QUESTION: Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that one who eats a food of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh which is a Shelishi l'Tum'ah is permitted to eat Kodesh. The reason is that even if he is considered to be a Shelishi, being a Shelishi does not prohibit him from eating Kodesh because Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, which is a Shelishi, cannot disqualify Kodesh by making it a Revi'i; only actual Kodesh that is a Shelishi (and has Kedushas ha'Guf) can disqualify Kodesh that it touches by making it a Revi'i.

If a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is not able to make a Revi'i, then what significance does it have in becoming a Shelishi? Since there are no practical Halachic ramifications if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is a Shelishi, it should only become a Sheni! (TOSFOS DH ha'Ochel)

(a) The question of TOSFOS is difficult to understand. There is an obvious consequence of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh becoming a Shelishi. If a person treats his Chulin with Taharas ha'Kodesh, then the food should be prohibited to eat if it is a Shelishi, just as Kodesh may not be eaten if it is a Shelishi. Why does Tosfos not consider this practical ramification?

The GILYON TOSFOS (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) explains that food of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh which is a Shelishi is permitted to be eaten. Even though a person accepts upon himself to treat his Chulin like Terumah or like Kodesh, he intends only to be careful not to cause it to become Tamei. However, if it becomes Tamei, b'Di'eved it does not become disqualified from being eaten. The Gilyon Tosfos proves this from the Mishnah in Taharos (2:2) cited by the Gemara earlier (see Insights to Chulin 34:5).

The MIKDASH DAVID (Taharos 40:1) also infers from Tosfos that one is permitted to eat Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh that became a Shelishi. However, he points out that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav 3:9) might disagree with Tosfos on this point and rule that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh must be burned if it becomes a Shelishi. The Rambam writes that when Terumah or Kodesh touches something that is a Safek Tum'ah of a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, the Halachah is that it is not burned, but it is set aside indefinitely ("Tolin"). The Rambam adds that the same applies to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh. This implies that if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh touches an item that causes definite Tum'ah, it must be burned and is not permitted to be eaten.

The Rambam, however, might be referring to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh that becomes a Rishon or Sheni. Only in such a case is the Chulin treated like Kodesh and burned. Perhaps the Rambam agrees that a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh (or Al Taharas Terumah) indeed may be eaten. In fact, the Rambam rules (in Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah 11:9) that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is not like Kodesh and cannot become a Shelishi altogether.

(b) The MIKDASH DAVID there proposes another obvious answer to Tosfos' question. Perhaps the practical ramification of a Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh becoming a Shelishi is simply that one is prohibited to cause it to become a Shelishi in the first place. RASHI (2b, DH k'Kodesh Damu) writes that if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is considered like Kodesh, then one must be careful to guard it (at least mid'Rabanan) from coming in contact with anything that can make Kodesh become Pasul.

Why does Tosfos not give this answer? Perhaps Tosfos learns like the RAMBAN (on 2b) who argues with Rashi and maintains that one is not prohibited to allow Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh (or Al Taharas Terumah) to touch something that would disqualify Kodesh (or Terumah). The Halachah of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is simply that it can become a Shelishi, whereas ordinary Chulin cannot. However, if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh that is a Shelishi does not disqualify the person from eating Terumah or Kodesh, then what significance does it have in being a Shelishi?

In truth, even if Tosfos agrees with Rashi that one is prohibited to cause Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh to become Tamei by touching something that can disqualify Kodesh, the question still may be asked in the way that the RAMBAN and RASHBA ask it. The Ramban and Rashba ask why the Beraisa later (35b) says that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is similar to Terumah in that two levels become Tamei, and the third level becomes Pasul. Rashi there explains that this Beraisa follows the opinion of Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel. Why does the Beraisa describe a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh as being Pasul, if the only ramification of such a Shelishi is that one may not allow it to become a Shelishi in the first place? It is clear from the Beraisa that once it has become a Shelishi, there are certain practical ramifications of being a Shelishi (which is why it is called "Pasul").

(c) TOSFOS and other Rishonim answer that the practical ramification of becoming a Shelishi is that it cannot be used in the Beis ha'Mikdash for a Korban. For example, if flour of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh becomes a Shelishi, then it may not be offered as a Minchah upon the Mizbe'ach.

(d) The RAMBAN and RASHBA cite "Yesh Mefarshim" who interpret the final conclusion of the Gemara (on 35b) differently from Rashi. According to their understanding, the Gemara concludes that Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel does not maintain that a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is Pasul. Rather, he maintains that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is not similar to Kodesh and cannot become a Shelishi. Accordingly, Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel is teaching that a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is not Pasul and has no practical ramifications; for all intents and purposes, it is Tahor. This is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah 11:9) and the RA'AVAD. The question of Tosfos, therefore, is no longer pertinent, since the Gemara indeed is teaching that there is no such thing as a Shelishi for Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh.

