Bechorot Daf 23 (בכורות דף כ״ג)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (23a)

Segment 1

TYPE: ברייתא

Even by Rabbi Eliezer the leftover produce must be kept dry — Ulla: lest nullified impurity ‘find its kind’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן? יֹאכְלוּ נִקּוּדִין, אוֹ קְלָיוֹת, אוֹ יִלּוֹשׁוּ בְּמֵי פֵירוֹת, אוֹ תִּתְחַלֵּק לְעִיסּוֹת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כְּבֵיצָה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: מָה טַעַם? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָבִיא קַב חוּלִּין טְמֵאִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וְקַב וְעוֹד מִמִּין זֶה, סָבַר אֱיבַטְּלִינְהוּ בְּרוּבָּא, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא הַאי מַשֶּׁהוּ — מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר.

English Translation:

according to Rabbi Eliezer, what will be with them? Let them be eaten dry or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into small batches, provided that there is not an egg-bulk of volume in a single batch. And Ulla says: What is the reason that the mixture may not be allowed to come in contact with water, despite the fact that it is entirely non-sacred? It is a rabbinic decree, lest one bring a kav of non-sacred, impure produce from some other place and take a kav and a little more from this mixture. Then he will think to himself: I will nullify the kav of impure produce with the majority of pure produce from the mixture. But since there is some amount of impure produce in the mixture, the type that was nullified found its own type and is revived in its impure state.

קלאוד על הדף:

This completes the baraita begun at the end of 22b. Even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who removes one se’a and treats the remaining hundred as non-sacred, the mixture must be eaten dry, roasted, kneaded with fruit juice or split into batches smaller than an egg-bulk. Ulla explains that this is a decree: someone might bring a kav of impure non-sacred produce and mix it with a little more than a kav of this mixture, expecting the pure majority to nullify it. But the trace of impure teruma still inside the mixture joins the impure kav, the impurity ‘finds its kind’ and wakes up again. This is Rav Dimi’s proof that nullified impurity can revive.

Key Terms:

• נִקּוּדִין / קְלָיוֹת = dry crumbs / roasted kernels — ways of eating without wetting the food
• מֵי פֵירוֹת = fruit juice — does not make food susceptible to impurity
• כְּבֵיצָה = an egg-bulk — the minimum quantity of food that can contract impurity
• מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר = the type found its own type and was revived — nullified matter regains its status when more of its kind is added

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

Abaye: impurity reviving impurity is no proof that pure water revives impurity

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם טוּמְאָה עוֹרֶרֶת טוּמְאָה, טׇהֳרָה עוֹרֶרֶת טוּמְאָה?

English Translation:

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: That proof is not conclusive. Even if impurity revives impurity, as in the case of teruma where the kav of produce is impure, why should it be assumed that purity revives impurity, as is suggested with regard to the fish brine, where the water in the pot is pure?

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye rejects the proof. In the teruma case the added kav was itself impure, so impurity joined impurity. In Rabbi Yirmeya’s case of the fish brine, the water in the pot is pure, and there is no reason to assume that pure water can wake up impurity that has already been nullified.

Key Terms:

• עוֹרֶרֶת = awakens, revives
• טוּמְאָה / טׇהֳרָה = impurity / purity

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא

From the red heifer ashes: if nullified impurity is ‘still there’, the mixture should impart impurity by carrying

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אֵפֶר כָּשֵׁר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּאֵפֶר מִקְלֶה, הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרוֹב לְטַמֵּא, וְאִי רוּבָּא אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה הוּא — לָא מְטַמֵּא. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: טוּמְאָה כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, נְהִי דִּבְמַגָּע לָא מְטַמֵּא — לְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא!

English Translation:

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya from a mishna (Para 9:7): If the ashes of a red heifer, which impart ritual impurity to the priests involved in its ritual and are fit for sprinkling on someone impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, became intermingled with regular burned ashes, we follow the majority in order to determine whether or not the mixture is impure. And therefore, if the majority is composed of the regular burned ashes, the mixture does not impart impurity. Abaye explains the objection: And if you say nullified impurity is considered like an item that is nevertheless present in the mixture and can be revived, then although the mixture does not impart impurity through physical contact as it is assumed that one touches the majority, let it impart impurity through carrying due to the ashes of the red heifer.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye brings a mishna in Para 9:7. Valid red heifer ash mixed with ordinary hearth ash follows the majority, and if the ordinary ash is the majority the mixture does not make one impure. If nullified impurity is treated as if it were present, then even if touching it is harmless (one touches only the majority), carrying the whole mixture should carry the heifer’s ash and impart impurity. The mishna makes no such distinction.

Key Terms:

• אֵפֶר כָּשֵׁר = valid ash of the red heifer (פָּרָה אֲדוּמָּה) — it purifies the impure but makes those who handle it impure
• אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה = ordinary hearth ash
• מַגָּע / מַשָּׂא = contact / carrying — two different ways impurity is transmitted
• כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי = is considered as if it is present

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ

Rabbi Yosei bar Chanina: that mixture is pure for contact but does impart impurity by carrying

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע, אֲבָל מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.

English Translation:

Rav Dimi responded: In fact, it was stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The mixture is pure in the sense that it does not impart impurity through contact, but it does impart impurity through carrying.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Dimi answers that this exact distinction was already stated on the mishna. Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina ruled that the mixture is pure only with regard to contact, but it does impart impurity when carried. The nullified ash is still there for the purpose of carrying, which supports the idea that nullified impurity does not simply disappear.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא = Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina — amora of the Land of Israel
• טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע = pure in that it does not impart impurity by contact
• מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא = imparts impurity by carrying

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא

Rav Chisda: carcass meat is nullified in slaughtered meat — so why not impurity by carrying?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נְבֵילָה בְּטֵילָה בִּשְׁחוּטָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִנְבֵילָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה. נְהִי דִּבְמַגָּע לָא מְטַמֵּא, לְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא!

English Translation:

Abaye responded: But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If meat from an animal carcass, which imparts ritual impurity, was mixed with the meat of a slaughtered animal, the meat from the carcass is nullified by the meat of the slaughtered animal in the event that the ritually pure meat constitutes a majority. The reason is that it is impossible for a carcass to become a slaughtered animal, i.e., a ritually slaughtered animal can never have the status of a carcass with regard to impurity. Abaye explains the difficulty: Granted that it does not impart impurity through contact, but if the impurity is considered present to some extent let the mixture impart impurity through carrying.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye counters with Rav Chisda’s ruling that carcass meat mixed into a majority of properly slaughtered meat is nullified. Rav Chisda’s reason is that the two are treated as different kinds, since a carcass can never become a slaughtered animal, and different kinds are nullified by a simple majority. Rav Chisda states the nullification without qualification, so Abaye asks again: if the carcass is still ‘present’, the mixture should at least impart impurity when carried.

Key Terms:

• נְבֵילָה = a carcass — an animal that died without proper slaughter; it imparts impurity by contact and carrying
• שְׁחוּטָה = a properly slaughtered animal
• בְּטֵילָה = is nullified
• רַב חִסְדָּא = Rav Chisda — Babylonian amora

Segment 6

TYPE: תירוץ

Rav Dimi: we learn it from Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita, with the same contact-but-not-carrying gloss

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתּוּן בִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן בִּדְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נְבֵילָה וּשְׁחוּטָה בְּטֵילוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ, וְאִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע, אֲבָל מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.

English Translation:

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: You learned the mishna according to the interpretation of Rav Ḥisda, but we learned it according to the interpretation of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: With regard to meat from an animal carcass and meat from a slaughtered animal, one nullifies the other, depending on the majority. And it was stated with regard to this ruling that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: If the majority is from a slaughtered animal the mixture is pure in the sense that it does not impart impurity through contact, but it does impart impurity through carrying.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Dimi answers that the Babylonians learned this halakha in Rav Chisda’s formulation, but in the Land of Israel it was learned as Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita, that carcass and slaughtered meat nullify each other by majority. On that baraita, too, Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina commented that the mixture is pure for contact but imparts impurity by carrying. Once again the nullified impurity survives for carrying.

Key Terms:

• אַתּוּן … אֲנַן = you [in Babylonia] … we [in the Land of Israel]
• מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ = you learn it [in this formulation]
• רַבִּי חִיָּיא = Rabbi Chiyya — the transitional sage who compiled baraitot

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא

The mass of blood of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov imparts no impurity even by carrying — Rav Dimi is silent

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם — הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּקָּבֵר, וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. וְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא. אַמַּאי? דִּנְהִי בְּמַגָּע לָא מְטַמֵּא, תְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא! אִישְׁתִּיק.

