CHULIN 31-43 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
1)
(a)Ula disagrees with Rebbi Elazar. He establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehoshua. How does he explain Rebbi Yehoshua's statement (in the Mishnah in Taharos) 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Terumah'?
(b)Then why did he say ... al Taharas Terumah?
(c)And he 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 a case where the eater becomes even a higher level of Tum'ah than the food that he ate. Which case is that?
(d)What does Rebbi Yehoshua counter? Why can we not use Nivlas Of Tahor as an example?
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, and certainly be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Ha'Kodeshi.
(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 (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 types of Tum'ah, where the reverse is true. Clearly, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (from which we cannot learn).
2)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua then bases his opinion on the fact that the Shi'ur of the food is more stringent than that of the eater. What is he referring to?
(b)How does Rebbi Eliezer counter that? Why can one not use Shi'urin as an example?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer also queries Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling rendering someone who eats a Sheini, a Sheini (contradicting his initial ruling). How does Rebbi Yehoshua answer that? Where do we find a Sheini that makes a Sheini?
(d)On what grounds does he reject Rebbi Eliezer's reply that, if that is so, he ought to make the eater a Rishon, just like the liquid becomes a Rishon?
2)
(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 have independent sources.
(c)Rebbi Eliezer also queries Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling rendering someone who eat a Sheini, a Sheini (which contradicts his first ruling [al Rishon Sheini]). Rebbi Yehoshua answers that - a 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) - because we cannot learn from the liquid itself, since liquids have an independent Chumra over food in that they receive Tum'ah even without being Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.
3)
(a)How did Rebbi Eliezer query Rebbi Yehoshua further from his ruling regarding someone who eats a Shelishi?
(b)What did Rebbi Yehoshua reply?
(c)How does this prove that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua's dispute refers exclusively to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah?
3)
(a)Rebbi Eliezer queried Rebbi Yehoshua further from his ruling regarding someone who eats a Shelishi - whom 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 Ha'Kodesh, 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 Rebbi Yehoshua held that Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Ha'Kodeshi is effective too (but is 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?
4)
(a)On what grounds does Ula then disagree with Rabah bar bar Chanah's version of the Machlokes?
(b)We learned earlier that Ula explains Rebbi Yehoshua's statement by Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah to mean Af be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah. What degree of Tum'ah will he then ascribe to something that touches Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Ha'Kodeshi which is a Shelishi?
(c)How else might we explain Ula's version of Rebbi Yehoshua? Why might the latter mention specifically Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah?
4)
(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 by Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah to mean Af be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah, and he ascribes to something that touches Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Ha'Kodeshi which is a Shelishi - the degree of Sheini le'Tum'ah (because he considers Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Ha'Kodeshi Chulin as far as Ha'Kodesh in concerned).
(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 Ha'Kodeshi which is a Shelishi from the Din of 'Shelishi, Sheini le'Kodesh' (because he holds that the Shemirah of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Ha'Kodeshi is effective regarding Ha'Kodesh, too).
34b----------------------------------------34b
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 Ha'Kodesh becomes a Shelishi. Rebbi Zeira queries Rebbi Asi from the Mishnah in Taharos that we cited earlier Shelishi Sheini le'Kodesh, ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah. How does the Mishnah end?
(b)What is then Rebbi Zeira's Kashya from there?
(c)Rebbi Asi answers 'Lo Miba'i ka'Amar' (like Ula answered on the previous Amud), which Rebbi Zeira queried from the Lashon of Rebbi Yehoshua himself 'Af Ani Lo Amarti Ela bi'Terumah', a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan. How do we know that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with that version of Rebbi Yehoshua's statement?
(d)How do we then resolve the discrepancy?
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 Ha'Kodesh becomes a Shelishi. Rebbi Zeira queries 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 ...
(b)... 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.
(c)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 himself ...
(d)... which we resolve by turning it into a Machlokes Amora'im (Rabah bar bar Chanah and Rebbi Asi) as to what Rebbi Yochanan actually said.
6)
(a)What does Ula say about someone who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas 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. What do we extrapolate from ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah, that poses a Kashya on Ula?
(c)How do we suggest amending the inference, to answer the Kashya?
(d)Why does the Tana then say Ein Sheini li'Terumah?
6)
(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 extrapolate 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.
7)
(a)According to Ula's current statement, when does Rebbi Yehoshua hold that we do ...
1. ... not give the eater the same degree of Tum'ah as the food?
2. ... do give the eater the same degree of Tum'ah as the food?
(b)Rav Hamnuna queries Ula from a Mishnah in Taharos. The Tana there rules ha'Rishon she'be'Chulin Tamei u'Metamei. What does he say about a Sheini?
(c)The Tana concludes ve'ha'Shelishi Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Dema. What is N'zid ha'Dema?
(d)What problem does Rav Hamnuna now have with Ula from there?
7)
(a)According to Ula's current statement, Rebbi Yehoshua holds that we do ...
1. ... 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). We ...
2. ... do however, do so by a Shelishi, which merely renders the eater Pasul, but he 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.
(c)The Tana concludes ve'ha'Shelishi Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Dema - which is a dish containing spices or oil of Terumah.
(d)The problem Rav Hamnuna now has with Ula from there is that - according to him (Ula), how can the Tana permit a Kohen to eat a dish that will render his body Pasul, when at the same time, it contains Terumah?
8)
(a)How does Ula answer the Kashya? Why is Nezid ha'Dema different?
(b)What is the significance of the Shi'ur of less than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras?
8)
(a)Ula answers that N'zid 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) ...
(b)... and a. the Chiyuv for eating Terumah be'Tum'as ha'Guf only pertains to a k'Zayis, and b. 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.
9)
(a)According to what we just said, why does the Tana not permit eating a Rishon and Sheini too, bi'Nezid ha'Dema (besides the fact that a Sheini renders Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah Pasul, too)?
(b)What problem do we have with Ula's answer (which explains why it is permitted to eat the Terumah), based on ...
1. ... the Pasuk in Shemini "Al Titam'u be'Chol Eileh, Ve'nitmeisem bam"?
2. ... the Lashon of Rav Hamnuna's Kashya Safinan leih Midi de'Pasil leih le'Gufo?
(c)How do we therefore revise our interpretation of N'zid ha'Dema?
(d)And how will we then interpret Ula's answer Hanach li'Nezid ha'Dema ... ?
9)
(a)According to what we just said, the Tana does not permit eating a Rishon and Sheini too, 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, Venitmeisem 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 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 N'zid ha'Dema to mean - Chulin that one made 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 Tum'ah, Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Ha'Kodeshi 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.
