Temurah 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav Yosei to Abaye: He is not liable. For

can we read in it

that the Torah said this [Deuteronomy 12

“When the place is far from you, and you shall slaughter”?! The prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard was learned only from these words of the verse. In these cases, however, he cannot slaughter this animal anywhere but in the courtyard, because of its mother, which is a shelamim offering. And since he is required to slaughter it in the courtyard, he does not violate the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the courtyard.

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

Abaye posed the following question to Rav Yosef:

In a case where the mother

is non-sacred and he consecrated

its offspring

as

a shelamim offering,

according to the one who says that “sanctity takes effect upon fetuses,” and

he slaughtered

the mother

outside—

what is the law? Is he liable for it

for karet

because of slaughtering outside, or not? He said to him

Rav Yosef:

Can we read in it

that the Torah said this in the passage concerning slaughtering outside [Leviticus 17] “And they shall bring them to the Lord”?!

The Torah rendered one liable to karet for bringing an offering outside only when it was fit to be brought into the courtyard, and he brought it outside. But this fetus is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice?!

“and they shall bring them to the Lord”?!

The Torah imposed liability for bringing outside only when it is an offering that should have been brought to the courtyard, but was brought outside. This fetus, however, is not fit to be offered as an offering?!

Another version:

Rav Yosef said to him: The Torah said [there]: “And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer an offering to the Lord; that man shall be cut off from among his people.” Therefore: If it is fit for the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is liable for it

when he slaughters it

outside. But that which is not

fit for the Tent of Meeting,

such as this offspring of a shelamim offering,

one is not liable for it outside.

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.

such as this offspring of a peace-offering,

they are not liable for it outside.

they are not liable for it outside.

Ordinary prohibited substances are nullified in sixty times their permitted counterpart. But teruma is “raised” [nullified] only in a ratio of one to one hundred. How so? If a se'a of teruma fell into one hundred se'a of non-sacred produce [of the same type] and everything became mixed together, one se'a is separated from the entire mixture and given to a priest, and the remainder is permitted to non-priests. If a se'a of teruma fell into less than one hundred se'a, everything becomes “meduma,” and it is all sold to priests at the value of teruma [that is, cheaply, because there are not many people who may eat it], except for the value of that se'a.

The Mishna discusses teruma that became mixed with non-sacred produce, and the non-sacred produce does not contain one hundred times its amount to nullify it; then, from that mixture, a se'a fell into other non-sacred produce. In what quantity is that se'a nullified? Does it require one hundred se'a of non-sacred produce to “raise” it, or is a quantity of one hundred sufficient to nullify the amount of teruma mixed into it? This will be explained below. “

“Dimum” means non-sacred produce that became prohibited to a non-priest because of a mixture of teruma, when the non-sacred produce does not contain a quantity of one hundred and one to “raise it” [or even when it contains one hundred, but a se'a has not yet been separated from it and given to a priest ]. “

“Raising” means nullification of a mixture containing teruma [and it is called this because, even though it is nullified, one must separate and give to a priest an amount equal to the teruma that fell]. “

“Prohibited,” with regard to teruma, means prohibited to non-priests.

The meduma does not render the non-sacred produce meduma, requiring one hundred against the entire se'a of “dimum,”

but only according to the proportion

of teruma in it: according to the amount of teruma contained in the meduma, so must be the amount of one hundred parts of non-sacred produce corresponding to it.

For example: If a se'a of teruma initially fell into twenty-three

se'a of non-sacred produce, they became meduma, and all twenty-four se'a became prohibited. Now, if a se'a of that mixture [“meduma”] fell into non-sacred produce, it does not require one hundred se'a of non-sacred produce to raise it, but seventy-seven log [a se'a equals twenty-four log]. If it fell into seventy-seven log, one separates a se'a and gives it to a priest, and the remainder is permitted.

How so? When a se'a of teruma initially fell into twenty-three se'a of non-sacred produce and they became thoroughly mixed, it follows that each se'a contains one log [1/24 of a se'a] of teruma and twenty-three log of non-sacred produce. Now, when it falls into seventy-seven log, there are altogether one hundred log of non-sacred produce to raise the log of teruma. What we learned—that teruma is nullified in one hundred—applies to grain and fruit of the same type that became mixed. But “leaven,” meaning teruma sourdough that fell into a dough of non-sacred produce of the same type, is not nullified as long as “it contains enough to leaven,” even if there are one hundred parts of the permitted substance against the teruma, as we learned in Tractate Orla [chapter 2, mishna 4]. And the Mishna says: Just as other meduma renders something meduma only according to the proportion, so too with “leaven.”