English Translation:

Abaye raised another difficulty: And that which we learned in our mishna contradicts your opinion, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn. And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches with regard to this ruling: That mass does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying. But why? If Rav Dimi is correct, then granted it does not impart impurity through contact, but let it nevertheless impart impurity through carrying. Rav Dimi was silent in response.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye now cites the mishna of 21b. A large animal that expelled a clot of blood must bury it, and the animal is exempt from the firstborn law, since the clot may have contained a fetus. Rabbi Chiyya teaches that the clot imparts no impurity, by contact or by carrying. If nullified impurity counts as present, the fetus inside the blood should at least make the carrier impure. Rav Dimi has no answer.

Key Terms:

• חֲרָרַת דָּם = a mass of congealed blood — a clot that may contain a dissolved fetus
• שָׁפְעָה = expelled, discharged
• נִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה = is exempt from the firstborn law — its next offspring is not a firstborn
• אִישְׁתִּיק = he was silent

Segment 8

TYPE: תירוץ

Perhaps the clot is ‘decayed impurity’ — which works for bar Padda but not for Rabbi Yochanan

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דִּלְמָא, וַדַּאי שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ טוּמְאָה סְרוּחָה. הָנִיחָא לְבַר פְּדָא, דְּאָמַר: טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְגֵר, וְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה עַד לְכֶלֶב, הָא לָא חַזְיָא לְגֵר. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר:

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Why was Rav Dimi silent? Perhaps the halakha is different here, as it is decayed impurity, since an animal carcass that has rotted does not impart impurity at all. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of bar Padda, who says: An item with severe ritual impurity, such as that of a nonviable newborn, imparts impurity to substances until it is rotted to the degree that it is no longer fit to be consumed by a gentile who observes certain mitzvot [ger toshav], who is permitted to consume it; but an item with light impurity, which transmits impurity only by contact, imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. And as this congealed mass is not fit to be eaten by a ger toshav it does not impart impurity. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says:

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why Rav Dimi did not answer that this case is different. The fetus is decayed matter, and decayed carcass flesh does not impart impurity at all. That reply works for bar Padda, who holds that severe impurity lasts only while the flesh is fit for a ger toshav to eat, and a clot of blood is not. The sentence breaks off to bring Rabbi Yochanan’s opposing view, which continues on 23b.

Key Terms:

• טוּמְאָה סְרוּחָה = decayed impurity — rotted flesh that no longer imparts impurity
• בַּר פְּדָא = bar Padda — early amora of the Land of Israel
• טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה / קַלָּה = severe impurity (also by carrying) / light impurity (by contact only)
• גֵּר = here a ger toshav — a resident non-Jew who may eat carcass meat

Amud Bet (23b)

Segment 1

TYPE: קשיא

By Rabbi Yochanan the clot is still fit for a dog, so the question on Rav Dimi stands

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ עַד לְכֶלֶב, הָא חַזְיָא לְכֶלֶב! קַשְׁיָא.

English Translation:

Both this one and that one, i.e., items of both forms of impurity, impart impurity until they are no longer fit to be eaten by a dog, it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as this mass is fit for a dog. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan holds that both severe and light impurity last as long as the flesh is fit for a dog to eat. A clot of blood is fit for a dog, so it is not ‘decayed’, and by his view it should still impart impurity by carrying. The Gemara concludes with a plain ‘it is difficult’. Abaye’s question on Rabbi Yirmeya and Rav Dimi remains unanswered.

Key Terms:

• עַד לְכֶלֶב = until [no longer fit] for a dog
• קַשְׁיָא = it is difficult — the objection stands, but the view is not formally refuted

Segment 2

TYPE: גופא

The dispute itself: bar Padda’s source is the verse of giving the carcass to the ger

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גּוּפָא, בַּר פְּדָא אָמַר: טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְגֵר, וְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה עַד לְכֶלֶב. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ עַד לְכֶלֶב. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבַר פְּדָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇל נְבֵלָה לְגֵר וְגוֹ׳״, הָרְאוּיָה לַגֵּר קְרוּיָה ״נְבֵילָה״, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַגֵּר אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״נְבֵילָה״.

English Translation:

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Bar Padda says: An item with severe ritual impurity imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a ger toshav, but an item with light impurity imparts impurity to substances until it is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Both this one and that one impart impurity until they are no longer fit to be eaten by a dog. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of bar Padda? As it is written: “You shall not eat of any animal carcass; you may give it to the ger who is within your gates” (Deuteronomy 14:21). Bar Padda understands from this verse that an item which is fit for a ger toshav is called an animal carcass, and that which is not fit for a ger toshav is not called an animal carcass.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now examines the dispute of bar Padda and Rabbi Yochanan on its own. Bar Padda learns from Devarim 14:21 (‘You shall not eat any carcass; give it to the ger within your gates’) that only meat fit for a ger is called a carcass. Once it is too rotten for a person, it is no longer a carcass and imparts no impurity.

Key Terms:

• גּוּפָא = the matter itself — the Gemara returns to examine a statement quoted earlier
• הָרְאוּיָה לַגֵּר = that which is fit for a ger
• לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇל נְבֵלָה = ‘You shall not eat any carcass’ — Devarim 14:21

Segment 3

TYPE: שקלא וטריא

Rabbi Yochanan uses the verse for meat rotten from the start; bar Padda: that is mere dust

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִידַּךְ? לְמַעוֹטֵי הֵיכָא דְּהִסְרִיחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא. וְאִידַּךְ? הִסְרִיחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי, עַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, how does he interpret that verse? He maintains that it serves to exclude a carcass that was decayed from the outset, e.g., if the flesh started to decompose while the animal was still alive, due to severe injury. But if the carcass was initially edible and later decayed, it continues to impart ritual impurity provided it is fit for a dog. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, bar Padda, how does he respond to this claim? A verse is not necessary to exclude such a case where the carcass was decayed from the outset, as it is merely like dust and obviously does not impart impurity.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan needs the verse for a different case: flesh that was rotten from the outset, while the animal was still alive. Flesh that was edible and only later decayed remains a carcass until even a dog would not eat it. Bar Padda answers that flesh rotten from the start needs no verse, because it is simply dust.

Key Terms:

• וְאִידַּךְ = and the other [sage] — how does he deal with this?
• הִסְרִיחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא = rotted from the outset — already before death
• עַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא = mere dust

Segment 4

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Yochanan: the clot is pure for both contact and carrying because of nullification in the majority

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תְּנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּקָּבֵר, וְנִפְטֶרֶת מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. וְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל בְּרוֹב נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

English Translation:

We learned in our mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn. And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: That mass of congealed blood does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is due to the halakhic nullification of a forbidden substance in a majority of permitted substances that the Sages touched upon it, in order to exclude it from impurity through contact or carrying.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara returns to the mishna of the clot and Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita that it imparts no impurity at all. Rabbi Yochanan explains that the Sages ruled so because the fetus is nullified in the majority of blood. For Rabbi Yochanan, then, nullification removes the impurity even with regard to carrying, which is the opposite of Rav Dimi’s claim.

Key Terms:

• מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל בְּרוֹב = because of nullification in a majority
• נָגְעוּ בָּהּ = they touched upon it — this is the reason the Sages ruled so

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not say it was never edible? Because it was once edible as part of its mother

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַאי אִירְיָא מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל בְּרוֹב? תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּלָא אִיתְחֲזִי כְּלָל! הָא נָמֵי אִיתְחֲזִי מֵעִיקָּרָא אַגַּב אִימֵּיהּ.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this halakha is due specifically to the nullification of a substance in a mixture by the majority of the mixture? Let one derive the halakha from the fact that the mass is not fit for consumption at all, and it never was. The Gemara explains: This too was initially fit by virtue of its mother, i.e., if one had slaughtered the mother before the embryo was discharged it would have been edible as part of the mother.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why Rabbi Yochanan needs nullification at all. The clot was never fit to eat, and by his own rule flesh rotten from the start is not a carcass. It answers that the fetus was once fit to eat by virtue of its mother: had the mother been slaughtered while it was inside her, it would have been permitted with her. So it does count as flesh that was once edible, and only nullification in the blood explains why it is pure.

