(a)Rav Ashi, from whom we learnt that wheat kernels must be burnt and disgusting, said this with regard to Aba Shaul, Rebbi's baker. What was the case there?

(b)The Mishnah in Terumos says 'Shesilei Terumah she'Nitme'u, Tehorim mi'Letamei'. Seeing as the Terumah becomes Tahor, why does the Tana conclude 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol'? How did Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin explain this?

(c)What is the technical difference between Gidulei Terumah and Gidulei Gidulin?

(d)What is the Halachic difference between them?


(a)Aba Shaul, Rebbi's baker - used to heat up water with Tamei Terumah wheat as fuel, in order to knead dough b'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)Faced with other Mishnahs in Terumos forbidding both Gidulei Terumah and Gudulei Gidulin (in their respective cases), how does Rav Sheshes explain 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' (in 1b.), and why is it Asur?

(b)According to Resh Lakish, Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul ha'Guf. Is this mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?

(c)What does Rebbi Yochanan hold?

(d)What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?


(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 mid'Rabanan.

(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.


(a)What is the problem with Rav Sheshes' interpretation of 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' (in 2a) from Rebbi Yochanan, who considers Hesech ha'Da'as a Pesul Tum'ah? (Note: This Kashya will only be answered later in the Sugya.)


(a)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)Why did the Kohanim throw the Pesulei Chatas ha'Of into a small cavity between the west side of the ramp and the Mizbe'ach? Did it remain there permanently?

(b)Which kind of Pesul is the Beraisa referring to, according to Rebbi Yochanan, and why is that?

(c)What is the difference between a Korban Pesach whose flesh became intrinsically Pasul, and one that became Pasul because its blood spilt or because the owner was Tamei?

(d)How does Resh Lakish refute the proof from the Beraisa of 'Pesulei Chatas ha'Of' that Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah, and not a Pesul ha'Guf (by citing the Beraisa that was quoted in the Beis-Hamedrash of Rabah bar Avuha)?


(a)The Kohanim throw the Pesulei Chatas ha'Of into a small cavity between the West side of the ramp and the Mizbe'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 b'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 permits the blood of a Korban to be sprinkled, even if the flesh is no longer available to burn or to eat. Which three cases (with regard to an animal that is Kodshei Kodashim) does this incorporate?

(b)What does Rebbi Yehoshua hold?

(c)The Gemara attempts to prove from Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion (in connection with 'Nifsal ha'Basar') that Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah, like Rebbi Yochanan. Why does the Gemara equate the Pesul of Nifsal ha'Basar with Hesech ha'Da'as? Why not the Pesul Machshavah of Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo'?

(d)How then, does the Gemara attempt to prove that from there that Hesech ha'Da'as must be 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 (Yotzei is different, because, since the flesh is still there, it is considered an external Pesul - see also Tosfos DH 'she'Im')?


(a)How does the Gemara establish the case of 'Nifsal ha'Basar'. according to Resh Lakish?

(b)But is that not included in 'Nitma'?


(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)On the previous Amud, we asked on Rav Sheshes (who explained that 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' in the Mishnah in Terumos, means that the re-planted Terumah fruits are Asur for the Kohanim to eat because of the Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as) from Rebbi Yochanan, in whose opinion Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah. When Rebbi Yirmeyahu (who lived in Eretz Yisrael) heard Rav Sheshes' explanation, he was not too complimentary about the Bavli'im and their explanations. What did he say about them?

(b)What is Hashakah?

(c)Resh Lakish quoting Rebbi Oshaya, who rules that if one first made Hashakah with water for Nisuch ha'Mayim (on Succos) which had become Tamei and then declared it Hekdesh, it is Tahor (and eligible to be poured on the Mizbe'ach; but that if they reversed the order, only making Hashakah after the water had been declared Hekdesh, then the water would remain Tamei. In which way could the water be sanctified other than by declaring it Hekdesh?

(d)Why did they not simply draw fresh water from the Spring of Shilo'ach?


(a)When Rebbi Yirmeyahu 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 Kli 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)In the previous question, why should there be a difference between whether the water was sanctified before the Hashakah or afterwards?

(b)How does Rebbi Yirmeyahu use this answer to explain the Mishnah in Terumos, which forbids the re-planted Terumah to be eaten, even though it really becomes Tahor?


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

(b)With regard to the Mishnah in Terumos too, explains Rebbi Yirmeyahu, 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)Abaye asked Rav Dimi whether the above Ma'aleh applied specifically to water that became Hekdesh in a Kli Shares, or whether it also extended to water that was declared Hekdesh verbally. Rav Dimi cited a precedent from Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan by someone who was pressing grapes that had become Tamei. What was he pressing them for?

(b)Whether or not the wine became Tamei depends on whether they were first pressed and then declared Hekdesh, or vice-versa. Which is which, and how does Rav Dimi resolve Abaye's She'eilah from there?

(c)Rav Yosef disagrees with Rav Dimi. He establishes Rebbi Yochanan by grapes of Terumah. Why would grapes of Terumah be any different than grapes of Hekdesh?


(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 Kli Shares, and a Kli Shares only sanctifies something that requires a Kli Shares) - so we have a proof from here that Chazal also made a Ma'alah even by Kedushas Peh , not only by Kedushas Kli.

(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 Kli Shares, until such time as they are placed into one.


(a)According to the Gemara's first explanation, when Rebbi Yochanan permits pressing the Tamei Terumah grapes, he must be speaking about pressing less than a k'Beitzah at a time, in order to avoid a discrepancy beteen his statement here, and in the one he made above (on 33b). What is the Gemara's second explanation (which establishes his statement here even when he pressed more than a k'Beitzah at a time)?

(b)Why should there be a difference between grapes that are a Sheni l'Tum'ah and grapes that are a Shelishi?

(c)We are talking about Chulin (which he subsequently declares Terumah). Since when is there even such a thing as a Shelishi l'Tum'ah by Chulin?


(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 l'Tum'ah, making them a Shelishi, and it is only when the grapes touched a Rishon l'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 l'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)What is the apparent self-contradiction in the Pasuk in Chukas "v'Nasan Alav Mayim Chayim El Kli"?

(b)How does the Gemara resolve this, and what does it prove from there?

(c)What further proof does the Gemara bring for the concept of 'Ma'aleh' from the Din of Ha'arev Shemesh by a Mechusar Kipurim (a Zav, a Zavah or a Yoledes)? In which way is this Ma'aleh different than all the others?

(d)What do we learn from the 'Vav' in "v'ha'Basar, kol Tahor Yochal Basar"? What final proof does the Gemara bring for the concept of Ma'alah from there?


(a)Chazal understand from "v'Nasan (Alav Mayim Chayim el Kli)" - 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 Kli" 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 mid'Oraisa. The first Derashah (from v'Nasan, is not d'Oraisa at all. It is a Ma'alah mid'Rabanan, which the Rabanan 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 mid'Rabanan 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 mid'Rabanan.

(d)We learn from the 'Vav' in "v'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 d'Rabanan.