Temurah 12a — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav Yosei to Abaye: He is not liable. For

do we read in it

is this what the Torah said [Deuteronomy 12

“For the place will be far from you, and you shall slaughter”?!

For it is only from these words of the verse that we learned the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard. And in these cases he cannot slaughter this animal except in the courtyard, because of the mother, which is a peace-offering. And since he is required to slaughter it in the courtyard, he does not transgress the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard.

And Abaye asked Rav Yosef another question concerning “animals slaughtered outside.” This is the prohibition against slaughtering consecrated animals outside the courtyard, the place of their slaughter. And one who slaughters or performs another sacrificial service outside is liable to karet.

Abaye asked Rav Yosef:

in a case where the mother

is non-sacred and

he consecrated

its offspring

for

a peace-offering,

according to the one who says “consecration takes effect upon fetuses,”

and he slaughtered

the mother

outside—

what is the halakha? Is he liable for it,

is he liable to karet for the offspring

because of animals slaughtered outside, or not? He said to him

Rav Yosef:

Do we read in it

is this what the Torah said in the section of animals slaughtered outside [Leviticus 17

“and they shall bring them”’?!

For the Torah made one liable to karet for bringing outside only for bringing a sacrifice that was fit to be brought to the courtyard, and he brought it outside. But this fetus is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice?!

Another version,

he said to him

Rav Yosef: The Torah said [there]: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to offer a sacrifice to the Lord, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.” Therefore:

if it is fit for the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, they are liable for it,

when he slaughters it

outside. But that which is not

Mishna: The Mishna before us will explain several laws concerning teruma, ritual baths, ritual impurities, and substitution. They were taught here incidentally to the latter clause concerning substitution.

fit for the Tent of Meeting,

such as this offspring of a peace-offering,

they are not liable for it outside.

Mishna:

In the Mishna before us several halakhot will be explained, concerning teruma, ritual baths, ritual impurities, and substitution. And they were taught here incidentally to the final clause concerning substitution.

Ordinary prohibitions are nullified in sixty parts of permitted matter. But teruma “rises” [is nullified] only in a ratio of one to one hundred. How so? A se’a of teruma that fell into one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce [of the same species], and everything became mixed, one separates one se’a from the whole and gives it to a priest, and the remainder is permitted to non-priests. If a se’a of teruma fell into less than one hundred, everything becomes “mixed with teruma,” and everything is sold to priests for the value of teruma [that is, cheaply, because it has few consumers], except for the value of that se’a .

The Mishna discusses teruma that became mixed with non-sacred produce, and there are not one hundred [parts] of non-sacred produce opposite it to cause it to “rise,” and from that mixture a se’a fell into other non-sacred produce—by what quantity will that se’a be nullified? Does it require one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce to cause it to rise, or is a measure of one hundred sufficient to nullify the quantity of teruma mixed within it? And subsequently this will be explained. “

“Mixture with teruma”—that is: non-sacred produce that became forbidden to a non-priest because of a mixture of teruma, and there is not a measure of one hundred and one in the non-sacred produce in order to “cause it to rise” [or even when there are one hundred in it, but he has not yet caused one se’a from it to rise in order to give it to a priest]. “

“Causing to rise”—that is: nullification of a mixture of teruma [and it is called this because although it has been nullified, one must raise and give to a priest an amount corresponding to the teruma that fell]. “

“Forbidden”—with regard to teruma, its meaning is: forbidden to non-priests.

The mixture with teruma does not cause

the non-sacred produce to become mixed with teruma in a measure of one hundred against the entire se’a of the “mixture,”

but according to the calculation

of the teruma in it: according to what there is of teruma in the “mixture,” so must there be a measure of one hundred of non-sacred produce opposite it.

For example: if at first a se’a of teruma fell into twenty-three se’a of non-sacred produce, they became mixed with teruma—and all twenty-four se’a became forbidden. And now, if a se’a from that mixture [“mixture with teruma”] fell into non-sacred produce, one does not need one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce to cause it to rise, but seventy-seven log [a se’a = 24 log]. And if it fell into seventy-seven log, he causes one se’a to rise and gives it to a priest, and the remainder is permitted.

