Previous daf

1)

(a) Ula disagrees with Rebbi Elazar. He establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehoshua, and when Rebbi Yehoshua stated (in the Mishnah in Taharos) 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Terumah', he meant - 'Af be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Terumah', but certainly 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Hekdesh'.

(b) And the reason that he said ' ... al Taharas Terumah' is - to teach us that even Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah can be a Shelishi le'Tum'ah.

(c) Ula ascribes Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of our Mishnah, to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's description of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua. First of all, Rebbi Eliezer bases his opinion (that the eater should not be less Tamei than the food that he eats) on the case - of someone who eats a Nivlas Of Tahor, where the eater becomes a higher level of Tum'ah than the food that he ate (i.e. the food is not Metamei anything by touching), whereas the eater is even Metamei the clothes that he is wearing.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua counters that we cannot use Nivlas Of Tahor as an example - because Nivlas Of Tahor is unique, in that it is Metamei more when it is hidden (in the throat of the eater) than when it is revealed, in complete contrast to all other Tum'as, where the reverse is true. Clearly, it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (from which we can learn nothing).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua then bases his opinion on the fact that the Shi'ur of the food - a k'Beitzah, is more stringent than that of the eater - a P'ras (two k'Beitzim).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer counters - that one cannot learn the basic Tum'ah from the Shi'urin, which has independent sources.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer also queries Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling rendering someone who eat a Sheini, a Sheini (contradicting his initial ruling). Rebbi Yehoshua answers - that s Sheini is different, because we find a Sheini that makes a Sheini - in a case where food that is a Sheini touches another food that is wet.

(d) He rejects Rebbi Eliezer's reply (that, if that is so, he ought to make the eater a Rishon, just like the liquid became a Rishon) - on the grounds that we cannot learn from the liquid itself, since liquids have an independent Tzad Chumra in that they receive Tum'ah even without being Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer queried Rebbi Yehoshua further from his ruling regarding someone who ate a Shelishi - which he declares a Sheini, and not a Revi'i (or even a Shelishi).

(b) To which Rebbi Yehoshua replied - that this is why he confined this ruling to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah, whose Taharah is considered Tum'ah by those who eat Hekdesh, and by whom he is therefore considered a Sheini in this case, rather than a Shelishi.

(c) This proves that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua's dispute refers exclusively to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah - because if the latter held that Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh is effective too (but a Shelishi, as Ula maintains), then why did Rebbi Eliezer query him, seeing as the answer that he gave him is clearly implied in his statement in the Mishnah.

(a) Ula disagrees with Rabah bar bar Chanah's version of the Machlokes - because it has no basis in a Mishnah or Beraisa.

(b) We learned earlier that Ula explains Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu ... ' to mean 'Af be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah'. The latter will also ascribe to something that touched Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh which is a Shelishi - the degree of Sheini le'Tum'ah (because he considers Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Hekdesh Chulin regarding Hekdesh).

(c) Alternatively, Ula might maintain that Rebbi Yehoshua specifically mentions 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah' - to preclude Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh (which is a Shelishi) from the Din of Shelishi, Sheini le'Kodesh (because he holds that the Shemirah of Chulin she'Na'aseh al Taharas Hekdesh is effective regarding Hekdesh, too).

5)

(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yanai rules that someone who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh becomes a Shelishi. Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi from the Mishnah in Taharos that we cited earlier 'Shelishi Sheini le'Kodesh ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah'. And the Mishnah ends - 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah', from which we extrapolated ' ... al Taharas Terumah In, al Taharas ha'Kodesh, Lo' (like Rabah bar bar Chanah), a Kashya on Rebbi Asi ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan.

(b) Rebbi Asi answers 'Lo Miba'i ka'Amar' (like Ula answered on the previous Amud), which Rebbi Zeira then queries from the Lashon of Rebbi Yehoshua himself 'Af Ani Lo Amarti Ela bi'Terumah', a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan. We know that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with that version of Rebbi Yehoshua's statement - because Rabah bar bar Chanah was actually citing Rebbi Yochanan, leaving us with a discrepancy in Rebbi Yochanan ...

(c) ... which we resolve by turning it into a Machlokes Amora'im (Rabah bar bar Chanah and Rebbi Asi) in Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) Ula rules that if someone eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah - his body becomes Pasul and he is forbidden to eat Terumah.

(b) We query this from the Mishnah in Taharos 'Shelishi, Sheini le'Kodesh, ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah, be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah - from which we infer 'Ein Sheini li'Terumah, ha Yesh Shelishi li'Terumah', in which case Ula is merely mimicking the Mishnah?

(c) To answer the Kashya, we suggest - that perhaps according to the Mishnah, Terumah is neither a Sheini nor a Shelishi ...

(d) ... and the Tana only says 'Ein Sheini bi'Terumah', to balance 'Sheini ba'Kodesh' in the Reisha.

(a) According to Ula's current statement, Rebbi Yehoshua holds that we do not give the eater the same degree of Tum'ah as the food - whenever it concerns Tum'as Maga (such as declaring someone who eats a Rishon, a Rishon, which means that he will render any food that he touches, a Sheini). It does not however apply to a Shelishi, who will become Pasul, but who will remain permitted to touch Terumah.

(b) Rav Hamnuna queries Ula from a Mishnah in Taharos, where the Tana rules 'ha'Rishon she'be'Chulin Tamei u'Metamei - ve'ha'Sheini, Posel ve'Eino Metamei'.

(a) The Tana concludes 've'ha'Shelishi Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Dema - which is a dish containing spices or oil of Terumah.

(b) The problem Rav Hamnuna now has from there is - that according to Ula, how can the Tana permit a Kohen to eat such a dish that will render his body Pasul, whilst at the same time, it contains Terumah?

(c) To which Ula answered that Nezid ha'Dema is different - because it does not contain a 'k'Zayis of Terumah bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' (a k'Zayis of Terumah for each batch of two k'Beitzim that he eats).

(d) Consequently, bearing in mind that the Chiyuv for eating Terumah be'Tum'as ha'Guf only pertains to a k'Zayis, and no Shi'ur Achilah combines if it takes longer than k'Dei Achilas P'ras (the time it takes to eat two k'Beitzim) to eat it, the problem is eliminated.

(a) According to what we just said, the Tana does not permit eating a Rishon and Sheini as well, bi'Nezid ha'Dema - a. because a Sheini renders Chulin (she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah) Pasul, too, and b. because it invalidates the Terumah that it contains.

(b) The problem with Ula's answer (which explains why it is permitted to eat the Terumah), based on ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Al Titam'u be'Chol Eileh, Ve'nitmeisem Bam" is - how the Kohen is permitted to eat a Shelishi (of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah), which renders his body Pasul to eat Terumah (irrespective of whether the dish contains a k'Zayis Terumah or not)?
2. ... the Lashon of Rav Hamnuna's Kashya 'Safinan Leih Midi de'Pasil Leih le'Gufo' is - that this Lashon even implies that Rav Hamnuna meant to ask this very same Kashya (and not the way we explained it).

(c) We therefore revise our interpretation of the Mishnah - in that 'Nezid ha'Dema' now refers to Chulin which one declared Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh only because of the Terumah spices that it contained.

(d) Consequently, Ula's answer 'Hanach li'Nezid ha'Dema ... ', teaches us - that seeing as the Terumah is not subject to Terumah, Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh does not take affect on the rest of the dish, in which case it is not really a Shelishi at all, and the Kohen does not become Pasul when he eats it.