water that is inside a vessel which is inside a well is not considered attached to the ground. In other words, "Hashakah" (water of Kodshim inside a vessel that is placed into a Mikvah to become Tahor through "Hashakah") and "Zeri'ah" do not work to remove Tum'ah from Kodshim and Terumah. According to Tosfos' explanation, the Gemara is bringing a direct source in the Torah for the Ma'alah that Zeri'ah does not work for Kodshim, mid'Oraisa (and therefore it does not work for Terumah, mid'Rabanan). This Beraisa is a direct source for the Halachah that the Gemara has been discussing.

2. As far as the other two sources are concerned, Tosfos might learn that the Gemara is bringing other examples where the *Torah* gave a Ma'alah to Kodshim. In the case of one who has not yet brought his Korban ("Mechuser Kaparah"), the Torah made a Ma'alah that one must wait additional time until he may eat Kodshim.

3. Similarly, with regard to Etzim u'Levonah which are items of Hekdesh, the *Torah* made a Ma'alah that they can become Tamei. (Tosfos here is consistent with his opinion earlier (19a, DH Alma, see Insights there) that Etzim u'Levonah are Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa). Again, the Gemara is showing that there are Ma'alos in the Torah for Kodshim. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: When the Gemara proves from Mei Chatas that Zeri'ah is not Metaher Kodshim and Terumah which become Tamei (see previous Insight), RASHI (DH Af Anan) writes that the proof from Mei Chatas shows us that the Rabanan made their Ma'alah for Kodshim "even [when the Kodshim are only sanctified] with Kedushas Peh."

How can Mei Chatas prove anything for Kodshim which are sanctified with Kedushas Peh? Mei Chatas is placed in a Kli and has Kedushas Kli and not Kedushas Peh! (MAHARSHA)

Second, why does Rashi say that the Gemara is "proving" that the Rabanan made a Ma'alah even for Kedushas Peh? The Gemara earlier was in *doubt* whether Ma'alos were made for Kedushas Peh, and the Gemara did not come to any conclusion!


(a) The GINZEI YOSEF answers that Kedushas Kli exists only when the item is placed into a Kli Shares, a vessel sanctified for use in the Mikdash (as Rashi says in DH Teme'os). The Mei Chatas is filled in a normal vessel and not in a Kli Shares.

(b) We can use the Ginzei Yosef's answer to the first question to answer the second question as well. No Kli Shares is ever involved with the Mei Chatas. The Gemara earlier made a statement about Terumah that since Terumah is never sanctified with Kedushas Kli but only with Kedushas Peh, its status of Kedushas Peh is as weighty as Kedushas Kli. That is, if something can never be given Kedushas Kli, then that item's Kedushas Peh is certainly enough to give it a Ma'alah. If so, Rashi is correct in saying that the Gemara is proving a point that was already said. The Gemara is not proving that Kedushas Peh is enough to give *Kodshim* a Ma'alah. Rather, the Gemara is proving from Mei Chatas that Kedushas Peh is enough to give a Ma'alah to something which never has Kedushas Kli, like Terumah. Mei Chatas is a perfect proof for this, since Mei Chatas never has Kedushas Kli, but only Kedushas Peh. (M. Kornfeld)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,