How so? When at first a se’a of teruma fell into twenty-three se’a of non-sacred produce and they became thoroughly mixed, it follows that in each se’a there is a mixture of one log [1/24 of a se’a] of teruma and twenty-three log of non-sacred produce. And now—when it falls into seventy-seven log—there are altogether one hundred log of non-sacred produce to cause the one log of teruma to rise.

That which we learned, that teruma is nullified in one hundred, refers to grain and fruits that became mixed with the same species. But “leavening,” which is: teruma leaven that fell into dough of non-sacred produce, of the same species—is not nullified as long as “it is capable of leavening,” even though there are one hundred parts of permitted matter against the teruma, as we learned in tractate Orla [Chapter 2, Mishna 4–6].

And the Mishna says: Just as other mixtures with teruma cause mixture only according to the calculation, so too with “leavening.”

And the leavened substance,

a dough of non-sacred produce that was leavened with teruma leaven—

does not leaven

another dough

except according to the calculation,

of the teruma that is in it.

For example: a dough of non-sacred produce that was leavened with teruma leaven is entirely forbidden, as explained. And if a piece from that dough fell into another dough of non-sacred produce and leavened it, it forbids it only according to the calculation of the teruma mixed within it.

That is, if the piece from the first dough is so large that the portion of teruma mixed within it can leaven this second dough without the assistance of the portion of non-sacred produce mixed within it, the second dough becomes forbidden. But if the teruma portion alone is insufficient to leaven the second dough, and it leavened it with the assistance of the portion of non-sacred produce mixed with it, and it follows that the teruma alone did not leaven it—it does not become forbidden.

And as explained, all this applies when there are one hundred [parts] in the second dough against the quantitative portion of teruma mixed into the piece that fell from the first one.

And drawn water does not disqualify the ritual bath except according to the calculation.

And this will be explained in the Gemara .

And the water of purification [

the water into which the ashes of the cow are placed in order to purify one who became impure with corpse impurity—is called “water of purification”]

does not become

“water of purification”—

except with the placing of

the

ashes.

And with its placing it becomes “water of purification.” Therefore, he should first place the water and afterward the ashes—

But if he first places the ashes and afterward the water, it is invalid. And with the placing of the ashes it did not become “water of purification,” because there was no water there; whereas afterward, when he places water, there is no placing of ashes.

The following law concerns a “field of uncertain corpse impurity,” which is a field in which there is uncertainty concerning corpse impurity.

One of the forms of a field of uncertain corpse impurity is a field in which there was a grave, and the grave was plowed. And the Sages said that the entire field imparts impurity through contact and carrying [but does not impart impurity through the impurity of a tent]. That is, a person walking in the field, or one who touches or carries its soil, is impure, lest the plow have carried bones from the dead together with the soil.

The measure of the place of impurity is an area of four se’a around the place where the grave had been. That is, each area of one se’a is one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits. As follows:

For the Sages estimated that the plow can carry the bones of the dead up to one hundred cubits.

When do these words apply? When he plowed that entire place, and then it is not impure beyond an area of four se’a. But if he plowed only part of this place, it does not become a “field of uncertain corpse impurity” except up to the place that he plowed.

If he plowed a field of uncertain corpse impurity, and from it continued to plow within the fields surrounding it, the Mishna discusses whether those fields too become fields of uncertain corpse impurity, because of the concern lest the plow have carried the bones of the dead there.

And a field of uncertain corpse impurity does not make

a field of uncertain corpse impurity,

except according to the measure explained in the Gemara.

And there is no teruma after teruma,

if he separated teruma and then separated again, the second is not teruma.

And there is no substitution,

a non-sacred animal that was substituted for a sacrificial animal

makes substitution

upon another non-sacred animal. And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And neither does the offspring,

the offspring of consecrated animals,

make substitution.

Rabbi Judah says: The offspring makes substitution.

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Judah:

A consecrated animal,

a consecrated animal,

makes substitution, but neither the offspring nor a substitute

makes substitution.

And the reason for their disagreement will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The mixture with teruma causes mixture only according to the calculation.

And the Gemara asks:

Who is the tanna,

who is the tanna of the Mishna?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is not according to Rabbi Eliezer!