Key Terms:

• תִּיפּוֹק לִי = let me derive it [from a simpler reason]
• אִיתְחֲזִי מֵעִיקָּרָא = was fit from the outset
• אַגַּב אִימֵּיהּ = by virtue of its mother — a fetus is permitted through its mother’s slaughter

Segment 6

TYPE: משנה וקושיא

Makhshirin 6:3: brine that receives any water is impure — amei ha’aretz mix in half water

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תְּנַן הָתָם: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: צִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — טָמֵא. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לְעָרֵב מֶחֱצָה בַּצִּיר. וּלְמָה לִי מֶחֱצָה? אֲפִילּוּ בְּצִיר מִמֶּחֱצָה נָמֵי! וְהָנֵי מַשֶּׁהוּ — הָוֵה לֵיהּ פַּלְגָא, וּפַלְגָא לָא בְּטִיל.

English Translation:

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Makhshirin 6:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Ritually pure brine, taken from an am ha’aretz, into which any amount of water fell is rendered impure. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: That is to say that amei ha’aretz are suspected of mixing half a portion of water in the brine, which means that when the additional water falls in, the nullified impurity in the brine is revived by it and renders the entire mixture impure. The Gemara asks: But why do I need to say they are suspected of mixing precisely half a portion of water? Even if they mix in less than half, the brine will also be rendered impure upon contact with the added water, as that small amount combined with slightly less than half a portion of water constitutes half the mixture, and half a mixture is not nullified by the other half.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara brings a mishna on Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s other ruling, about brine. Pure brine bought from an am ha’aretz becomes impure when any water at all falls in. Rav Nachman quoting Rabba bar Avuh infers that amei ha’aretz are suspected of diluting brine with half water. Their impure water is nullified until a little more water joins it and revives it. The Gemara asks why it has to be half: even with less, the added drop would bring the water up to half, and half is not nullified.

Key Terms:

• צִיר = brine — the liquid that exudes from salted fish
• עַם הָאָרֶץ = am ha’aretz — a person not trusted to keep the laws of purity
• רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ = Rabba bar Avuh — Babylonian amora
• פַּלְגָא לָא בְּטִיל = half is not nullified — nullification requires a majority

Segment 7

TYPE: תירוץ

Two answers: ‘half’ means up to half; or the two rabbinic decrees apply only to a majority

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֵימָא: עַד מֶחֱצָה. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: טוּמְאַת עַם הָאָרֶץ דְּרַבָּנַן, טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּרַבָּנַן. בְּרוּבָּא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן, בְּפַלְגָא וּפַלְגָא לָא גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: Say instead that an am ha’aretz is suspected of mixing in water until it constitutes slightly less than half the mixture. And if you wish, say instead: The impurity of foods belonging to an am ha’aretz applies by rabbinic law and the impurity of liquids also applies by rabbinic law. Accordingly, the impurity of the brine in this case is due to two separate rabbinic decrees. Where the majority is water the Sages decreed the brine is impure, but in a case where half the mixture is pure fish brine and half is water the Sages did not decree that the brine is impure.

קלאוד על הדף:

The first answer reads ‘half’ loosely: the am ha’aretz is suspected of adding up to just under half. The second answer notes that both laws here are rabbinic: the impurity of an am ha’aretz’s food and the impurity of liquids. The Sages decreed impurity only when the water becomes the majority, not in an even half-and-half mixture. That is why the suspicion must be of half, so that any water that falls in creates a majority.

Key Terms:

• עַד מֶחֱצָה = up to half
• דְּרַבָּנַן = of rabbinic origin
• טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין = the impurity of liquids
• גְּזַרוּ = they decreed

Segment 8

TYPE: משנה

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: a nursing animal is assumed to be nursing its own young

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מְנִיקָה מִן הַגּוֹי — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל אַחֶרֶת הָיָה. נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ עֶדְרוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת הַמַּבְכִּירוֹת מְנִיקוֹת, וְשֶׁאֵינָן מַבְכִּירוֹת מְנִיקוֹת — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ.

English Translation:

MISHNA: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who purchases a nursing female animal from a gentile, he does not need to be concerned, i.e., take into account the possibility, that perhaps it was nursing the offspring of another animal. Rather, the buyer may assume it had previously given birth. In the case of one who enters amid his flock and sees mother animals that gave birth for the first time that were nursing, and also sees mother animals that gave birth not for the first time that were also nursing, he does not need to be concerned that perhaps the offspring of this animal came to that animal to be nursed, or that perhaps the offspring of that animal came to this animal to be nursed.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna in perek 3 (הלוקח בהמה). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that one who buys a nursing animal from a gentile may assume it has already given birth, so its next offspring is not a firstborn. Likewise, in one’s own flock where first-time mothers and older mothers are all nursing, one need not worry that the young have switched mothers. An animal is presumed to nurse only its own offspring.

Key Terms:

• מְנִיקָה = nursing
• מַבְכִּירוֹת = animals giving birth for the first time
• אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין = one need not be concerned
• עֵדֶר = a flock

Segment 9

TYPE: גמרא

Rav: the halakha follows the whole perek except where there is a dispute — Rav Sheshet: Rav was dozing

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הִלְכְתָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין, בַּר מִפְּלוּגְתָּא. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָמֵינָא כִּי נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב רַב אָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא! אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַרֵישָׁא — (מפליגי) [מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי] רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

English Translation:

GEMARA: Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous tanna in the mishnayot throughout the whole chapter, except where there is a difference of opinion recorded in that mishna. Rav Sheshet says: I say Rav was dozing or sleeping when he said this halakha. After all, to which mishna is this referring? If we say it is referring to the first mishna in the chapter (19b) then his ruling does not apply, as Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in that mishna.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman reports Rav’s rule that the halakha follows this entire perek except where a dispute is recorded. Rav Sheshet answers sharply that Rav must have said it while half asleep, because the rule seems to add nothing. He starts to test it on each mishna of the perek. The first mishna (19b) is a dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, so the rule cannot refer to it.

Key Terms:

• פִּירְקִין = our perek — here perek 3, הלוקח בהמה
• בַּר מִפְּלוּגְתָּא = except for the [recorded] dispute
• נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב = dozing and lying down — said half asleep
• רַב שֵׁשֶׁת = Rav Sheshet — Babylonian amora, a sharp critic of rulings

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא

Nor Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov — his mishna is ‘a kav, and clean’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא אַדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב ״קַב וְנָקִי״.

English Translation:

Rather, you will say it is referring to the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (21b). This is also problematic, since it is already known that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, as there is an established principle that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov measures only a kav but is clean and accurate, and therefore the halakha is in accordance with his opinions.

קלאוד על הדף:

The second mishna of the perek, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s clot of blood (21b), needs no ruling either. It is an established principle that his mishna is ‘a kav and clean’: his teachings are few, but the halakha always follows them.

Key Terms:

• קַב וְנָקִי = a kav, and clean — small in quantity but always accepted as halakha
• מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב = the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

Segment 11

TYPE: קושיא

Nor Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, or the hair of a blemished firstborn

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא אַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִפְלָג פְּלִיג בְּבָרַיְיתָא! אֶלָּא אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם — הָא אָמַר רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם! אֶלָּא אַשְּׂעַר בַּעַל מוּם מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל וְרַבָּנַן!

English Translation:

Rather, you will say it is referring to the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna here. That is also difficult, as there is a tanna who disagrees, in the baraita cited on 24a. Rather, you will say that it is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam in the next mishna (24b). But didn’t Rav already say this one time? As Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam. Rather, you will say that it is referring to the matter of the hair of a blemished firstborn discussed in the mishna on 25b. But that case too is subject to a dispute, as Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis disagree in that mishna.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Sheshet goes through the rest of the perek. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is disputed in a baraita (cited on 24a). Rav already ruled separately in favor of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam (24b). The mishna on the hair of a blemished firstborn (25b) is a dispute between Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis. No mishna seems to be left for Rav’s general rule.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם = Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam — tanna
• שְׂעַר בַּעַל מוּם = the hair of a blemished firstborn
• עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל = Akavya ben Mahalalel — early tanna
• חֲדָא זִימְנָא = one time — already

Segment 12

TYPE: תירוץ

Rav’s rule is about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: a dissent in a baraita is not a ‘dispute’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְעוֹלָם אַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּבָרַיְיתָא לָא פְּלוּגְתָּא הִיא.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav’s statement is referring to the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here, and Rav teaches us this: That if a mishna is contradicted by a dissenting opinion cited in a baraita it is not considered a dispute, and the halakha therefore follows the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara defends Rav. His rule does refer to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it teaches a principle: a dissenting view that appears only in a baraita does not make the mishna a ‘dispute’. The halakha therefore follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The rule is not empty after all.

