(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 34



(a) Aba Shaul, Rebbi's baker - used to heat up water with Tamei Terumah wheat as fuel, in order to knead dough be'Taharah.

(b) Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin explained 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' (in the Mishnah in Terumos) to mean Asur to Zarim.

(c) Gidulei Terumah refers to the actual plant itself, that expands as it grows. Gidulei Gidulin, to new twigs or branches that grew out of the original plant.

(d) Gidulei Terumah remains Terumah at all costs, whereas Gidulei Gidulin only remain Terumah by seeds which do *not* decompose before they begin to re-grow, but not by seeds that *do*.

(a) Rav Sheshes explain 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' - to mean Asur to Kohanim. This is because of 'Hesech ha'Da'as' (i.e. once the food becomes Tamei, the Kohanim take their minds off it, and have no further interest in guarding it from Tum'ah).

(b) According to Resh Lakish, Hesech ha'Da'as, a Pesul ha'Guf - is a Ma'alah mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) In Rebbi Yochanan's opinion, Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah.

(d) According to him, should it transpire that the Terumah did not become Tamei (for example, if Eliyahu were to come and reveal it) - then the Terumah would be Tahor; whereas according to Resh Lakish, since it is a Pesul ha'Guf, it will still be Pasul.

3) If, Rebbi Yochanan says, Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah, then planting the Tamei Terumah should permit it to Kohanim, since planting removes the Tum'ah; so how can Rav Sheshes explain 'Asurin mi'Le'echol' to mean Asurin la'Kohanim'?


(a) The Kohanim throw the Pesulei Chatas ha'Of into a small cavity between the West side of the ramp and the Mizbei'ach - provided the Pesul was not a Pesul ha'Guf - where it would remain overnight, to be burnt the next morning, when they became Pasul be'Linah (a Pesul ha'Guf). This process is known as 'Ibur Tzurah' and the reason for it (in this case) is because it is not permitted to burn Safek Kodshim, in case Eliyahu will come and reveal that they were really Tahor, and it will transpire that they burnt Tahor Kodshim.

(b) Every other kind of Pesul - such as Pigul, Tamei, Yotzei etc. is a Pesul ha'Guf and there is no reason why Ibur Tzurah should be required.

(c) A Korban Pesach whose *flesh* became intrinsically Pasul - is burnt immediately, whereas one that became Pasul because its *blood spilt* or because the *owner was Tamei* requires Ibur Tzurah (since the Korban, or whatever remains of it, is not intrinsically Pasul at all).

(d) The author of the Beraisa of 'Pesulei Chatas ha'Of', replies Resh Lakish, is the Tana of the Beraisa that was quoted in the Beis-Hamedrash of Rabah bar Avuha - who holds that even *Pigul* requires Ibur Tzurah. In that case, the Tana is not necessarily referring to the Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as, and so there is no proof from there that Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah.




(a) Rebbi Eliezer says 'Nitma, O she'Nifsal ha'Basar O she'Yatza Chutz li'Kela'im, Yizrok'.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua says 'Lo Yizrok. u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua, sh'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'.

(c) Had the Korban become Pasul through a Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo - the entire Korban would be Pasul, and Rebbi Eliezer would hardly have said 'Yizrok'. That is why the Tana could only mention cases where the flesh became Pasul, but not the blood.

(d) The Gemara's proof is from the 'Hurtzah' of Rebbi Yehoshua regarding 'Nifsal Basar', since Nifsal ha'Basar can only mean Hesech ha'Da'as. Now if Hesech ha'Da'as was a Pesul ha'Guf (i.e. not a Pesul Tum'ah), then how could the Tzitz atone for it, since the Tzitz only atones for Pesulei Tum'ah (Yotze is different, because, since the flesh is still there, it is considered an external Pesul - see also Tosfos DH 'she'Im')?

(a) The Gemara establishes the case of Nitma ha'Basar, according to Resh Lakish, by a Tevul-Yom?

(b) Yes! a Tevul-Yom is included in Nitma ha'Basar. Nevertheless, the Tana mentions it independently (in a way that is not uncommon for Tana'im), because a Tevul-Yom is, in some ways, different than other cases of Tum'ah.