QUESTION: The Gemara (34b) discusses the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah in Taharos (2:2, cited on 33b; see Insights there and to 34a). Rabah bar bar Chanah relates that Rebbi Eliezer asked Rebbi Yehoshua (end of 34a) why he said that one who eats a Shelishi (of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah) becomes Tamei to make Kodesh into a Sheni. Rebbi Yehoshua answered, "Af Ani Lo Amarti..." -- "I, too, only said this with regard to Terumah, for the Taharah of Terumah is considered Tum'ah with regard to Kodesh." This is also the opinion of Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta in the Gemara here.

However, if Terumah Tehorah makes Kodesh become Tamei, then why does the Mishnah in Taharos say that a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah makes Kodesh become a Sheni? It should teach the greater Chidush that even Terumah Tehorah (or Chulin Tehorin) will make Kodesh become a Sheni! (TIFERES YISRAEL, Chulin 2:6)

(a) The TIFERES YISRAEL answers that the only thing considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh is Terumah that became Pasul (a Shelishi) by touching a Sheni. Since it touched a Sheni, it is evident that one was not so careful in guarding it. Since a certain degree of carelessness occurred, the Rabanan were concerned that -- with regard to Kodesh -- perhaps the Terumah also touched an Av ha'Tum'ah and became a Rishon that can make Kodesh into a Sheni. In contrast, Terumah Tehorah, or Chulin (that is Tahor) she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, for which no degree of carelessness occurred are considered Tahor even with regard to Kodesh.

Why is it that Terumah Tehorah does not make the person who eats it a Sheni with regard to Kodesh? The Mishnah teaches that the garments of people who eat Terumah b'Taharah are considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh. Accordingly, Terumah should always be considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh, even when the Terumah is completely Tahor!

The Tiferes Yisrael answers that when the Gemara says that the Taharah of Terumah is considered like Tum'ah with regard to Kodesh, it refers only to the clothing of those who eat Terumah (and not to fruit of Terumah touching fruit of Kodesh). Only the clothing of Ochlei Terumah is Metamei Kodesh, because of the specific concern in that case that perhaps the person's wife sat on the clothing when she was a Nidah (which is a more common concern). However, fruit of Terumah is not considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh unless it has some form of Tum'ah already (such as Shelishi).

Another possibility is that Tum'as Geviyah, the Tum'ah that a person's body acquires when he eats a Tamei object, is a Tum'ah d'Rabanan, and the law is more lenient with regard to this type of Tum'ah than with regard to other Tum'os d'Rabanan, as Tosfos earlier (34b, DH veha'Shelishi) writes that eating a "Chatzi Shi'ur" of Terumah might not be Asur to a person who has Tum'as Geviyah (even though "Chatzi Shi'ur" is normally Asur). Perhaps another leniency is that even though Terumah is considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh, nevertheless one who eats it will not become Tamei unless he eats Terumah that has some measure of Tum'ah already.

However, TOSFOS (DH b'Chulin) writes that fruit of Terumah that is Tahor indeed can make Kadosh become Tamei.

(b) RASHI writes in a number of places that since Terumah is considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh, even when the Terumah is only a Shelishi it is deemed a Sheni with regard to Kodesh (see Rashi 34a, DH Mipnei she'Taharasah; 35a, DH Tum'ah Hi). The TOSFOS YOM TOV (Taharos 2:2) asks why Rashi does not explain that since the Terumah was not guarded with intention to guard Kodesh, there should be a concern that perhaps the Terumah is even a Rishon and not just a Sheni. In fact, this is what Rashi himself explains in Shabbos (14a, DH Shelishi). Why does Rashi explain here that the Terumah might be a Sheni?

Perhaps Rashi's intention is to answer the question posed above. Rashi is suggesting that although there is a concern that, with regard to items of Kodesh, Terumah is Tamei, nevertheless there is no concern that the Terumah is Tamei with the degree of Rishon l'Tum'ah. The Rabanan decreed that a food makes Kodesh become Tamei with one degree of Tum'ah higher than the Tum'ah it gives to Terumah. Accordingly, if the food is a Shelishi for Terumah, it is considered a Sheni for Kodesh. This explains why food that is Tahor will not make a person into a Sheni with regard to Kodesh. A person who is Tahor who eats a Tahor food of Terumah will drop one level with regard to Kodesh, and he will be considered as though he ate a Shelishi of Kodesh. This will disqualify him from eating Kodesh, but it will not make him a Sheni. (M. KORNFELD)

(c) Another answer may be inferred from the words of the VILNA GA'ON (in ELIYAHU RABAH to Taharos 2:2). Ula (34b) infers from the Mishnah in Taharos that one who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah becomes disqualified from eating Terumah. He learns this from the Mishnah's words that one who eats a Shelishi is considered Tamei as a Sheni with regard to eating Kodesh but not with regard to eating Terumah. This implies that although the person is not a Sheni with regard to eating Terumah, he is a Shelishi.