Key Terms:

• לְעוֹלָם = actually — the Gemara returns to an option it rejected
• הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = this is what he teaches us
• לָא פְּלוּגְתָּא הִיא = it is not [considered] a dispute

Segment 13

TYPE: קושיא

But once Rav gave a general rule for the whole perek… (continued on 24a)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר רַב: הִלְכְתָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין בַּר מִפְּלוּגְתָּא,

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But once Rav said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous tanna in the mishnayot throughout the whole chapter except where there is a difference of opinion,

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara begins a new question, and the sentence continues on 24a. If Rav already said the halakha follows the whole perek except for disputes, the question is why he also needed to rule separately on individual mishnayot of the perek. The answer comes on the next daf.

Key Terms:

• וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר = and since he said
• הִלְכְתָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין = the halakha follows the whole perek

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 23 finishes the debate that 22b opened over Rabbi Yirmeya’s ruling on fish brine: can impurity that was nullified in a majority “wake up” again (ניעור) when more of its kind is added? Rav Dimi’s proof from impure teruma ends with Ulla’s explanation that the Rabbis feared “מצא מין את מינו וניעור.” Abaye rejects it at once, since there impurity revived impurity, while in the brine case pure water is meant to revive it. Abaye then raises a series of objections, each asking why nullified impurity does not at least impart impurity by carrying. Rav Dimi answers the red heifer ash and the carcass meat with Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina’s distinction between contact and carrying. He falls silent on Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s clot of blood, and the Gemara closes the point with “קשיא.” This leads to the dispute of bar Padda and Rabbi Yochanan on when decayed carcass flesh stops imparting impurity, Rabbi Yochanan’s reason for the clot’s purity, and the brine mishna of Makhshirin. A new mishna of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel presumes that a nursing animal is nursing its own young. Rav then rules that the halakha follows the whole perek except where there is a dispute, Rav Sheshet answers that Rav was dozing, and the Gemara defends Rav. A further question about Rav’s rule begins at the end of the daf and continues on 24a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The teruma mixture: the baraita ends by requiring that even the leftover non-sacred produce be eaten dry, roasted, kneaded with fruit juice, or in batches smaller than an egg-bulk (כביצה). Ulla explains the decree: a person might bring a kav of impure produce and mix it with a little more than a kav of this mixture, expecting the pure majority to nullify it. The trace of impure teruma in the mixture would join the new impurity, and “the type found its type and was revived.”
• Abaye’s first rejection: in that case impurity revives impurity. In the brine case the water in the pot is pure, and there is no reason to assume pure water can revive impurity.
• The red heifer ash (Para 9:7): valid ash mixed with ordinary hearth ash follows the majority, and a majority of ordinary ash does not impart impurity. Abaye asks why, if nullified impurity is “still there,” the mixture does not impart impurity by carrying (משא), even if contact is harmless. Rav Dimi cites Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina: the mixture is indeed pure for contact but imparts impurity by carrying.
• Carcass in slaughtered meat: Abaye cites Rav Chisda, who rules without qualification that carcass meat is nullified in a majority of slaughtered meat, because a carcass can never become a slaughtered animal. Rav Dimi answers that in the Land of Israel this was learned as Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita, and Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina made the same gloss there: pure for contact, impure by carrying.
• The clot of blood: Abaye turns to the mishna of 21b. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov rules that a large animal that expelled a clot of blood must bury it and is exempt from the firstborn law, and Rabbi Chiyya teaches that the clot imparts no impurity, even by carrying. If the fetus inside is “still there,” it should impart impurity by carrying. Rav Dimi is silent (אישתיק).
• Decayed impurity? The Gemara suggests Rav Dimi could have answered that the fetus is decayed matter (טומאה סרוחה). That works for bar Padda, for whom severe impurity lasts only while the flesh is fit for a ger toshav. The sentence breaks off to bring Rabbi Yochanan’s opposing view.

Amud Bet Highlights

• “קשיא”: Rabbi Yochanan holds that both severe and light impurity last until the flesh is unfit for a dog. A clot is fit for a dog, so by his view the objection to Rabbi Yirmeya stands. The Gemara concludes simply that it is difficult.
• Bar Padda and Rabbi Yochanan: bar Padda learns from Devarim 14:21, “give it to the ger within your gates,” that only flesh fit for a ger is called a carcass (נבלה). Rabbi Yochanan uses the verse to exclude flesh that rotted before the animal died. Bar Padda answers that such flesh needs no verse, because it is mere dust (עפרא בעלמא).
• Why the clot is pure: Rabbi Yochanan explains Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita through nullification in a majority: the fetus is nullified in the blood, so it imparts no impurity even by carrying, the opposite of Rav Dimi’s claim. The Gemara asks why he does not rely on the clot never having been edible. It answers that the fetus was once fit “by virtue of its mother” (אגב אימיה), since it would have been permitted had the mother been slaughtered.
• The brine mishna (Makhshirin 6:3): Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov rules that pure brine bought from an am ha’aretz becomes impure when any water falls into it. Rav Nachman, citing Rabba bar Avuh, infers that amei ha’aretz are suspected of diluting brine with half water. The Gemara asks why it must be half, since even less water plus the new drop would reach half, and half is not nullified.
• Two answers: either “half” means up to just under half, or, since both the impurity of an am ha’aretz’s food and the impurity of liquids are rabbinic, the Sages decreed impurity only where the water is a majority, not in an even mixture.
• The new mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that a buyer of a nursing animal from a gentile need not worry that it was nursing another animal’s young, so its next offspring is not a firstborn. In one’s own flock, with first-time mothers and older mothers all nursing, one need not worry that the young have switched mothers.
• Rav’s rule: Rav Nachman reports in Rav’s name that the halakha follows the whole perek except where there is a dispute. Rav Sheshet says Rav must have been dozing (ניים ושכיב). The first mishna (19b) is a dispute of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s mishna is already “a kav and clean” (קב ונקי). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is disputed in a baraita cited on 24a. Rav already ruled for Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam (24b), and the hair of a blemished firstborn (25b) is disputed by Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis.
• The defence: Rav’s rule does refer to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it teaches that a dissent found only in a baraita does not make a mishna a “dispute.” The Gemara then begins to ask why Rav needed separate rulings on individual mishnayot, and the question continues on 24a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Abaye’s objection from the clot of blood is left as “קשיא.” Rav Dimi has no answer, and by Rabbi Yochanan’s standard the clot is not decayed, so Rabbi Yirmeya’s claim that nullified impurity can revive is left with a standing difficulty. Rabbi Yochanan explains the clot’s purity by nullification in a majority, since the fetus was once edible through its mother. The brine mishna is reconciled either by reading “half” as just under half or by limiting the two rabbinic decrees to a majority of water. Rav’s rule for the perek is defended: a dissent found only in a baraita does not count as a dispute, so the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Why Rav also needed individual rulings is still open at the end of the daf.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Eliezer, the Rabbis, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, Rabbi Chiyya, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, Akavya ben Mahalalel

Amoraim: Ulla, Abaye, Rav Dimi, Rabbi Yirmeya, Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina, Rav Chisda, bar Padda, Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Nachman, Rabba bar Avuh, Rav, Rav Sheshet

One-Line Takeaway

A majority can make impurity disappear for contact, but the daf keeps asking whether it is truly gone or only hidden, and it leaves Rav Dimi’s claim that it can wake up again with an unanswered “קשיא.”

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf asks a spooky question: can impurity that “disappeared” come back to life? When a little bit of something impure gets lost in a big pile of pure stuff, it’s “nullified,” like it’s gone. But is it really gone, or just asleep? Abaye fires question after question, and some of them never get answered! Then a brand-new mishna asks a sweet question about mother animals nursing their babies, and the Gemara ends with a funny argument about whether a great Sage said something while half asleep.

Quick Recap: The Sleeping Water 💧😴

Yesterday we met brine (ציר, tzir), the salty juice that drips out of salted fish. Brine on its own can’t become impure. But an am ha’aretz (עם הארץ, someone not careful about purity laws) might have mixed some impure water into it.

There’s a way to fix the brine, and it works because the little bit of impure water gets lost in a bigger amount of pure stuff. That’s called ביטול ברוב (bitul be-rov, “cancelled by the majority”).

But Rabbi Yirmeya added a warning: you can dip your bread in this brine, but don’t cook it in a pot with more water! Why? Because the impure water that “disappeared” now finds its own kind (more water!) and wakes up again. The Hebrew phrase is מצא מין את מינו וניעור (matza min et mino ve-ne’or, “the type found its own type and woke up”).

