Pesachim 34b — the Talmud in English

And did we not learn: This is the general rule ![](pamud.bmp "

")

Anything whose disqualification

of the offering is a certain disqualification

in its substance

of the flesh,

shall be burned immediately!

And if its disqualification is not in the flesh but

in the blood,

for example, the blood was spilled [and without sprinkling the flesh is not permitted through burning on the altar and eating], or its disqualification is

in the owners,

for example, a Paschal offering whose owners became impure and it is not fit for him to eat it—for although these are complete disqualifications, nevertheless, since they are not in the flesh itself, they are not burned until

their form has passed

through remaining overnight. For through this they become disqualified with the bodily disqualification of notar.

And

then they

go out to the place of burning!

Reish Lakish said to him:

Reish Lakish:

This tanna [

who says that they would cast the disqualified bird sin-offerings into the enclosure],

is the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuha.

For he says: Even

flesh that became disqualified through

piggul,

which is a bodily disqualification,

requires the passing of its form !

Further,

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: We learned:

If the flesh became impure or became disqualified

of sacrificial offerings,

or

the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order

that went outside the curtains

and thereby became disqualified [for the boundary of offerings of the most sacred order is the wall of the Temple courtyard, and this is “the curtains,”], while the blood is still fit for sprinkling—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall sprinkle

the blood upon the altar.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: He shall not sprinkle

the blood! For if the flesh is not fit for burning on the altar and eating, it is as though it does not exist. And one sprinkles the blood only if there is flesh.

And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes

to Rabbi Eliezer

that if he sprinkled

the blood when the flesh had become impure, after the fact,

the offering is accepted

for its owners. And it is not necessary to bring another in its place! And shortly its reason will be explained.

In any event, it teaches, “became impure or became disqualified,” which implies another disqualification besides the disqualification of impurity.

What

is “became disqualified”?

What,

is it not

that it became disqualified

through diversion of attention?

If you say, it is well: “

Diversion of attention

is a disqualification of impurity,”

for this reason Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that it is accepted after the fact. For

this is how you find that the tzitz effects acceptance

even for certain impurity. And since the tzitz effects acceptance for the impurity of the flesh, it is properly considered as though the flesh exists. Nevertheless, initially he shall not sprinkle, because he holds that the tzitz effects acceptance only after the fact.

And that Rabbi Eliezer validates after the fact if the flesh became disqualified through “that which went out” is not because of the acceptance of the tzitz, for it effects acceptance only for the transgression of impurity. Rather, with the disqualification of “that which went out,” the flesh is still considered to exist with regard to after the fact, since its disqualification is not on account of itself, but on account of the absence of the boundary of the Temple courtyard around the flesh. And it is called a disqualification on account of another matter .

But if you say, “

Diversion of attention

is a bodily disqualification,” why was

the blood accepted after the fact, when the flesh became disqualified with this disqualification? For the tzitz effects acceptance only for the transgression of impurity, as explained in the first chapter.

And we answer: It is not speaking of the disqualification of diversion of attention. Rather,

What is “became disqualified”?—

It became disqualified through

contact with

one who immersed that day !

For one who immersed that day disqualifies sacrificial offerings.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so, this is

the disqualification

of “impure,”

and it already taught “became impure.”

And we answer:

Two types of

“impure”

it teaches: became impure through complete impurity, and became impure through one who immersed that day.

When Ravin went up

from Babylonia to the Land of Israel,

he said this

matter,

the teaching

of Rav Sheshet [that growths of teruma are forbidden on account of diversion of attention],

before Rabbi Yirmeya.

And Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Rabbi Yirmeya: These

Babylonians are fools.

And

because they sit in a dark land [

for Babylonia is dark because it is deep],

you say dark teachings!

And have you not heard that which

said

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The festival waters [

that were prepared for the water libation]

that became impure,

and it is impossible to draw other water in their place [for example, they became impure on the Shabbat within the festival. For it is impossible to go on Shabbat and draw from the Shiloah, but they would bring it on the eve of Shabbat]—it is possible to purify them through immersion in the channel of water in the Temple courtyard. Through this they become connected to a ritual bath . And the waters of a ritual bath are not susceptible to impurity.

However, this is specifically when they became impure while they had not yet been sanctified with the sanctity of the substance [through placing them in a service vessel, or assigning them the designation of sacred property], and

he immersed them, and afterward consecrated them,

then they are

pure.

But if he

consecrated them,

and afterward they became impure,

and afterward immersed them,

then immersion no longer helps them, and they are

impure!

And Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Since

the immersion of the water in the channel in the Temple courtyard is like

planting

in the ground, and they are like connected things,

they are.

And if so,

what difference is there to me

whether he

immersed them and afterward consecrated them,

so that they are pure, and

what difference is there to me if he consecrated them and afterward immersed them,

so that they are impure? For once the water has been planted in the ground, it is no longer susceptible to impurity.

And Rabbi Yirmeya concludes:

Apparently, planting does not apply to sacred property!

For they made an elevation regarding sacred property, and were stringent concerning the waters of sacrificial offerings, so that their impurity should not depart through their being planted in the ground.

