Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 35

1) THE PRACTICAL RAMFICATION OF "CHULIN" THAT BECOMES A "SHELISHI L'TUM'AH"

QUESTION: Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that one who eats a food of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh that is a Shelishi l'Tum'ah is permitted to eat Kodesh. The reason is because even if we considered him to be a Shelishi, that 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 to its Tum'ah, we should say that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh can only become a Sheni, and it cannot become a Shelishi! (TOSFOS DH ha'Ochel)

ANSWERS:

(a) The question of TOSFOS is difficult to understand. There is an obvious ramification: 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 that 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, then 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 it 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 we do not burn it, but we must put it 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 would have to be burned and would not be permitted to eat.

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 destroyed. Perhaps, though, 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 it 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 it 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 it is prohibited to cause Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh to become Tamei by touching something that can disqualify Kodesh, the question can still be asked in the way that the RAMBAN and RASHBA ask the question. The Ramban and Rashba ask why the Beraisa later (35b) tells us 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. How can 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 ramifications to the fact that it is 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 us 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). 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 that, "Af Ani Lo Amarti..." -- "I, too, only said this with regard to Terumah, for the Taharah of Terumah is considered to be 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 will make 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)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TIFERES YISRAEL answers that the only thing that is 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, we must consider -- with regard to Kodesh -- that perhaps the Terumah also touched an Av ha'Tum'ah, making it 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, we should always consider Terumah to be 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 is referring only to the *clothing* of Ochlei 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 we are more lenient with regard to this type of Tum'ah than with regard to other Tum'os d'Rabanan, as we find that Tosfos earlier (34b, DH veha'Shelishi) says 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 can indeed make Kadosh become Tamei.

(b) RASHI writes in a number of places that because Terumah is considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh, even though the Terumah is only a Shelishi, with regard to Kodesh it is deemed to be a Sheni (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, we should doubt 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, then, does Rashi explain here that the Terumah might be a Sheni?

Perhaps Rashi's intention is to answer the question that we asked above. Rashi is proposing that even though we are concerned that Terumah is Tamei with regard to items of Kodesh, nevertheless we are not concerned that the Terumah will be Tamei to the degree of Rishon l'Tum'ah. Rather, we increase the level of Tum'ah by one step with regard to Kodesh. Accordingly, if the food is a Shelishi for Terumah, we consider it 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 in 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 still be correct to say that he becomes a Sheni with regard to Kodesh, because it will no longer 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.

35b

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that, logically, we might have thought 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 is coming from an animal that has died. The Gemara says further that, logically, we might have thought 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 explicitly teaches that Dam ha'Mes and Dam Magefaso are not Machshir.

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

(a) RASHI seems to accept the opinion of Rebbi Shimon with regard to the Halachah concerning Dam ha'Mes and Dam Magefaso of an animal. 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 he also understands the Mishnah at the end of Machshirin (6:8) to be following 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), however, 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 quotes the argument between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan regarding 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, his understanding of the Rabanan is that since a Revi'is of Dam ha'Mes (of a person) is Metamei, the blood is also Machshir. That is, the Tum'ah that the blood causes and the Hechsher that the blood causes take effect simultaneously. 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 is an independent Halachah that teaches that the blood of a Mes can be Machshir because its Tum'ah gives it the ability 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 writes (Nidah 71a, DH Mekor) 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 maintains that we apply 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, we give Dam ha'Mes the same status as Dam Chalalim. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)