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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Pesachim 20



(a) How an animal of a Shelamim (which the Pasuk renders Tamei) became Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah- is not a problem, since there is plenty of water in Yerushalayim (where the Shelamim had to be eaten) to render the animal Muchshar (and it could have become Muchshar, for example, whilst it was being washed). The problem is regarding an animal of Kodshim in the Azarah, as we shall now see.

(b) The flesh of the Korban could not have become Muchshar ...

1. ... through blood (either its own or of another Korban) - because of Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Dam she'Nishpach ka'Mayim, Machshir, ve'she'Eino Nishpach ka'Mayim, Eino Machshir'.
2. ... through the water with which it was washed - because of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who said 'Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya ... Ein Machshirin'.
(c) To say that the flesh became Muchshar through Chibas ha'Kodesh - would be synonymous with saying that Chibas ha'Kodesh causes Kodshim to become not only Pasul, but Tamei (to transmit Tum'ah to others - the Mishnah says 'ha'Basar *Tamei* and not just *Pasul*). And clearly, that is not how Resh Lakish (who is uncertain whether Chibas ha'Kodesh renders Pasul or even Tamei) interprets the Mishnah.

(d) Resh Lakish asked whether a Tzerid shel Menachos - the dry flour of Menachos (the parts where there was no oil, and which is subject to Tum'ah only because of Chibas ha'Kodesh) can even become a Rishon or a Sheni le'Tum'ah, or whether it can only be Pasul, but no more.

2) The flesh of the Korban become Muchshar Lakabel Tum'ah through the water of the river, via which the owner led the animal on its way to the Beis Hamikdash to be Shechted. It was probably a Shelamim, which the owner was trying to improve (by making it easier to skin) in this way.


(a) The Gemara thought that the Beraisa was was referring to liquid dung - because we are speaking when he had just watered the animal, as we learnt earlier.

(b) Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa even by liquid dung. Liquid dung, he says, is not called a Mashkeh - but a Mashkeh Saru'ach (a smelly liquid).

(a) If a Sheretz is Metamei liquid, which is Metamei a vessel, which in turn, is Metamei food, which is Metamei liquid, we have here *four* Tum'os which result from a Sheretz - so why does the Beraisa write *three*?

(b) It is the *first* 'liquid' that must be eliminated, and not the *second* - because there is no Tana who holds that liquid renders vessels Tamei except Rebbi Yehudah, who retracted.

(c) Leaving the first liquid intact would have anyway caused a problem - because it is only food that received Tum'ah from a vessel which in turn, received Tum'ah from a *Sheretz* that is Metamei liquid, but not from a vessel which received Tum'ah from *liquid*.

(d) To manufacture Nezaisa (barley-beer) - they would bring first the vessel, then the barley (the food) and then the water (the liquid).

(a) We think that bread in an oven in which there is a dead Sheretz becomes a *Rishon* le'Tum'ah - because we consider the whole oven to be full of Tum'ah, so that everything inside it becomes a Rishon.

(b) If this were so, it would mean that the oven has the Din of an Av ha'Tum'ah, which is Metamei everything, even vessels. In that case, how would we account for the Beraisa, which learns from the juxtaposition of "mi'Kol ha'Ochel" to "Kol Asher be'Socho Yitma", that only *food* can receive Tum'ah from the air of an earthenware vessel, but not *vessels*? Consequently, we are forced to say that the air becomes a Rishon (and not an Av), and the food inside it, a *Sheni*.




(a) Rebbi Yossi (in a Beraisa) *forbids* burning Terumah Teluyah together with Temei'ah - because maybe Eliyahu will come and declare the Terumah Teluyah, Tahor.

(b) the Tana of our Mishnah, in whose opinion Rebbi Yehoshua *permits* it - is Rebbi Shimon, with whom Rebbi Yossi argues.

(c) What Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah is saying to Rebbi Meir, is - that even Rebbi Shimon (with whom he disagrees), who is lenient, is only lenient by *Teluyah* and Temei'ah, but not by *Tehorah* and Temei'ah.


1. Rebbi Meir even goes so far as to permit burning Terumah Temei'ah, Teluyah and Tehorah all together on Erev Pesach.
2. Rebbi Yossi forbids burning any two of them together; according to him, each one must be burnt separately.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one may burn Terumah *Tehorah* together with Teluyah - because, since there is no Chezkas Tum'ah, it does *not* appear as if he is being Metamei Terumah with his hands. Whereas he forbids the burning of Terumah *Temei'ah* together with Teluyah, because, since the Teluyah has not been declared Tamei, it *does*appear as if he is being Terumah with his hands.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua permits burning even Terumah *Temei'ah* together with Teluyah - because, in his opinion, the prohibition of being Metamei Terumah is confined to a Vaday Tum'ah, not to a Safek.

(a) Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah quoting Rebbi Yehoshua, forbids burning Terumah Tehorah together with Temei'ah - because it entails only a small loss, unlike the Chulin wine which he is saving from becoming Medumeh, which is considered a big loss.

(b) The Gemara proves this distinction by virtue of Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion with regard to a barrel of *oil*, which, under the same circumstances as the wine (which he just permitted to render Tamei), he forbids. Why is that? Because oil can still be used for fuel, in which case the loss is only a small one; whereas by the spilling wine, which is not fit for Ziluf (sprinkling), as we shall soon see, the loss is a big one.

(c) 'Ziluf' means sprinkling with the aim of settling the dust - and the reason that the use of fuel applies to oil more than Ziluf does to wine is because we are talking about fresh wine, which may not be kept until it becomes old, in case one comes to inadvertently use it; oil on the other hand, can be kept in smelly vessels (which will discourage people from using it in the interim) until it becomes fit to be used as fuel. One cannot however, keep wine for Ziluf in smelly vessels, because Ziluf, unlike fuel, requires a pleasant aroma.

(d) We know that Ziluf was considered important in those days - because Shmuel quoted Rebbi Chiya as saying that someone who is willing to pay *one* Sela for wine to *drink*, should be willing to pay *two* Sela for the same wine for *Ziluf*.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi makes a compromise between Beis Shamai, who forbid retaining a barrel of Terumah wine which became Tamei, and Beis Hillel, who permit one to retain it to use for Ziluf. According to him, in the field, it must be poured out immediately (and not taken home to make Ziluf there, because we are afraid that, in the interim, he may drink it); but in the house, he may use it for Ziluf whilst he is pouring it out. Alternatively, new wine must be poured out immediately (as we learnt above); whereas old wine, which is fit for Ziluf immediately, may be used for that purpose.

(b) Beis Hillel are *not* worried about Takalah (inadvertently using it if one is permitted to keep it), whereas Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi *is*.

(c) The previous Sugya, which *is* worried about Takalah - holds like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi.

(d) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi is not considered a Machri'a, because neither Beis Shamai nor Beis Hillel gave any indication that they acknowledge the distinction that Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi made, in which case, he is not really compromising at all, but is merely a third opinion, which is not necessarily Halachah.

Next daf


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