The mishna lists cases in which truma fell into items that were chullin and forbade the mixture. Then part of that mixture combined with other chullin. How does one calculate laws of nullification? Is there a way to use drawn water in a mikveh? How should the ashes be mixed with water to the purification waters – water first or ashes first? A field in which there is a dead body – if one plows, should one be concerned for the surrounding fields? Is substitution on a substituted animal effective? Can an offspring of a sanctified animal effect substitution? The gemara explains the debates surrounding these issues.
Temurah 12
07.31.2019 | כ״ח בתמוז תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Temurah 12
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם… וְזָבַחְתָּ״?
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Slaughtering a pregnant peace offering containing a non-sacred fetus is not subject to the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard. Do we read the verse: “If the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), as applying to such a case? This verse prohibits the slaughter of non-sacred animals in the Temple, but only those that could be slaughtered elsewhere. But here, he had no choice but to slaughter the pregnant mother in the Temple, since it was a peace offering.
בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַב יוֹסֵף: הִיא חוּלִּין וּוְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים, וּשְׁחָטָהּ בְּחוּץ — מַהוּ? מִי מִחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ, אוֹ לָא?
Abaye posed the opposite dilemma to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that fetuses can be consecrated, if one consecrated the fetus, but not its mother, as a peace offering, such that it, the mother, is non-sacred, and its offspring is a peace offering, and he slaughtered it outside the Temple courtyard as a non-sacred animal, what is the halakha? Is one liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or not?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וֶהֱבִיאָם לַה׳״?
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Do we read the verse: “That they may bring them to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:5), as applying to this case? The full passage reads: “Any man of the house of Israel who shall slaughter a bull, or a lamb, or a goat…and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting…that man shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:3–5). The passage indicates that the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple applies only to those offerings that are fit to be slaughtered inside. But this fetus is not fit to be slaughtered at all until it is born.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רָאוּי לְפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ.
The Gemara cites another version of this answer. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The verse states: “And has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that one is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it is fit to come through the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., to be sacrificed in the Temple. This fetus is not yet fit.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין הַמְדוּמָּע מְדַמֵּעַ, אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן.
MISHNA: If teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to teruma was less than one hundred to one, the teruma is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture renders it a mixture of teruma only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture.
וְאֵין הַמְחוּמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן, וְאֵין הַמַּיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן.
And dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the teruma is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original teruma leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. And if three log of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty se’a to complete the requisite forty se’a, the ritual bath is invalidated. But drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, as explained in the Gemara.
וְאֵין מֵי חַטָּאת, עוֹשִׂין מֵי חַטָּאת אֶלָּא עִם מַתַּן אֵפֶר, וְאֵין בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשִׂין בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְאֵין תְּרוּמָה אַחַר תְּרוּמָה.
And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a beit haperas. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma.
וְאֵין תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְלֹא הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֶקְדֵּשׁ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.
And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Sages said to him: A consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, but the offspring does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.
גְּמָ׳ מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a mixture of teruma produce and non-sacred produce was intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture is prohibited only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
דִּתְנַן: סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חוּלִּין, וְנִדְמְעוּ, וְנָפַל מִן הַמְדוּמָּע לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְדַמֵּעַ כִּתְרוּמָה וַדַּאי (שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא שֶׁעָלְתָה).
As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:6): If a se’a of teruma fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce and thereby caused it to become a prohibited mixture, since the amount of teruma is too great to be nullified by the non-sacred produce, and a se’a from the mixture subsequently fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se’a from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture as definite teruma would, in the same ratio, since I say: It is possible that the same se’a of teruma that fell into the first mixture was not mixed evenly throughout, and it all came out of it intact and fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification as if it were unadulterated teruma.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שֶׁבָּהּ.
And the Rabbis say: The se’a from the original prohibited mixture renders the derivative mixture prohibited only according to the calculation of actual teruma in the entire mixture, calculated as if the teruma were evenly distributed throughout the first mixture. The mishna evidently follows the opinion of the Rabbis.
וְאֵין הַמְחוּמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
§ The mishna teaches: And if a portion of dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
דִּתְנַן: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ, וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ, וְנִצְטָרְפוּ וְחִימְּצוּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן אֲנִי בָּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה וּבֵין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר בַּסּוֹף, לְעוֹלָם אֵין אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ.
As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In a case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma that fell together into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element to fall into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the forbidden item fell in last, it is prohibited only if there is enough of the prohibited leaven itself to cause the dough to leaven.