Perhaps the Mishnah does not state this Halachah with regard to a person who is Tahor for eating Terumah, even though it would be correct to say that he becomes a Sheni with regard to Kodesh, because it would not be correct to say that he becomes a Shelishi with regard to Terumah. The Mishnah does not discuss a person who eats food that is Tahor with regard to Terumah, because it wants to show that one who eats a food that is a Shelishi with regard to Terumah becomes disqualified from eating Terumah.

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that one might have reasoned that Dam ha'Mes (blood that comes out of an animal that died on its own) is like Dam Chalalim (blood that comes out of animal that was killed) and is Machshir for Tum'ah since, in both cases, the blood comes from an animal that has died. The Gemara says further that one might have reasoned that Dam Magefaso (blood that comes out of the wound of an animal) is like Dam Chalalim and is Machshir for Tum'ah since, in both cases, the blood comes from an animal that has been "killed" to some degree. Rebbi Shimon therefore states explicitly that Dam ha'Mes and Dam Magefaso are not Machshir.

The Tana Kama, however, disagrees with Rebbi Shimon and maintains that Dam ha'Mes and Dam Magefaso are Machshir. What is the Halachah?

(a) RASHI apparently accepts the opinion of Rebbi Shimon with regard to Dam ha'Mes and Dam Magefaso. This is evident from the fact that he explains that Rebbi Yishmael, Rebbi, and Rebbi Chiya (36b) all maintain that only Dam Chalalim of an animal is Machshir, and Rebbi Asi (Chulin 121a) accepts this opinion as well. It seems that Rashi also understands that the Mishnah at the end of Machshirin (6:8) follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon as well. (See TOSFOS DH Dam ha'Mes.)

With regard to Dam Shechitah, however, Rashi might not rule like Rebbi Shimon. He might rule that Dam Shechitah is Machshir, unlike Rebbi Shimon. This seems to be the opinion of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi (on 36a), and it is the opinion that the Gemara later (121a) follows.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Dam ha'Mes) implies that the Halachah should follow the opinion of the Rabanan (who are the majority) and not Rebbi Shimon. This is also evident from the words of TOSFOS in Nidah (71a, DH Mekor) who maintains that Dam ha'Mes is considered a Mashkeh and is Machshir.

(Note, however, that Tosfos argues with Rashi and maintains that Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan are discussing the blood of a person who died or was wounded, and not the blood of an animal, as Rashi explains. Only the Dam Shechitah of an animal can be Machshir.)

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Tum'as Ochlin 10:5) writes that Dam ha'Mes is Machshir because it is Metamei. The Rambam understands that when the Mishnah in Machshirin records the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan in the case of Dam ha'Mes, it is referring to blood of a person who died and not the blood of an animal that died (like Tosfos, as mentioned above). However, it is important to note that the Rambam's understanding of the Rabanan differs from Tosfos' understanding of the Rabanan. When the Rambam writes that since a Revi'is of Dam ha'Mes (of a person) is Metamei, the blood is also Machshir, he is saying that the Tum'ah that the blood causes and the Hechsher that the blood causes take effect simultaneously, and the Hechsher is because of the Tum'ah. According to the Rambam, Dam ha'Mes is Machshir not because it is included in the verse of "v'Dam Chalalim Yishteh" (Bamidbar 23:24), but simply because it is Metamei. This Halachah states that the blood of a Mes can be Machshir because its Tum'ah gives it Chashivus (importance) to be Machshir even without having the status of a Mashkeh. (See MISHNAH ACHARONAH, Nidah 10:5.)

The CHAZON ISH in Machshirin (1:9) points out that Tosfos clearly does not interpret the opinion of the Rabanan in this manner. Tosfos in Nidah (71a, DH Mekor) writes that since Dam ha'Mes is considered a Mashkeh, even a small amount of it (less than a Revi'is) is Machshir. The Chazon Ish explains that Tosfos understands that the Tana Kama who argues with Rebbi Shimon applies the logic of "Mah Li Katlei Kulah, Mah Li Katlei Palga" -- "What difference is there if he kills it entirely or if he kills it partially (i.e. wounds it)," and, therefore, Dam ha'Mes is given the same status as Dam Chalalim and has the status of a Mashkeh. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)