Abaye asked: “Really? Can cancelled impurity come back?” And Rav Dimi said: “Sure! Look at this mishna about teruma…”

Think of it like… a quiet kid hiding in a crowd of loud kids. You can’t hear him at all. But then his best friends walk in, and suddenly he’s shouting along with them!

The Simple Idea 💡: The big question today is whether impurity that got “lost in the crowd” can wake up again when its own kind shows up.

Rav Dimi’s Proof: The Teruma Pile 🌾

Teruma (תרומה) is the special portion of produce given to the kohen (priest). If impure teruma falls into a huge pile of regular food, the teruma gets “lost,” and the pile becomes regular food.

But the Sages still said: eat that pile dry! Eat it roasted, or mixed with fruit juice (which doesn’t let food catch impurity), or in tiny batches smaller than an egg (food smaller than an egg can’t catch impurity).

Why all these rules if the pile is already “regular”? Ulla explains. It’s a גזירה (gezeira, a protective rule made by the Sages). Imagine someone brings a basket of impure food from somewhere else. He grabs a basket and a little more from the pile and mixes them, thinking: “My pure food is the majority, so the impure basket gets cancelled!”

But wait! 🤔 The pile has a little bit of impure teruma hiding inside it. That hidden impurity meets the new impure food, its own kind, and they team up. Now the impurity wakes up!

Think of it like… a sneaky green crayon mixed into a box of blue ones. Alone, nobody notices it. But if you dump in another handful of green crayons, suddenly there’s a lot of green!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav Dimi’s proof: the Sages worried that hidden impurity could wake up when more impurity joins it.

Abaye: “That’s Not the Same!” 🙅

Abaye isn’t convinced.

In the teruma story, the new food that joined was impure. So impurity woke up impurity. That makes sense!

But in Rabbi Yirmeya’s brine story, the water in the pot is pure. Why should pure water wake up impure water? Maybe only impurity can wake up impurity.

Think of it like… a sleeping puppy. Another barking puppy might wake it up. But a quiet, sleeping kitten? Probably not!

The Simple Idea 💡: Abaye says impurity waking impurity is one thing, but pure water waking impurity is a totally different claim.

Abaye’s Second Question: The Red Heifer Ashes 🐄🔥

Abaye has more! He brings a mishna about the פרה אדומה (para aduma, the “red heifer”). Its ashes are very special. They purify someone who touched a dead body, but they make the people who handle them impure. Strange, right?

The mishna says: if red heifer ashes got mixed with regular fireplace ashes, we follow the majority. If the regular ashes are the majority, the mix doesn’t make you impure.

Now here’s Abaye’s point. There are two ways to catch impurity:

If cancelled impurity is still “there,” just asleep, then fine, touching the mix might be OK, since your finger probably touches the regular ashes. But if you carry the whole mix, you’re surely carrying the red heifer ashes too! So carrying should make you impure. Yet the mishna says the mix is fine, with no difference!

The Simple Idea 💡: Abaye asks: if cancelled impurity is still there, why doesn’t carrying the mix make you impure?

Rav Dimi’s Answer: Somebody Already Said It! ✅

Rav Dimi answers: “That difference was said!” Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina (a Sage in Eretz Yisrael) explained that very mishna: the mix is pure for touching, but it does make you impure if you carry it.

So yes, the cancelled ashes are still “there” when it comes to carrying.

Think of it like… one marble hidden in a bag of beads. If you poke your finger into the bag, you’ll probably touch only beads. But if you pick up the whole bag, you’re definitely carrying that marble too!

The Simple Idea 💡: The mix is safe to touch but not to carry, which shows the cancelled impurity never fully vanished.

Round Three: Carcass Meat in a Pile 🥩

Abaye keeps going. Rav Chisda taught that נבילה (neveila, an animal that died without proper kosher slaughter) mixed into a bigger pile of שחוטה (shechuta, properly slaughtered meat) is cancelled.

A neveila makes you impure by touching and by carrying. So Abaye asks the same thing again: if the neveila is still “there,” shouldn’t carrying the pile make you impure? Rav Chisda didn’t say anything like that!

Rav Dimi answers: “You in Babylonia learned this as Rav Chisda’s teaching. We in Eretz Yisrael learned it as a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna) of Rabbi Chiyya. And on that baraita, Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina said the same thing: pure for touching, impure for carrying!”

Think of it like… two schools that both learned the same song, but with different names on the songbook. Rav Dimi says, “In my school’s songbook, the extra verse is written right there!”

The Simple Idea 💡: Same answer again: the carcass is cancelled for touching, but it still counts when you carry the pile.

Round Four: The Blood Clot, and Rav Dimi Goes Quiet 🤐

Now Abaye brings his toughest case. Remember the mishna from daf 21? An animal sometimes gives out a חררת דם (chararat dam, a “clot of blood”) that might have had a tiny unborn baby animal dissolved inside it. The owner has to bury the clot, and the mother animal is now free from the firstborn law, because maybe she already had a baby.

Rabbi Chiyya taught: that clot doesn’t make anyone impure, not by touching and not by carrying!

Abaye pounces: “If cancelled impurity is still there, the tiny baby inside the blood should at least make the carrier impure!”

And Rav Dimi… אישתיק (ishtik, “he was silent”). He had no answer! 😶

Think of it like… a quiz show where you’ve answered every question perfectly, and then the last question stumps you. You just stand there with your mouth open.

The Simple Idea 💡: The blood clot case says “not even by carrying,” and Rav Dimi couldn’t explain it.

Couldn’t He Have Said “It’s Rotten”? 🦴

The Gemara wonders: why didn’t Rav Dimi just say, “That case is different! The tiny baby in the blood is rotten, and rotten carcass meat isn’t impure at all”? This is called טומאה סרוחה (tum’a seruha, “decayed impurity”).

That answer depends on an argument between two Sages:

(A ger here means a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel, who is allowed to eat neveila.)

By Bar Padda, a blood clot isn’t food for any person, so it’s “rotten,” and Rav Dimi’s answer would work. But by Rabbi Yochanan, a dog would happily lick up that blood clot! So it’s not rotten, and the question stays. The Gemara ends: קשיא (kashya, “it’s a difficulty”). Nobody solved it.

Think of it like… a sandwich that fell on the floor. Would you eat it? No way! Would your dog? In one second! Whether it still “counts” as food depends on whose rule you use.

The Simple Idea 💡: The “it’s rotten” answer only works for Bar Padda; by Rabbi Yochanan a dog would still eat it, so the question remains open.

The Argument Itself: Person or Dog? 🧑🐕

Now the Gemara looks at the Bar Padda and Rabbi Yochanan argument on its own. This is called גופא (gufa, “the matter itself”).

Bar Padda reads the verse: “Don’t eat any neveila; give it to the ger in your gates.” So a neveila is meat that’s good enough to give a ger. Once no person would eat it, it’s not a neveila anymore.

What does Rabbi Yochanan do with that verse? He says it’s about meat that was rotten from the very start, while the animal was still alive. That never counted. But meat that was good and only rotted later stays impure until even a dog won’t touch it.

And Bar Padda answers: “Meat that was rotten from the start? You don’t need a verse for that! It’s just עפרא בעלמא (afra be-alma, ‘plain dust’)!”

Think of it like… an apple that was mushy when you picked it, versus an apple that was crisp and then went bad in your lunchbox. One Sage says the mushy-from-the-start apple was never really an apple. The other says: “Obviously! That’s just dirt!”

The Simple Idea 💡: Bar Padda says the verse sets the “person” line; Rabbi Yochanan says the verse is only about meat rotten from the start.

Rabbi Yochanan Explains the Clot 🩸

So how does Rabbi Yochanan explain why the blood clot is pure, even for carrying? He says the Sages ruled that way because the tiny baby is ביטול ברוב (cancelled by the majority) inside all that blood.

Look how different that is from Rav Dimi! For Rabbi Yochanan, cancelled impurity is really gone, even when you carry it. 💨

But wait! 🤔 The Gemara asks: why does Rabbi Yochanan need “cancelled” at all? The tiny baby inside a blood clot was never good to eat. And Rabbi Yochanan himself just said that meat rotten from the start doesn’t count!

The answer: actually, the baby was once good to eat, אגב אימיה (agav imei, “by way of its mother”). If the mother animal had been kosher-slaughtered while the baby was still inside her, the baby would have been kosher along with her. So it was once real food, and only “cancelled by the majority” can explain why it’s pure now.

Think of it like… a toy that came inside a cereal box. On its own, it wasn’t for sale. But it was part of something you could buy, so it still counts as part of the purchase.