וְאֵין הַמַּיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מַאן תָּנָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִקְוֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת סְאָה מֵי גְשָׁמִים, מְמַלֵּא בַּכָּתֵף תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה סְאָה, וּפוֹתְקָן לַמִּקְוֶה,
§ The mishna further teaches: And drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 4:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If a ritual bath contains twenty-one se’a of rainwater, the majority of a valid ritual bath of forty se’a, what can one do to render it valid? One fills drawn water in a bucket carried on the shoulder in the amount of nineteen se’a, and with it fills a pit adjacent to the ritual bath, and one lets the water flow [ufotekan] through a passage from the pit into the ritual bath,
וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין, שֶׁהַשְּׁאִיבָה מְטַהֶרֶת בִּרְבִיָּיה וּבְהַמְשָׁכָה.
and in this manner all forty se’a are ritually pure. The reason is that drawn water is purified by a majority of fit water that was already present in the ritual bath and by the drawn water flowing into the ritual bath. This is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation: One calculates the amount of drawn water that flowed into the ritual bath, as the ritual bath is invalid only if most of the forty se’a is of that drawn water.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי דְּבִרְבִיָּיה וּבְהַמְשָׁכָה לָא? אֶלָּא דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁאוּבָה שֶׁהִמְשִׁיכוּהָ כּוּלָּהּ — טְהוֹרָה. מַנִּי? לָא רַבָּנַן וְלָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!
The Gemara asks: If this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov alone, one must conclude by inference that the Rabbis hold that the ritual bath is not fit even by a majority of fit water and by the flowing of the drawn water. But if so, consider that which Ravin said when he came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, namely, that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A ritual bath that consists in its entirety of drawn water that one made flow into it is pure. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath even if it flowed into it, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath if it constitutes a majority of the forty se’a.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן כֵּלִים, וְיוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי הִיא.
Rather, Rabba says: The mishna’s ruling, that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, is not referring to drawn water that flowed. Instead, it means according to the calculation of the number of vessels from which the drawn water was directly poured into the ritual bath, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ḥoni.
דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לַמַּיִם, בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כֵּלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה כֵּלִים — פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כֵּלִים (פוסל) [פּוֹסְלִין] אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, בְּאַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה — אֵין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה.
As it is taught in a baraita: If three log of drawn water fell into the water of a ritual bath that lacked the requisite measure, from two or three vessels, with each containing at least one log of drawn water, or even from four or five vessels, where no whole log fell in at once, it invalidates the ritual bath. Yosef ben Ḥoni says: It is only if the drawn water was in two or three vessels that the water invalidates the ritual bath. But if the drawn water was in four or five vessels, the water does not invalidate the ritual bath. This is what the mishna means.
וְאֵין מֵי חַטָּאת (נַעֲשֶׂה) [נַעֲשִׂין] מֵי חַטָּאת כּוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
§ The mishna teaches: And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by the placement of water onto the ashes. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
דְּתַנְיָא: הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.
As it is taught in a baraita: A sota, a woman suspected of unfaithfulness by her husband, must drink bitter waters prepared in the Temple. The verse states: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17). This verse teaches that the water must be placed in the vessel first, and the dust is placed on top of it. If one places the dust in the vessel before the water, the mixture is unfit, but Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב ״וְלָקְחוּ לַטָּמֵא מֵעֲפַר שְׂרֵפַת הַחַטָּאת וְנָתַן עָלָיו מַיִם חַיִּים״, וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: וְכִי עָפָר הוּא? וַהֲלֹא אֵפֶר הוּא!
The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written with regard to the red heifer: “And for the impure they shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin, and place on it flowing water in a vessel” (Numbers 19:17). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: But is it dust [afar] that is taken? Isn’t it really ashes [efer]?
שִׁינָּה הַכָּתוּב מִמַּשְׁמָעוֹ, לָדוּן הֵימֶנּוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עָפָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עָפָר״. מָה לְהַלָּן — עָפָר עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם, אַף כָּאן — עָפָר עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם. וּמָה כָּאן הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — כָּשֵׁר, אַף כָּאן הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — כָּשֵׁר.
Evidently the verse altered its standard usage and referred to ashes as dust in order to derive a verbal analogy from it: “Dust” is stated in the verse here, and “dust” is stated there, with regard to the sota. Just as there, in the case of the sota, the verse teaches that the dust must be placed on top of the water, so too here, with regard to the red heifer, the dust, i.e., ashes, must be placed on top of the water. And likewise, just as here, with regard to the red heifer, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact, so too there, in the case of the sota, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact.