For example: If a se’a of teruma initially fell into twenty-three se’ah of non-sacred produce, they became a mixture, and all twenty-four se’ah became forbidden. Now, if a se’a of that mixture fell into non-sacred produce, one does not need one hundred se’ah of non-sacred produce to raise it out. Rather, seventy-seven logs are sufficient, since one se’a equals twenty-four logs. If it fell into seventy-seven logs, one removes a se’a and gives it to a priest, and the remainder is permitted. How so? When a se’a of teruma initially fell into twenty-three se’ah of non-sacred produce and they were thoroughly mixed, each se’a was found to contain one log—a twenty-fourth of a se’a—of teruma and twenty-three logs of non-sacred produce. Now, when it falls into seventy-seven logs, there are a total of one hundred logs of non-sacred produce, sufficient to raise out the one log of teruma.

And the leavened substance—a dough of non-sacred produce that was leavened with teruma sourdough—

does not leaven another dough

except according to the proportion

of the teruma it contains.

For example: A dough of non-sacred produce that was leavened with teruma sourdough is entirely prohibited, as explained. If a piece of that dough fell into another dough of non-sacred produce and leavened it, it renders the latter prohibited only according to the proportion of teruma mixed into it.

That is, if the piece from the first dough is so large that the teruma component mixed into it could leaven this second dough without the assistance of the non-sacred component mixed into it, the second dough becomes prohibited. But if the teruma component alone is insufficient to leaven the second dough, and it leavened it only with the assistance of the non-sacred component mixed with it, so that the teruma alone did not leaven it, the dough does not become prohibited.

As explained, all this applies when the second dough contains one hundred times the quantitative amount of teruma mixed into the piece that fell from the first dough.

And drawn water does not invalidate the ritual bath except according to the proportion.

This will be explained in the Gemara .

For example: Non-sacred dough that was leavened with teruma sourdough is entirely forbidden, as explained. If a piece of that dough fell into another non-sacred dough and leavened it, it renders the second dough forbidden only according to the proportion of teruma mixed into it.

And the water of purification [the water into which the ashes of the cow are placed in order to purify one who has contracted impurity from a corpse is called “the water of purification”]

does not become

“water of purification”—

except with the placement of

the ashes.

With their placement, 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. At the time he places the ashes, it does not become “water of purification,” because there is no water present; whereas afterward, when he places the water, there is no placement of ashes. The next law concerns “bet ha-peras,” a field in which there is uncertainty concerning impurity from a corpse. One type of bet ha-peras is a field in which there had been a grave and the grave was plowed over. The Sages said that the entire field transmits impurity through contact and carrying [but does not transmit impurity through a tent]. That is, a person who walks through the field, or who touches or carries its soil, is impure, lest the plow have carried bones from the corpse along with the soil. The measure of the area of impurity is a space of four se'a surrounding the place where the grave had been. That is, each area of a bet se'a is one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits. As follows: For the Sages estimated that a plow can carry the bones of the dead up to one hundred cubits. When does this apply? When the entire area was plowed; then it is not impure beyond an area of four se'a. But if only part of this area was plowed, it becomes a “bet ha-peras” only up to the place that was plowed. If one plowed a bet ha-peras and then continued plowing from it into the surrounding fields, the Mishna discusses whether those fields also become a bet ha-peras, because of the concern that the plow may have carried bones of the dead there. And a bet ha-peras does not create a bet ha-peras, except according to the measure explained in the Gemara.

“the water of purification”

only when the

ashes

are added. When the ashes are added, it becomes “the water of purification.” Therefore, one should place the water first and the ashes afterward—

But if one places the ashes first and the water afterward, it is invalid. When the ashes are added, it does not become “the water of purification,” because there is no water there; and afterward, when one adds water, there is no addition of ashes. The next law concerns a “field of the grave-plowed area,” which is a field containing a possible source of corpse impurity. One type of field of the grave-plowed area is a field in which there was a grave and the grave was plowed over. The Sages said that the entire field imparts impurity through contact and carrying, but not through corpse impurity transmitted by a tent. That is, a person walking through the field, or touching or carrying its soil, becomes impure, because perhaps the plow carried bones from the corpse along with the soil.

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.

The minimum area affected by the impurity is a square measuring four se’ah, surrounding the place where the grave had been. That is, each square se’a is one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits. As follows:

This is because the Sages estimated that the plow can carry the bones of the corpse as far as one hundred cubits.

And there is no teruma after teruma: If one separated teruma and then separated teruma again, the second is not

teruma.