The Simple Idea 💡: For Rabbi Yochanan, the clot is pure because the baby is truly cancelled in the blood, since through its mother it once counted as food.

Back to the Brine: Half Water? 🐟💧

Now the Gemara returns to the brine (from the mishna in Makhshirin). If you buy pure brine from an am ha’aretz and any water falls in, it becomes impure. Why?

Rav Nachman, quoting Rabba bar Avuh, explains: we suspect an am ha’aretz mixes his brine with half water. That impure water was cancelled. But add even a drop more water, and now the water is the majority, so it wakes up!

But wait! 🤔 The Gemara asks: why do we need to say half? Even if he added less water, one more drop could bring it up to exactly half. And פלגא לא בטיל (palga la batil, “half is not cancelled”). Only a majority cancels something.

Two answers:

1. “Half” means “up to half.” He might have added almost half, just under.
2. Both rules here are rabbinic. The impurity of an am ha’aretz’s food and the impurity of liquids were made by the Sages, not the Torah. And the Sages decided: impurity only counts when the water is the majority, not at exactly half-and-half. So we need him to have added half already, so that any extra drop makes a majority.

Think of it like… a class vote. If 15 kids say “pizza” and 15 say “tacos,” it’s a tie, and nobody wins. You need just one more kid to make a winner!

The Simple Idea 💡: We suspect the am ha’aretz used about half water, so any extra drop tips the water into the majority and wakes up the impurity.

New Mishna: Moms Feed Their Own Babies 🐑🍼

Now a brand-new mishna, with a gentle idea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

• If you buy a nursing animal (a מניקה, meniqa, a mom feeding a baby) from a non-Jew, you can assume she already had a baby. So her next baby is not a firstborn, and it doesn’t go to the kohen.
• And if you have a flock with first-time moms and experienced moms all nursing together, you don’t have to worry that the babies got mixed up and are drinking from the wrong mom.

Why? Because an animal only nurses its own baby.

Think of it like… pickup time at school. Every parent walks straight to their own kid. Nobody grabs someone else’s child by mistake!

The Simple Idea 💡: A mother animal feeding a baby is assumed to be feeding her own baby, so we know she already gave birth.

”Rav Must Have Been Sleepy!” 😴💤

Rav Nachman reports a big rule from Rav: “The halakha follows this whole perek (chapter), except where there’s an argument.”

Rav Sheshet answers with a famous jab: “Rav must have said that while dozing and lying down!” (נאים ושכיב, na’im ve-shachiv.) Why? Because the rule seems to teach nothing. Rav Sheshet walks through the chapter, mishna by mishna:

So what’s left for Rav’s rule? Nothing!

Think of it like… a teacher saying “Everyone gets a sticker, except kids who already have one,” when every single kid already has a sticker. What was the point?

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav Sheshet says Rav’s big rule doesn’t seem to cover any mishna at all.

Rav Was Wide Awake After All! ☀️

The Gemara defends Rav. His rule is about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel! And here’s what it teaches: if someone disagrees with a mishna only in a baraita, that doesn’t count as an “argument.” The mishna stands alone, so the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

So Rav’s rule teaches something new after all. 🎉

But then the Gemara starts a new question: “If Rav already gave one big rule for the whole perek, why did he also rule separately on single mishnayot in it?”

…and the page ends! We’ll find out the answer on daf 24.

Think of it like… a referee who says, “A complaint shouted from the bleachers doesn’t stop the game. Only a complaint from a real player on the field does!”

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav’s rule teaches that an argument found only in a baraita doesn’t count, so we follow Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• The big question: can impurity that got cancelled by the majority wake up again when it finds its own kind?
• Rav Dimi says yes, from the teruma pile: the Sages made people eat it dry, because hidden impurity could team up with new impurity (Ulla). Abaye says: impurity waking impurity doesn’t prove that pure water can wake impurity.
• Red heifer ashes and carcass meat in a pile: Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina says the mix is pure for touching but impure for carrying, so cancelled impurity is still “there.”
• The blood clot is pure even for carrying, and Rav Dimi was silent. “It’s rotten” works for Bar Padda (too rotten for a person), but not for Rabbi Yochanan (still good for a dog). Kashya!
• Rabbi Yochanan: the clot is pure because the tiny baby is truly cancelled in the blood, and it once counted as food through its mother.
• The brine: we suspect an am ha’aretz adds half water, so any drop makes a majority, because half isn’t cancelled and the Sages’ rules need a majority.
• New mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says a nursing animal is feeding her own baby, so she already gave birth.
• Rav’s rule for the whole perek isn’t sleepy talk: an argument only in a baraita doesn’t count. The next question continues on daf 24!

⚖️ Halacha

Teruma Nullified in a Hundred: Eaten Dry, with Fruit Juice, or Less Than an Egg-Bulk

Source in Daf: 23a, Segment 1 (the end of the baraita of 22b: even by Rabbi Eliezer, the hundred se’a “יאכלו נקודים או קליות או ילושו במי פירות או יתחלקו פחות מכביצה”; Ulla: a decree lest an impure kav be added and the trace of impure teruma “find its kind” and revive)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 14:13

Hebrew:

סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חֻלִּין טְהוֹרִין. וְכֵן סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין. תַּעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְתֵאָכֵל קְלָיוֹת אוֹ תִּלּוֹשׁ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת אוֹ פָּחוֹת מִכַּבֵּיצָה. שֶׁאֵין הַסְּאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא הַסְּאָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁעָלְתָה:

English:

When a se’ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se’ah of ordinary produce that is pure or a se’ah of pure terumah falls into 100 se’ah of ordinary produce that is impure, it should be removed and the terumah is nullified, because the new mixture is 101 times [the size of the terumah that fell in. That se’ah] should be eaten as roasted kernels, or it should be made into dough with fruit juice, or into dough that is less than the size of an egg. [The rationale is that] the se’ah which fell in is not [necessarily] the se’ah that was removed.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Eliezer that the teruma is removed (“תעלה באחד ומאה”) and keeps the baraita’s three precautions: roasted kernels, fruit juice, or portions smaller than an egg-bulk. His stated reason is the plain one, that the se’a removed is not necessarily the se’a that fell in. He does not adopt Ulla’s explanation of a nullified impurity that “finds its kind,” and so this ruling does not tell us whether he accepts Rav Dimi’s reviving impurity. That question is answered by the halachot below.

Nullified, but Still Carried: The Red Heifer Ash

Source in Daf: 23a, Segments 3-4 (Abaye cites Para 9:7: valid ash mixed with hearth ash follows the majority; Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina: “טהור מלטמא במגע, אבל מטמא במשא”)

Rambam — Hilchot Parah Adumah 15:4

Hebrew:

מֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹכָן מֵי מַעְיָן אוֹ מֵי מִקְוֶה אוֹ מֵי פֵּרוֹת. אִם רֹב מֵי חַטָּאת מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא. וְאִם רֹב מֵי פֵּרוֹת אֵין מְטַמְּאִין. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה מְטַמְּאִין. אֵפֶר פָּרָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּאֵפֶר מַקְלֶה וְקִדֵּשׁ בְּכֻלָּן אִם הָיָה הָרֹב אֵפֶר פָּרָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּמֵי נִדָּה. וְאִם הָיָה הָרֹב אֵפֶר מַקְלֶה אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע אֲבָל מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא:

English:

The following rules apply if water from a spring, a mikveh, or fruit juice falls into sanctified water. If the majority is sanctified water, the mixture imparts impurity when carried. If the majority is fruit juice, it does not impart impurity. If it is half and half, it imparts impurity. The following laws apply if the ashes of the red heifer become mixed with ashes from an oven and a person sanctified water with the entire mixture. If the majority of the mixture are the ashes of the red heifer, the water imparts impurity like sanctified water. If the majority are oven ashes, the water does not impart impurity when touched, but does impart impurity when carried.

Connection: The last clause is Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina’s gloss on the mishna, which Rav Dimi cited in Segment 4: where the hearth ash is the majority, “אין מטמאין במגע אבל מטמאין במשא.” The Rambam writes the distinction into the halacha itself, so for carrying the nullified heifer ash is treated as still present, exactly as Rav Dimi needed.