וְהָכָא מְנָלַן? תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״וְנָתַן עָלָיו״, אַלְמָא אֵפֶר בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר כְּתִיב ״מַיִם חַיִּים אֶל כֶּלִי״. הָא כֵּיצַד? רָצָה עָפָר לְמַטָּה, רָצָה עָפָר לְמַעְלָה.
The Gemara asks: And here, with regard to the red heifer, from where do we derive that the mixture is fit even if the dust is placed first? Two phrases are written. First it is written: “They shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it.” Apparently, the ashes should be placed in the vessel first and the water afterward. And then it is written: “Running water in a vessel,” indicating that the water should be placed in the vessel first, while it is still empty. How can these texts be reconciled? They can be reconciled by concluding that if he desires to place the dust, i.e., the ashes of the red heifer, below, and put water on top, he may do so; and if he desires he may place the water first and then place the dust above the water.
וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר לָךְ: סֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא דַּוְקָא, ״וְנָתַן עָלָיו״ — לְעָרְבָן.
And the tanna of our mishna, who deems the mixture unfit if the ashes are placed first, what is his reasoning? He could say to you that the last clause of the verse: “Running water in a vessel,” is meant specifically, i.e., the water must be placed first. And when the verse states beforehand: “They shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it,” this teaches only that after placing the ashes upon the water one is required to mix the ashes with the water, so that the water covers the ashes.
מַאי חָזֵית דְּאָמְרַתְּ סֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא דַּוְקָא, דִּלְמָא רֵישָׁא דַּוְקָא? לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, מָה מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם מַכְשִׁיר לְמַעְלָה, אַף כָּאן מַכְשִׁיר לְמַעְלָה.
The Gemara objects: But one could just as easily say the opposite. What did you see that led you to say that the last clause of the verse is meant specifically? Perhaps the first clause of the verse is meant specifically. The Gemara answers: You cannot say so, as just as we find in every instance that the facilitating item goes above, e.g., in the case of a sota the dust, which enables the water to be used, goes on top of the water, so too here, in the case of the red heifer, the facilitating item must go above. The water must be placed first, and only then the ashes.
וְאֵין בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס.
§ The mishna further teaches: And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 17:2) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One beit haperas creates another beit haperas. If one plowed from a beit haperas into another field, that field is also ritually impure.
וְרַבָּנַן, עַד כַּמָּה? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא:
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, how far does a beit haperas extend? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said:
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
Temurah 12
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם… וְזָבַחְתָּ״?
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Slaughtering a pregnant peace offering containing a non-sacred fetus is not subject to the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard. Do we read the verse: “If the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), as applying to such a case? This verse prohibits the slaughter of non-sacred animals in the Temple, but only those that could be slaughtered elsewhere. But here, he had no choice but to slaughter the pregnant mother in the Temple, since it was a peace offering.
בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַב יוֹסֵף: הִיא חוּלִּין וּוְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים, וּשְׁחָטָהּ בְּחוּץ — מַהוּ? מִי מִחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ, אוֹ לָא?
Abaye posed the opposite dilemma to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that fetuses can be consecrated, if one consecrated the fetus, but not its mother, as a peace offering, such that it, the mother, is non-sacred, and its offspring is a peace offering, and he slaughtered it outside the Temple courtyard as a non-sacred animal, what is the halakha? Is one liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or not?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וֶהֱבִיאָם לַה׳״?
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Do we read the verse: “That they may bring them to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:5), as applying to this case? The full passage reads: “Any man of the house of Israel who shall slaughter a bull, or a lamb, or a goat…and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting…that man shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:3–5). The passage indicates that the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple applies only to those offerings that are fit to be slaughtered inside. But this fetus is not fit to be slaughtered at all until it is born.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רָאוּי לְפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ.
The Gemara cites another version of this answer. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The verse states: “And has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that one is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it is fit to come through the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., to be sacrificed in the Temple. This fetus is not yet fit.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין הַמְדוּמָּע מְדַמֵּעַ, אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן.
MISHNA: If teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to teruma was less than one hundred to one, the teruma is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture renders it a mixture of teruma only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture.
וְאֵין הַמְחוּמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן, וְאֵין הַמַּיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן.
And dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the teruma is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original teruma leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. And if three log of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty se’a to complete the requisite forty se’a, the ritual bath is invalidated. But drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, as explained in the Gemara.