As we learned,

we learned a Mishna in tractate Terumot [Chapter 5, Mishna 6]:

A se’a of teruma that fell into less than one hundred

se’a of

non-sacred produce, and they became mixed with teruma, and some of the mixture fell into another place

of non-sacred produce—

Rabbi Eliezer says: It causes mixture as

though it were

definite teruma,

and if a se’a from the mixture fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce, it forbids them, and we do not calculate according to the proportion of teruma mixed in that se’a. For

I say

the se’a

of teruma

that fell—[in the first falling] into the mixture—

fell into the mixture—is

the se’a that rose

from it, and all of it is teruma, and it fell again—[in the second falling]—into the non-sacred produce.

And the Sages say: It causes mixture only according to the calculation ,

as explained in the Mishna.

And our Mishna was taught according to the Sages and not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the leavened substance does not leaven except according to the calculation.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said

Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the last one, and if the teruma fell last, the dough is prohibited. Abaye said [Pesahim 27a] that if the teruma fell first and afterward the non-sacred sourdough, which seemingly indicates from Rabbi Eliezer’s words that it is permitted, this applies only when one hastened to remove the teruma before it had time to leaven. But if he did not hasten to remove the teruma, and the two of them leavened it, the dough is prohibited, whether the teruma fell first or last. For the non-sacred component combines with the teruma to leaven and prohibit the dough, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: “When this and that cause it, it is prohibited.”

that Rabbi Yohanan said: Our Mishna,

which teaches that a dough of non-sacred produce that was leavened with leaven, part of which was teruma and part of which was non-sacred produce, does not become forbidden until the teruma alone is sufficient to leaven it, and the non-sacred produce does not join with the teruma to forbid the second dough—

is not according to Rabbi Eliezer!

who holds that the non-sacred produce joins with the teruma, and when both together leavened it, the dough becomes forbidden.

As we learned,

we learned in tractate Orla [there, Mishna 11]:

Leaven of non-sacred produce and

leaven

of teruma that fell into the dough, neither this one was sufficient to leaven

nor that one was sufficient to leaven, and they joined together and leavened it—

And the Sages say: Whether the prohibited substance fell first or whether it fell last, it is never forbidden until it contains the prohibited substance alone

Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the last one,

and if the teruma fell last, it is forbidden. And Abaye said [Pesachim 27a] that if the teruma fell first, and afterward the non-sacred produce, which seemingly indicates from Rabbi Eliezer’s words that it is permitted, this applies only when he preceded and removed the teruma before it had time to leaven. But if he did not precede and remove the teruma, and both of them leavened it, the dough is forbidden, whether the teruma fell first or whether it fell last. For the non-sacred produce joins with the teruma to leaven and forbid the dough, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: “When this and that cause it—it is forbidden.”

And the Sages say: Whether a prohibition fell first or whether it fell last, it is never forbidden until there is in it

from the prohibited substance alone

enough to leaven.

And our Mishna does not hold according to Rabbi Eliezer, but according to the Sages.

We learned in our Mishna:

And drawn water does not disqualify the ritual bath except according to the calculation.

And the Gemara asks:

Who is the tanna,

whose Mishna is this?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

The Mishna of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov it is!

As it was taught,

a ritual bath containing forty se’a of rainwater is valid for the purification of all the impure, except for a man with a flux, whose purification is immersion only in flowing spring water, called “living water.”

A ritual bath that was filled with rainwater in an amount less than forty se’a, even by the smallest amount, and three log of drawn water fell into it—the Sages disqualified the ritual bath, and all the water is considered drawn. But a ritual bath containing forty se’a of rainwater, and he drew water in a bucket and poured into it even the entire day—all of it is valid.

The beraita discusses a ritual bath that does not contain forty se’a, and he did not pour water into it from the bucket directly, but rather by “continuation”: he makes a channel and a depression at a distance from the ritual bath, pours from the bucket into that depression, and from there the water flows into the ritual bath.

And we learned:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A mikveh that contains twenty-one seah

which are the majority of forty seah

of rainwater, he fills by shoulder

water in a bucket carried on the shoulder, and these are drawn waters

nineteen seah, and pours them

throws them , that is, he brings them by means of hamshakha,

to the mikveh ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page-column location")

and they are pure,

that is, the mikveh is fit for immersing in, because

the drawn water

purifies through increase,

when the majority is rainwater that fell into it on its own,

and by means of hamshakha.