And a field of the grave-plowed area does not cause

another field of the grave-plowed area

except according to the measure explained in the Gemara.

And there is no substitution:

A non-sacred animal for which substitution was made with a sacrificial animal does not effect substitution with another non-sacred animal. The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Nor does the offspring, the offspring of consecrated animals, effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring effects substitution. The Sages said to him, to Rabbi Yehuda: A consecrated animal,

a sacrificial animal,

effects substitution, but neither the offspring nor the substituted animal

effects substitution.

The reason for their dispute will be explained in the Gemara.

effect substitution.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring effects substitution.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The meduma does not render something meduma except according to the proportion.

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 in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer!

As we learned:

We learned a Mishna in Tractate Terumot [chapter 5, mishna 6]:

If a se'a of teruma fell into less than one hundred

se'a of non-sacred produce, and they became meduma, and some of the meduma fell into another place of non-sacred produce—

Rabbi Eliezer says: It renders it meduma as

though it were

definite teruma.

If a se'a from the meduma fell into less than one hundred se'a of non-sacred produce, it renders them prohibited, and one does not calculate according to the proportion of teruma mixed into that se'a. For

I say: A se'a

of teruma

that fell

[in the first falling] into the meduma

is the se'a that was raised

from it, and it was entirely teruma, and it fell again [in the second falling] into the non-sacred produce.

certain teruma

And the Sages say: It renders something meduma only according to the proportion ,

as explained in the Mishna.

of

teruma that fell

Our Mishna was taught in accordance with the Sages and not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba

said that Rabbi Yohanan: The Mishna

which teaches that a dough of non-sacred produce leavened with sourdough that is partly teruma and partly non-sacred is not prohibited until the teruma alone is sufficient to leaven it, and the non-sacred component does not combine with the teruma to prohibit the second dough—

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

is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer!

who holds that the non-sacred component combines with the teruma, and when the two together leavened the dough, it becomes prohibited.

As we learned: We learned in Tractate Orla [there, mishna 11]: If non-sacred sourdough and

sourdough

of teruma fell into the dough, and neither one had enough to leaven

and neither one had enough to leaven, and they combined and leavened it—

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.”

is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer!

who holds that the non-sacred portion joins the teruma, and when the two together leaven the dough, the dough becomes forbidden.

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

the prohibited substance alone

enough to leaven.

Our Mishna does not follow Rabbi Eliezer, but rather follows the Sages.

We learned in our Mishna:

And drawn water does not invalidate the ritual bath except according to the proportion.

The Gemara asks:

Who is the tanna,

whose Mishna is this? Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan:

The Mishna is that of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov!

As it was taught,

a ritual bath containing forty se'a of rainwater is valid for the purification of all those who are impure, except for a zav, whose purification requires immersion only in naturally flowing spring water, called “living water.”

A ritual bath that became filled with less than forty se'a of rainwater, even by the smallest amount, and into which three log of drawn water fell: the Sages invalidated the ritual bath, and all the water is considered drawn. But if a ritual bath contains forty se'a of rainwater, and one drew water in a bucket and poured it into the ritual bath, even throughout the entire day, it remains valid.

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

whose teaching is this?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

It is the teaching of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov!

As it was taught in a beraita,

a beraita, a teaching of the Sages of the Mishnaic period that was not included in the Mishna: A ritual bath containing forty se’ah of rainwater is valid for purifying all impure persons, except for a man with a gonorrheal discharge, whose purification requires immersion specifically in flowing spring water, called “living water.”

A ritual bath that was filled with less than forty se’ah of rainwater, even by the smallest amount, and into which three logs of drawn water fell, is disqualified by the Sages, and all the water is considered drawn water. But a ritual bath containing forty se’ah of rainwater remains valid even if one draws water in a bucket and pours it into the ritual bath throughout the entire day.

The beraita discusses a ritual bath that does not contain forty se’ah, into which one did not pour water directly from a bucket. Rather, the water was brought by “channeling”: one makes a channel and a depression at some distance from the ritual bath, pours the water from the bucket into that depression, and from there the water flows into the ritual bath.

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 containing twenty-one seah

[which constitute a majority of forty seah]

of rainwater, one fills by carrying on his shoulder

[water in a bucket carried on the shoulder, i.e., drawn water]

nineteen seah, and pours them

casting them ], that is, brings them by means of "hamshakha,"

into the mikveh

and they are ritually pure,

that is, the mikveh is fit for immersion in it, because

the drawn water

is rendered fit through a majority,

when the majority consists of rainwater that fell into it on its own

and through hamshakha.