וְאֵין מֵי חַטָּאת, עוֹשִׂין מֵי חַטָּאת אֶלָּא עִם מַתַּן אֵפֶר, וְאֵין בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשִׂין בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְאֵין תְּרוּמָה אַחַר תְּרוּמָה.
And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a beit haperas. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma.
וְאֵין תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְלֹא הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֶקְדֵּשׁ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.
And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Sages said to him: A consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, but the offspring does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.
גְּמָ׳ מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a mixture of teruma produce and non-sacred produce was intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture is prohibited only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
דִּתְנַן: סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חוּלִּין, וְנִדְמְעוּ, וְנָפַל מִן הַמְדוּמָּע לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְדַמֵּעַ כִּתְרוּמָה וַדַּאי (שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא שֶׁעָלְתָה).
As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:6): If a se’a of teruma fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce and thereby caused it to become a prohibited mixture, since the amount of teruma is too great to be nullified by the non-sacred produce, and a se’a from the mixture subsequently fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se’a from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture as definite teruma would, in the same ratio, since I say: It is possible that the same se’a of teruma that fell into the first mixture was not mixed evenly throughout, and it all came out of it intact and fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification as if it were unadulterated teruma.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שֶׁבָּהּ.
And the Rabbis say: The se’a from the original prohibited mixture renders the derivative mixture prohibited only according to the calculation of actual teruma in the entire mixture, calculated as if the teruma were evenly distributed throughout the first mixture. The mishna evidently follows the opinion of the Rabbis.
וְאֵין הַמְחוּמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
§ The mishna teaches: And if a portion of dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
דִּתְנַן: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ, וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ, וְנִצְטָרְפוּ וְחִימְּצוּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן אֲנִי בָּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה וּבֵין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר בַּסּוֹף, לְעוֹלָם אֵין אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ.
As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In a case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma that fell together into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element to fall into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the forbidden item fell in last, it is prohibited only if there is enough of the prohibited leaven itself to cause the dough to leaven.
וְאֵין הַמַּיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מַאן תָּנָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִקְוֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת סְאָה מֵי גְשָׁמִים, מְמַלֵּא בַּכָּתֵף תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה סְאָה, וּפוֹתְקָן לַמִּקְוֶה,
§ The mishna further teaches: And drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 4:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If a ritual bath contains twenty-one se’a of rainwater, the majority of a valid ritual bath of forty se’a, what can one do to render it valid? One fills drawn water in a bucket carried on the shoulder in the amount of nineteen se’a, and with it fills a pit adjacent to the ritual bath, and one lets the water flow [ufotekan] through a passage from the pit into the ritual bath,
וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין, שֶׁהַשְּׁאִיבָה מְטַהֶרֶת בִּרְבִיָּיה וּבְהַמְשָׁכָה.
and in this manner all forty se’a are ritually pure. The reason is that drawn water is purified by a majority of fit water that was already present in the ritual bath and by the drawn water flowing into the ritual bath. This is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation: One calculates the amount of drawn water that flowed into the ritual bath, as the ritual bath is invalid only if most of the forty se’a is of that drawn water.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי דְּבִרְבִיָּיה וּבְהַמְשָׁכָה לָא? אֶלָּא דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁאוּבָה שֶׁהִמְשִׁיכוּהָ כּוּלָּהּ — טְהוֹרָה. מַנִּי? לָא רַבָּנַן וְלָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!
The Gemara asks: If this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov alone, one must conclude by inference that the Rabbis hold that the ritual bath is not fit even by a majority of fit water and by the flowing of the drawn water. But if so, consider that which Ravin said when he came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, namely, that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A ritual bath that consists in its entirety of drawn water that one made flow into it is pure. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath even if it flowed into it, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath if it constitutes a majority of the forty se’a.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן כֵּלִים, וְיוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי הִיא.
Rather, Rabba says: The mishna’s ruling, that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, is not referring to drawn water that flowed. Instead, it means according to the calculation of the number of vessels from which the drawn water was directly poured into the ritual bath, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ḥoni.
דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לַמַּיִם, בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כֵּלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה כֵּלִים — פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כֵּלִים (פוסל) [פּוֹסְלִין] אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, בְּאַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה — אֵין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה.
As it is taught in a baraita: If three log of drawn water fell into the water of a ritual bath that lacked the requisite measure, from two or three vessels, with each containing at least one log of drawn water, or even from four or five vessels, where no whole log fell in at once, it invalidates the ritual bath. Yosef ben Ḥoni says: It is only if the drawn water was in two or three vessels that the water invalidates the ritual bath. But if the drawn water was in four or five vessels, the water does not invalidate the ritual bath. This is what the mishna means.
