Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi rules in a Beraisa that if someone Shechts and blood squirts from the animal's neck on to a detached pumpkin of Terumah, the pumpkin is Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah. Rebbi Chiya holds 'Tolin' (it hangs in the balance [which we will explain shortly]).

(b) Rebbi Oshaya cites Rebbi Shimon - in support of Rebbi Chiya, as we shall see.

(c) Rav Papa states that in a case where the blood remained on the pumpkin until the termination of the Shechitah - even Rebbi Chiya will hold that the pumpkin is Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.

(d) And they argue over a case where the blood was wiped off the pumpkin before its completion. Rebbi ...

1. ... Chiya says that the pumpkin is not Muchshar - because he holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela be'Sof' (in which case the blood is Dam Mageftah).
2. ... says that it is - because he holds Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof, (in which case the blood is considered Dam Shechitah).

(a) When Rebbi Oshaya says 'Bo'u Ve'nismoch al Divrei Rebbi Shimon' (despite the fact that Rebbi Shimon holds on principle that Dam Shechitah is not Machshir, whereas Rebbi Chiya holds that it is), he means - that they both agree in this case, where the blood is wiped off, that it is not Muchshar (leaving Rebbi in the minority).

(b) Rav Ashi disagrees with Rav Papa's explanation. According to him, the 'Tolin' of Rebbi Chiya implies - permanently, because he is basically uncertain whether the Halachah is 'Yeshno li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' or 'Eino ... ', in which case neither can the Kohen eat the pumpkin, nor can he burn it ...

(c) ... he cannot eat case, in case we rule 'Yeshno li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof', and he cannot burn it - in case we hold 'Einah li'Shechitah ... '.

(d) And when Rebbi Oshaya now says 'Bo'u ve'Nismach al Divrei Rebbi Shimon', what he means is - that (even though Rebbi Shimon holds that Dam Shechitah is not Machshir, whereas Rebbi Chiya holds that it is), they both agree that the pumpkin cannot be burned (leaving Rebbi in the minority).

(a) Resh Lakish asks whether the Din of Rishon and Sheini apply to a Tz'rid shel Menachos.

1. A 'Tz'rid shel Menachos' is - lumps of dry flour pertaining to a Minchah with which the oil did not make contact.
2. 'Chibas ha'Kodesh is - the Kedushah that renders Kodshei Mizbe'ach Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah even without contact with water or one of the seven liquids.

(b) Resh Lakish's She'eilah is - whether 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' gives the Hekdesh article the same Din as food that became Muchshar through contact with water (which makes it a Rishon, and what touches it [the Rishon], a Sheini), or whether it merely gives it a Din of P'sul ha'Guf (which is not Metamei others).

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" - that only food that has contact with water is Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.

(d) Rebbi Elazar tries to prove from there - that a Tz'rid shel Menachos does not have a Din of Rishon and Sheini.

(a) We refute Rebbi Elazar's proof from the Beraisa however - on the grounds that Resh Lakish also knew that Pasuk, and what he asked was whether Chibas ha'Kodesh has the same severity as water in this regard or not.

(b) Rebbi Elazar's real reason for resolving the She'eilah from the above Beraisa is - the fact that having stated "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim al Zera", "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" is superfluous, and therefore comes to teach us that the Din of Rishon and Sheini are confined to food that has contact with water, but does extend to Chibas ha'Kodesh.

(c) We refute that too however - by explaining that we need the two Pesukim for something else; one of them to teach us Hechsher Mayim by Tum'as Meis, and the other, by Tum'as Sheretz.

(d) Having taught us Hechsher Mayim by Tum'as ...

1. ... Meis (which is Metamei only with a Shi'ur k'Zayis), the Torah nevertheless needs to repeat it by Tum'as Sheretz - which is Metamei with the smaller Shi'ur of k'Adashah (the size of a lentil), which we would therefore have otherwise thought does not require Hechsher Mayim.
2. ... Sheretz (which is Metamei for only one day), the Torah still finds it necessary to repeat it by Tum'as Meis - which is Metamei for seven days.

5)

(a) We extrapolate from Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah 'Huchsheru bi'Shechitah' - that one counts Rishon and Sheini, as 'Huchsheru' customarily implies (despite the fact that the animals were not Huchsheru by means of water (which seems to resolve Resh Lakish's She'eilah (and pose a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, at one and the same time).

(b) Shamai rules that grapes that one picks for wine making are Huchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah - due to the juice that oozes from the grapes.

(c) Hillel ultimately agrees with Shamai. Initially however - he ruled 'Lo Huchsheru'.

(d) Rebbi Zeira, who also makes the same observation from here as Rav Yosef did from the previous Beraisa, does not consider the grapes 'Ochel ha'Ba be'Mayim' - because the owner does not want the juice to drip out from the grapes, since it merely goes to waste.

(a) Abaye rejects the proofs of both Rav Yosef and Rebbi Zeira - on the grounds that the Rabbanan decreed Hechsher Mayim in both of the above cases.

(b) The reason that the Rabbanan issued such a decree in the case of Shamai is - because they suspected that one might then come to pick the grapes with closed baskets, which do not allow the juice to escape.

(c) The difference whether the Terumah grapes are a Rishon min ha'Torah or only mi'de'Rabbanan - lies in the obligation to burn them, which does not apply to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan,

(a) Rav Yosef's objection to Abaye's answer ...

1. ... to his Kashya (from Shechitah) that Rishon and Sheini by Shechitah is only mi'de'Rabbanan is - that when Rebbi Shimon said 'Huchsheru bi'Shechitah', he seems to have meant mi'd'Oraysa, and not mi'de'Rabbanan.
2. ... to Rebbi Zeira's Kashya (from 'ha'Botzer le'Gas') is - that, in that case, perhaps by Tz'rid shel Menachos too, the Chachamim issued a decree (rendering Resh Lakish's She'eilah groundless).

(b) To which Abaye replied - that this is indeed the case, and Resh Lakish was not asking about Terumah or Kodesh that touched the Tz'rid shel Menachos becoming a Sheini, but about whether one is oligated to burn them or not.

(c) And we extrapolate that Chibas ha'Kodesh must be d'Oraysa - because otherwise, it would certainly be forbidden to burn them (as we just learned a little earlier).

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei" is referring to Kodshim, we know that the Basar did not become Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah through ...

1. ... its own blood (or through that of other Kodshim animals) - because as we learned earlier in the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the blood of Kodshim is not Machshir.
2. ... the water with which they would wash the Kodshim animals in the Bei Mitbechaya - because, as stated by Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina 'Mashkei Bei Matbechaya' is not Machshir ...

(b) ... and is not subject to Tum'ah, either.

(c) We nevertheless reject the proof from there that Chibas ha'Kodesh is d'Oraysa, based on a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who established the Pasuk when the owner, on the way to Yerushalayim, led the cow that he was bringing as a Shelamim, through a stream of water, and water was still on it when he later Shechted it (which is how it became Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "*ve'ha'Basar*, Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - that even wood and Levonah of Hekdesh are subject to Tum'ah.

(b) The problem with this D'rashah is - that the Pasuk in question is referring to Tum'as Ochlin, and seeing that wood and frankincense are not food, on what grounds are they included?

(c) So we learn from there - that Chibas ha'Kodesh must be the factor that is Machshir them Lekabeil Tum'ah. By the same token then, it is also Machshir dry Kodshim (such as 'Tz'rid shel Menachos) Lekabeil Tum'ah, too.

(d) The conclusion of Resh Lakish's She'eilah (whether we count Rishon and Sheini by Chibas ha'Kodesh or not) is - 'Teiku'.