(a) When Rebbi Yirmiyah heard Rav Sheshes' explanation - he exclaimed 'Those foolish Bavli'im! Is it because they live in a dark country, that they say dark statements (unenlightened - that they have concocted for lack of anything better to say)?

(b) Hashakah means the Toveling of water that became Tamei. It is performed by lowering the vessel which contains it into a Mikveh. (It is not called 'Tevilah' in the regular sense, but 'Zeri'ah' - sowing).

(c) Besides by means of declaring it Hekdesh, the water could also be sanctified by placing it into a K'li Shares.

(d) They could not simply draw fresh water from the Spring of Shilo'ach in this case, because it is speaking about Shabbos, when carrying the water from the Shilo'ach was forbidden.

(a) Strictly speaking, Hashakah helps in all situations. However, Chazal made a Ma'alah by Kodshim, and decreed 'Ein Hashakah le'Hekdesh'.

(b) With regard to the Mishnah in Terumos too, explains Rebbi Yirmiyah, they made a Ma'alah by Terumah, and said that although strictly speaking, re- planting Tamei Terumah renders the plants Tahor, just as there is no Hashakah by Kodshim, so too, there is no re-planting by Terumah, and they remain forbidden to the Kohanim.

(a) Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan was talking about someone who was pressing grapes that had become Tamei - for the Nesachim.

(b) If he first pressed the Tamei grapes and then declared them Hekdesh, they are Tahor (because, as Rebbi Yochanan said earlier, Mashkin Mifkad Pekidi); but if he first declared them Hekdesh, they are Tamei (because Chazal made a Ma'alah by Kodshim, considering the wine as if it was Mivli Beli'i). Now the grapes can only be Kedushas Peh (since they do not require a K'li Shares, and a K'li Shares only sanctifies something that requires a K'li Shares) - so we have a proof from here that Chazal also made a Ma'alah even by Kedushas Peh , not only by Kedushas K'li.

(c) Rav establishes Rebbi Yochanan, not by grapes of Nesachim, but by grapes of Terumah, which are always considered Kedushas ha'Guf, since that is the only Kedushah that exists by them. Kedushas Peh only exists by Kodshim, which require, or will require, a K'li Shares, until such time as they are placed into one.

(a) According to the Gemara's second explanation, Rebbi Yochanan is speaking here even when he pressed the grapes more than a k'Beitzah at a time, because we are speaking here when the grapes touched a Sheni le'Tum'ah, making them a Shelishi, and it is only when the grapes touched a Rishon le'Tum'ah (and are themselves now a Sheni) that they must be pressed less than a k'Beitzah at a time.

(b) The reason for this distinction is because, in the latter case, the grapes would only render the wine, a Revi'i, and there is no Revi'i in the realm of Terumah.

(c) Although there is no Shelishi le'Tum'ah by Chulin, there *is*, by Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, which must be what Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan is talking about.

(a) Chazal understand from "ve'Nasan (Alav Mayim Chayim el Keli)" - to mean that the water for Mei Chatas must be placed from the fountain into the vessel which in which the Kidush (the mixing of the water and the ashes) will be performed. On the other hand, "el Keli" implies that one may pour it into a another vessel (Note: Rashi does not seem to have the text 've'Ha Mechubarin Ninhu'); two statements that seem to contradict each other?

(b) In fact, answers the Gemara, the second Derashah is mi'd'Oraysa. The first Derashah (from ve'Nasan, is not d'Oraysa at all. It is a Ma'alah mi'de'Rabbanan, which the Rabbanan supported with a Derashah, a Derashah which is not really implied by the Torah. In any event, we have further proof from here for the concept of a Ma'alah mi'de'Rabbanan in the realm of Kodshim.

(c) Now why should the Torah forbid a Mechusar Kipurim to eat Kodshim, seeing as he is really Tahor? - It must be because here, the Torah itself is making a Ma'alah by Kodshim. This is different than all the other Ma'alos mentioned in the Sugya, which are purely Ma'alos mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d) We learn from the 'Vav' in "ve'ha'Basar" - that the wood and the frankincense of Kodshim is also subject to Tum'ah, although it is not food - a final Ma'alah de'Rabbanan.

Next daf


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