Carcass Meat Mixed with Slaughtered Meat

Source in Daf: 23a, Segments 5-6 (Rav Chisda: “נבילה בטילה בשחוטה,” because a slaughtered animal can never become a carcass; Rav Dimi: in the Land of Israel this was learned as Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita, and Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina added “טהור מלטמא במגע, אבל מטמא במשא”)

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:17

Hebrew:

נְבֵלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּשְׁחוּטָה אִם רֹב מִן הַשְּׁחוּטָה בְּטֵלָה הַנְּבֵלָה בַּשְּׁחוּטָה וְאֵין הַכּל מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע. אֲבָל אִם נָשָׂא הַכּל נִטְמָא שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁחוּטָה שֶׁתַּחְזֹר נְבֵלָה אֲבָל הַנְּבֵלָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּטְהַר כְּשֶׁתִּסְרַח לְפִיכָךְ תִּבָּטֵל:

English:

The following laws apply when the carcass of an animal that was not slaughtered became intermingled with that of a slaughtered animal. If the majority of the meat is from the ritually slaughtered animal, the meat from the carcass is considered as insignificant and none of the mixture imparts impurity when touched. If, however, one carries the entire mixture, he contracts impurity. The reason why the meat of the carcass can be considered insignificant is that it is impossible for the ritually slaughtered meat to be considered as a carcass, but the carcass can become pure if it becomes putrefied. Therefore it can become nullified.

Connection: All three layers of Segments 5-6 are here. The nullification in a majority is Rav Chisda’s (or Rabbi Chiyya’s) ruling; “אבל אם נשא הכל נטמא” is Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina’s gloss; and the reason, that slaughtered meat can never become a carcass while a carcass can become pure, is the Gemara’s explanation of why the two count as different kinds. The Rambam thus rules with Rav Dimi’s answer: nullified impurity survives for carrying.

The Clot of Blood: Nullified Even for Carrying

Source in Daf: 23a, Segments 7-8 and 23b, Segments 4-5 (the mixture of the clot imparts no impurity “לא במגע ולא במשא,” and Rav Dimi was silent; Rabbi Yochanan: “מפני מה נגעו בה טהרה, משום ביטול ברוב”; the fetus was once fit “אגב אימיה”)

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:16

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהּ צוּרַת נֵפֶל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא בְּטֵלָה בָּרֹב הַיּוֹצֵא עִמָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ הִיא טְהוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לַגֵּר אַגַּב אִמָּהּ:

English:

When an animal discharges coagulated blood, even though such a discharge makes it exempt from the laws of the firstborn, it does not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried unless there is the form of a fetus recognizable. The rationale is that it is nullified because there is a majority of other substances that are discharged with it. Therefore, it is pure even though it was initially fit for a stranger to eat together with its mother.

Connection: This halacha is Segments 4-5 of 23b almost phrase by phrase. “Exempt from the firstborn law” is the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov; “neither by contact nor by carrying” is Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita; “בטלה ברוב” is Rabbi Yochanan’s reason; and “אף על פי שהיתה ראויה לגר אגב אמה” answers the Gemara’s “תיפוק לי דלא איתחזי מעיקרא” with “איתחזי אגב אימיה.” The Rambam adds a limit: once the form of a fetus is recognizable, the clot does impart impurity. He holds both rulings side by side, the carcass mixture impure by carrying (1:17) and the clot pure even by carrying (1:16). The Gemara itself left Abaye’s contradiction with “קשיא” and did not reject either ruling.

When Does a Carcass Stop Being a Carcass? Bar Padda and Rabbi Yochanan

Source in Daf: 23a, Segment 8 and 23b, Segments 1-3 (bar Padda: severe impurity lasts while fit for a ger, light impurity until unfit for a dog; Rabbi Yochanan: both “עד לכלב”; the verse “לגר אשר בשעריך” for meat rotten from the outset; bar Padda: that is “עפרא בעלמא”)

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:13

Hebrew:

בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה שֶׁנִּפְסַד וְהִבְאִישׁ וְנִפְסַל מִלֶּאֱכל הַכֶּלֶב טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ נֶצֶל הַנְּבֵלָה סָפֵק אִם מְטַמֵּא בִּכְזַיִת אִם לֹא. בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה שֶׁיָּבַשׁ אִם יָכוֹל לִשְׁרוֹת בְּפוֹשְׁרִין מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְלַחֲזֹר לַח וְרָאוּי לַכֶּלֶב מְטַמֵּא וְאִם לָאו טָהוֹר וַאֲפִלּוּ כָּאֳכָלִין טְמֵאִין אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵא:

English:

When the meat of a carcass decomposes, becomes spoiled, and is no longer fit for a dog to eat, it is pure. Accordingly, there is an unresolved doubt whether the netzal of an animal carcass imparts impurity or not. The following laws apply when the meat from a carcass dries out. If it would return to a moist state and be fit for a dog to eat when left to soak in lukewarm water for an entire day, it imparts impurity. If not, it is pure. It does not even impart impurity like impure foods do.

Connection: The Rambam sets the line at the dog, with no separate threshold for severe impurity. That is Rabbi Yochanan’s “אחת זו ואחת זו עד לכלב,” against bar Padda, who ends the severe impurity once the flesh is unfit for a ger.

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:14

Hebrew:

בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה שֶׁהָיָה סָרוּחַ מֵעִקָּרוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְמַאֲכַל אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) “לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ” עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּחִלָּתָהּ רְאוּיָה לְגֵר:

English:

When the meat of an animal carcass was decomposed at the outset and was not fit for human consumption, it is pure, as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 14:21: “Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will eat it.” At the outset, it must be fit for a stranger to eat.

Connection: This is Rabbi Yochanan’s use of the verse in Segment 3: “לגר אשר בשעריך” teaches about flesh “שהסריחה מעיקרא,” not about flesh that rotted later. Read together, 1:13 and 1:14 are Rabbi Yochanan’s full position: flesh fit at the start stays a carcass until a dog will not eat it, and flesh never fit for a ger was never a carcass.

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 3:11 and 4:12

Hebrew (3:11):

נִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁנִּפְסְדָה מִלֶּאֱכל הַכֶּלֶב טְהוֹרָה. וְכֵן אִם יָבְשָׁה כְּחֶרֶס וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהִשָּׁרוֹת בְּפוֹשְׁרִין מֵעֵת לְעֵת לַחְזֹר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וְהָאוֹכֵל נֶצֶל שֶׁל נִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר:

English (3:11):

When the carcass of a fowl of a kosher species has decomposed to the extent that it is unfit to be eaten by a dog, it is pure. Similarly, if it becomes dry like a shard and would not return to its original state if left in lukewarm water for an entire day, it is pure. One who partakes of the netzel of the carcass of a fowl of a kosher species is pure.

Hebrew (4:12, opening):

בְּשַׂר הַשֶּׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּפְסַד וְהִבְאִישׁ וְנִפְסַל מִלֶּאֱכל הַכֶּלֶב טָהוֹר.

English (4:12, opening):

When the flesh of a sheretz has decomposed and become spoiled and is unfit to be eaten by a dog, it is pure.

Connection: The Rambam applies the same dog standard to the carcass of a kosher bird and to the sheretz. In each case he follows Rabbi Yochanan’s single threshold.

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Okhlin 2:18

Hebrew:

כָּל אֹכֶל שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְאַחַר שֶׁנִּטְמָא נִפְסַל וְנִסְרַח. אִם נִפְסַל מִלֶּאֱכל הַכֶּלֶב אוֹ שֶׁיָּבַשׁ כְּחֶרֶשׂ הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. וְאִם נִפְסַל מִלֶּאֱכל אָדָם וַעֲדַיִן הוּא רָאוּי לְכֶלֶב הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא כְּשֶׁהָיָה. וְכָל הָאֳכָלִין שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ אֵין לָהֶן טָהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה:

English:

When food became impure and after it became impure, it spoiled and rotted, if it became unfit for a dog to eat or it became dry like a shard, it is pure. If it became unfit for human consumption, but it is still fit for a dog, it remains impure as it was beforehand. Whenever food becomes impure, it cannot regain purity by being immersed in a mikveh.

Connection: Ordinary impure food follows the same rule. Food that is unfit for a person but still fit for a dog stays impure, which is the gap between bar Padda’s “ger” and Rabbi Yochanan’s “dog,” decided in favor of the dog.

Brine and the Water of the Am Ha’aretz

Source in Daf: 23b, Segments 6-7 (Makhshirin 6:3: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, “ציר טהור שנפל לתוכו מים כל שהן טמא”; Rabba bar Avuh: amei ha’aretz are suspected of adding half water; impure water nullified and then revived; the answers “עד מחצה” and the rabbinic decree only for a majority). In the background is Rabbi Yirmeya’s case of the brine in the pot (22b), which Rav Dimi was defending.