If so,

here,

with impure teruma seedlings,

also

they were stringent regarding it, and said:

planting does not

help

for teruma

to permit it from the prohibition against eating it in impurity, despite the fact that as a matter of strict law, the status of food has been removed from it.

Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this teaching.

Abaye said to him:

Is what they were stringent regarding sacrificial offerings—that planting should not help to purify them from their impurity—specifically

when he consecrated them

through placing them

in a

service

vessel—is that what he said?

But if he consecrated them

by mouth

and assigned them the designation of sacred property, while he had not yet placed them inside a service vessel,

did the Sages not make

for them

this elevation?!

For they are not sanctified with sanctity through speech, but with sanctity of value. And they do not have sanctity of substance until they are placed in a service vessel.

Or perhaps,

even if he consecrated them

by mouth

alone,

the Sages also made

for them

this elevation

.

Rav Dimi said to him:

Rav Dimi: This question,

I have not heard

its answer. But concerning another question that is

similar to it, I heard

an answer.

For Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Grapes that became impure—

if he presses them, the liquids that emerge from them are pure! And the grapes do not render them impure through their contact. And this will be explained below.

And so it is with unconsecrated produce, but not with sacred property. Therefore, if he

pressed them and afterward consecrated them

for liquids, then they are

pure!

For when they came into contact with the grapes, they were still unconsecrated produce.

But if he

consecrated them

as grapes

and afterward pressed them,

even if he pressed them in less than an egg-bulk, the liquids are

impure!

And this too is an elevation regarding sacrificial offerings. And although the liquids are stored separately within the fruit and are not connected to it, they were stringent regarding them, saying that the liquids become impure together with the fruit while they are still inside it, despite the fact that as a matter of strict law they are not connected with it as one substance .

And it entered Rav Dimi’s mind that it is speaking of one who consecrates the wine for libations. Therefore he proved and said:

But these grapes, which

are sanctified with

sanctity through speech.

For even if they are placed in a service vessel, they will not become sanctified with sanctity of substance, since they themselves are not offered and are not fit to be placed in a service vessel. And we hold: “A service vessel sanctifies only a matter that is fit for it.”

And even so,

regarding these sacred grapes,

the Sages made

this elevation, so that the liquids within them become impure together with them. Apparently, the elevation of sacrificial offerings applies even to consecration through speech alone.

Rav Yosef said:

From

grapes you say

to prove this? This proves nothing, because

here we are dealing with grapes of teruma

and not with sacrificial offerings. For with teruma too they made this elevation, as they did with sacrificial offerings. And grapes of teruma are different, because

their sanctity through speech is like the sanctity of a

service vessel of sacrificial offerings

is similar.

For through speech the sanctity of substance of teruma takes effect completely. Therefore the Sages made an elevation regarding them.

But these

sacrificial offerings,

which require a

service vessel in order to become sanctified with sanctity of substance, perhaps

with

sanctity

through speech

alone

the Sages did not make an elevation.

And we return to explain Rabbi Yohanan’s words, who said: If he pressed them and afterward consecrated them—they are pure!

And we raise a difficulty concerning it: Is it so that

“pressed them”

even a great deal [

a lot together]

also

the liquids are pure? If so, it is difficult.

And did Rabbi Yohanan say so?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: Grapes that became impure, he presses them less than an egg-bulk at a time.

And specifically in this manner they are pure, because food does not render others impure with less than an egg-bulk. But if he presses a great deal together, the liquids become impure as they emerge, because of their contact with the grapes.

And we answer:

If you wish, say: Here too

he is saying that if he pressed them in

less than an egg-bulk

and afterward consecrated them, they are pure.

And if you wish, say:

Actually, even if he pressed a great deal together, Rabbi Yohanan declares them pure. Rather,

there,

where he requires pressing less than an egg-bulk, it is speaking of grapes

that came into contact with a first degree

of impurity.

For they themselves [

the grapes]

became a second degree

of impurity. Therefore they render impure the liquids that touch them as they emerge. For liquids become impure even through a second degree of impurity, and through it become a first degree of impurity. As we hold: “Whatever disqualifies teruma renders liquids impure to be primary.” And a second degree renders teruma impure. Therefore it makes the liquid a first degree of impurity.

But

here,

it is speaking of grapes

that came into contact with a second degree

of impurity,

so that they became a third degree

of impurity. Therefore they do not render impure the liquids that emerge. For a third degree does not render liquids impure, since it does not even disqualify teruma.

Rava said: We too have learned this,

that the Sages made an elevation regarding sacrificial offerings, and even regarding consecration through speech. For it was taught: It is written concerning the waters of purification:

“And he shall place upon it living water in a vessel.”

And we expound:

The livingness

of the water

shall be in a vessel.

For the water must be filled from the spring in the same vessel into which the ashes of the cow will eventually be placed. He may not draw it in another vessel and afterward pour it into the vessel in which he places the ashes of the cow.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it: It is written

“And he shall place

upon it living water.” This implies that we do not require the vessel to fill from the spring by itself; rather, it is also effective if one takes water from the spring and places it in the vessel.

Apparently

the waters of purification are fit even when

they are detached !

And why may one not pour from one vessel into another?