וְאֵין מֵי חַטָּאת (נַעֲשֶׂה) [נַעֲשִׂין] מֵי חַטָּאת כּוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
§ The mishna teaches: And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by the placement of water onto the ashes. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
דְּתַנְיָא: הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.
As it is taught in a baraita: A sota, a woman suspected of unfaithfulness by her husband, must drink bitter waters prepared in the Temple. The verse states: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17). This verse teaches that the water must be placed in the vessel first, and the dust is placed on top of it. If one places the dust in the vessel before the water, the mixture is unfit, but Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב ״וְלָקְחוּ לַטָּמֵא מֵעֲפַר שְׂרֵפַת הַחַטָּאת וְנָתַן עָלָיו מַיִם חַיִּים״, וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: וְכִי עָפָר הוּא? וַהֲלֹא אֵפֶר הוּא!
The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written with regard to the red heifer: “And for the impure they shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin, and place on it flowing water in a vessel” (Numbers 19:17). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: But is it dust [afar] that is taken? Isn’t it really ashes [efer]?
שִׁינָּה הַכָּתוּב מִמַּשְׁמָעוֹ, לָדוּן הֵימֶנּוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עָפָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עָפָר״. מָה לְהַלָּן — עָפָר עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם, אַף כָּאן — עָפָר עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם. וּמָה כָּאן הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — כָּשֵׁר, אַף כָּאן הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם — כָּשֵׁר.
Evidently the verse altered its standard usage and referred to ashes as dust in order to derive a verbal analogy from it: “Dust” is stated in the verse here, and “dust” is stated there, with regard to the sota. Just as there, in the case of the sota, the verse teaches that the dust must be placed on top of the water, so too here, with regard to the red heifer, the dust, i.e., ashes, must be placed on top of the water. And likewise, just as here, with regard to the red heifer, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact, so too there, in the case of the sota, if one places the dust in the vessel before the water, it is fit after the fact.
וְהָכָא מְנָלַן? תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״וְנָתַן עָלָיו״, אַלְמָא אֵפֶר בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר כְּתִיב ״מַיִם חַיִּים אֶל כֶּלִי״. הָא כֵּיצַד? רָצָה עָפָר לְמַטָּה, רָצָה עָפָר לְמַעְלָה.
The Gemara asks: And here, with regard to the red heifer, from where do we derive that the mixture is fit even if the dust is placed first? Two phrases are written. First it is written: “They shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it.” Apparently, the ashes should be placed in the vessel first and the water afterward. And then it is written: “Running water in a vessel,” indicating that the water should be placed in the vessel first, while it is still empty. How can these texts be reconciled? They can be reconciled by concluding that if he desires to place the dust, i.e., the ashes of the red heifer, below, and put water on top, he may do so; and if he desires he may place the water first and then place the dust above the water.
וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר לָךְ: סֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא דַּוְקָא, ״וְנָתַן עָלָיו״ — לְעָרְבָן.
And the tanna of our mishna, who deems the mixture unfit if the ashes are placed first, what is his reasoning? He could say to you that the last clause of the verse: “Running water in a vessel,” is meant specifically, i.e., the water must be placed first. And when the verse states beforehand: “They shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin and place on it,” this teaches only that after placing the ashes upon the water one is required to mix the ashes with the water, so that the water covers the ashes.
מַאי חָזֵית דְּאָמְרַתְּ סֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא דַּוְקָא, דִּלְמָא רֵישָׁא דַּוְקָא? לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, מָה מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם מַכְשִׁיר לְמַעְלָה, אַף כָּאן מַכְשִׁיר לְמַעְלָה.
The Gemara objects: But one could just as easily say the opposite. What did you see that led you to say that the last clause of the verse is meant specifically? Perhaps the first clause of the verse is meant specifically. The Gemara answers: You cannot say so, as just as we find in every instance that the facilitating item goes above, e.g., in the case of a sota the dust, which enables the water to be used, goes on top of the water, so too here, in the case of the red heifer, the facilitating item must go above. The water must be placed first, and only then the ashes.
וְאֵין בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס.
§ The mishna further teaches: And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 17:2) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One beit haperas creates another beit haperas. If one plowed from a beit haperas into another field, that field is also ritually impure.
וְרַבָּנַן, עַד כַּמָּה? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא:
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, how far does a beit haperas extend? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said:
Follow