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Okhlin 16:4

Hebrew:

כָּל הַצִּיר בְּחֶזְקַת מֻכְשָׁר וצִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם כָּל שֶׁהֵם הֲרֵי הַכּל מַשְׁקֶה וּמַכְשִׁיר וּמִתְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת מַשְׁקִין לְפִיכָךְ חֶזְקָתוֹ טָמֵא. נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן דְּבַשׁ וְחָלָב הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרֹב. וְכֵן מֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בִּשְׁאָר הַמַּשְׁקִין הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרֹב. נִתְעָרְבוּ בְּמַיִם כָּל שֶׁהֵן הֲרֵי הַכּל מַשְׁקֶה וּמִתְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת מַשְׁקִין וּמַכְשִׁיר. וְצִיר חֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר אֲבָל מִתְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת מַשְׁקִין:

English:

It is assumed that all fish brine has been made susceptible to ritual impurity. When even the slightest amount of water falls into pure fish brine, the entire mixture is considered as a liquid. It makes substances susceptible to ritual impurity and it itself can contract the impurity that affects liquids. Therefore it is assumed to be impure. If wine, honey, or milk fall into fish brine, the ruling is determined by the majority of the mixture. Similarly, if fruit juices become mixed with liquids that are susceptible to impurity aside from water, the ruling is determined by the majority of the mixture. If the fruit juice becomes mixed with even the slightest amount of water, the entire mixture is considered as a liquid that imparts impurity and it is susceptible to contracting impurity as liquids do and it makes other foods susceptible to impurity. Brine from unkosher locusts does not make foods susceptible to impurity, but it does contract the impurity associated with liquids.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s “ציר טהור שנפל לתוכו מים כל שהן,” as the rule of Segment 10 (“משנת רבי אליעזר בן יעקב קב ונקי”) would require. He states it as a law of liquids, the whole mixture becoming a “משקה,” rather than through the Gemara’s account of half water revived.

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Okhlin 16:5

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ צִיר מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ מַשִּׁיקוֹ בַּמַּיִם וְטָהוֹר שֶׁאִם הָיָה רֹב הַצִּיר מַיִם הֲרֵי הַמַּיִם מִטַהֲרִין בְּמִקְוֶה. וְאִם הָיָה רֻבּוֹ מֶלַח שֶׁל דָּגִים אֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת טֻמְאָה וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁבָּהּ בָּטְלוּ בְּמִעוּטָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים לִטְבּל בָּהֶן פַּת. אֲבָל לִקְדֵרָה מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵעוֹר וְנִמְצְאוּ רֹב הַמַּיִם טְמֵאִים. שֶׁהַמִּעוּט שֶׁהָיָה בַּצִּיר לֹא טָהוֹר בְּמִקְוֶה:

English:

When a person purchases fish brine from an unlearned person, he can make it pure by connecting it to the water of a mikveh. The rationale is as follows: If the majority of the brine is water, the water regains purity because of the mikveh. If the majority is fish brine, it is not susceptible to impurity and the water within the mixture is considered as negligible because of the small amount that is present. When does the above apply? When one seeks to dip bread in the mixture. If, however, one seeks to cook it in a pot containing water, one type finds its fellow and it becomes significant. Thus the majority of the water is impure, since the minimal amount that was in the brine was not purified in a mikveh.

Connection: This is the case behind the whole sugya. Rabbi Yirmeya’s ruling, that brine from an am ha’aretz is fine for dipping bread but not for a pot, because in the pot “מצא מין את מינו ונעור,” is codified word for word. Abaye’s objection in Segment 2, that pure water should not revive impurity, is not accepted. The Rambam’s own reason for the pot is that the small amount of water in the brine was never purified, so when the pot’s water joins it the water becomes a majority and is impure. That is Rav Dimi’s principle of nullified impurity “waking up.”

The Nursing Animal: Presumed to Nurse Its Own

Source in Daf: 23b, Segment 8 (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: “הלוקח בהמה מניקה מן הגוי אינו חושש שמא בנה של אחרת היתה”; the flock of first-time and older mothers, “אינו חושש… שמא בנה של זו בא לו אצל זו”), with Segments 9-12 (Rav: the halakha follows the perek except for a dispute; a dissent recorded only in a baraita “לא פלוגתא היא”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:8

Hebrew:

לָקַח בְּהֵמָה מֵינִיקָה מִן הַנָּכְרִי אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל אַחֶרֶת הִיא מֵינִיקָה אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁיָּלְדָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה זֶה שֶׁמֵּינִיקָה כְּמוֹ מִין אַחֵר וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּמִין חֲזִיר הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא חוֹלֶבֶת פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה שֶׁרֹב הַבְּהֵמוֹת אֵינָן חוֹלְבוֹת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן כְּבָר יָלְדוּ:

English:

When a person purchases an animal that is giving suck from a gentile, he need not suspect that it is giving suck to the offspring of another animal. Instead, we operate under the assumption that it has already given birth. Even if the animal to which it is giving suck is like another species, even if it is like a pig, it is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. Similarly, the offspring of an animal that is providing milk is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The rationale is that we rely on the assumption that most animals do not provide milk unless they have given birth previously.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which is the conclusion of Segment 12: the dissent appears only in a baraita, so it is “not a dispute” and Rav’s rule that the halakha follows the perek applies. The further cases, a nursling that looks like another species or a pig and an animal that gives milk, are not on our daf and come from the continuation of the sugya on 24a.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 316:2

Hebrew:

לקח בהמה מניקה מהעובד כוכבים אינו חושש שמא בנה של אחרת היא מניקה אלא הרי זו בחזקת שילדה ואפילו היה זה שמניקה כמו מין אחר ואפילו כמין חזיר פטורה מהבכורה:

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

One who bought a nursing animal from an idolater need not be concerned that it is nursing the offspring of another; rather, it is presumed to have given birth. Even if the one it nurses looks like another species, even like a pig, it is exempt from the firstborn law.

Connection: The Mechaber copies the Rambam’s first clauses verbatim. Since the firstborn of a kosher animal is sanctified even today, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s presumption is practical law.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 5:4

Hebrew:

מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְּעֶדְרוֹ מְבַכְּרוֹת וְשֶׁאֵינָן מְבַכְּרוֹת וְיָלְדוּ וְאֵין שָׁם אָדָם וְנִכְנַס וּמָצָא אֶת הַמְבַכְּרוֹת מֵינִיקוֹת נְקֵבוֹת וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינָן מְבַכְּרוֹת מֵינִיקוֹת זְכָרִים. אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ וּבְנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הַדָּבָר בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁכָּל אַחַת מֵינִיקָה בְּנָהּ:

English:

When a person had both animals that had given birth before and animals that had not given birth before in his herd and they both gave birth while no one was present. If the owner entered and found those who had given birth previously giving suck to females and those who had not given birth previously giving suck to males, we do not suspect that the offspring of one went to another to suck and the offspring of the other went to the first. Instead, we follow the presumption that every animal is giving suck to its own offspring.

Connection: This is the second half of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s mishna. The Rambam spells out the case where the presumption matters: the first-time mothers nurse females and the older mothers nurse males, so no firstborn males are owed. One might suspect a swap, but the presumption that each mother nurses her own is relied on.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 316:5

Hebrew:

מי שיש לו בעדרו מבכירות ושאינן מבכירות וילדו ולא היה שם אדם ומוצא מבכירות מניקות נקבות ושאינן מבכירות מניקות זכרים אינו חושש שמא בנה של זו בא לו אצל זו ושל זו אצל זו אלא הדבר בחזקתו שכל אחת מניקה את בנה:

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

One who has first-time mothers and older mothers in his flock, and they gave birth with no one present, and he finds the first-time mothers nursing females and the older ones nursing males, need not be concerned that the young of one came to the other and the young of the other to the first; rather, the matter stays on its presumption that each one nurses its own young.

Connection: The Mechaber again follows the Rambam word for word, ruling like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Summary of Rulings

Most of this daf belongs to the laws of purity, which apply in full only when the Temple stands and are preserved in the Rambam for when it is rebuilt; the Shulchan Aruch does not codify them. The Rambam gives a clear answer to the question the daf left as “קשיא”: nullified impurity still counts for carrying in a carcass mixture and in red heifer ash, revives in a pot of brine, and is fully nullified in a clot of blood. On the dispute of bar Padda and Rabbi Yochanan he follows Rabbi Yochanan throughout. Only Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s presumption about nursing animals is practical law today, since the firstborn of a kosher animal is still sanctified, and both the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch rule like him, as Rav’s rule in Segment 12 requires.