Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 12 for kids: Which Rules Carry Over?

תמורה י״ב

🔎 This daf asks when a rule about something sacred applies to something connected to it. It looks at an unborn offering, teruma mixed into produce, and the order of water and red-heifer ashes.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 12a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 12b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 12

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 12 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 12a, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. He said to him — He is not liable.
  2. Do we apply the verse, “If the place is too far from you…then you shall slaughter”? — The prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard is derived from this verse: you may slaughter them far from the Temple, but not nearby, in its courtyard, as explained in the second chapter of Kiddushin (57b). But does that apply here? This animal can be slaughtered only in the courtyard, since it is a peace offering.
  3. The mother is non-sacred and its offspring is a peace offering — According to the opinion that consecration can take effect on a fetus, if one slaughters the mother outside the Temple, is one liable to excision on account of the fetus, for slaughtering an offering outside?
  4. Do we apply the verse, “That they may bring them to the Lord”? — One is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it is fit to be offered. This fetus is not yet fit.
  5. “That they may bring them to the Lord” — This is written in the passage about slaughtering offerings outside the Temple.
  6. Mishna: A mixture containing teruma renders another mixture prohibited only according to the calculation — This is explained in the Gemara.
  7. Leavened dough leavens other dough only according to the calculation — Dough leavened with teruma starter is entirely forbidden. If some of it falls into another, non-sacred dough and leavens it, the second dough is forbidden only if the amount of teruma starter within the portion that fell in could itself leaven the second dough. If the entire portion could leaven it, but the teruma starter within that portion could not, the second dough is permitted.
  8. Drawn water — This is explained in the Gemara.
  9. Water of purification becomes water of purification only when the ashes are added — The water must be in the vessel first, and then the ashes are added. If the ashes are put in first, the preparation is invalid: when the ashes were added, there was no water there to become water of purification.
  10. One beit haperas does not create another beit haperas — A beit haperas is a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering its contents. If that field and neighboring fields are plowed again, we do not treat the neighboring fields as a beit haperas out of concern that the plow carried bones into them. One grave creates a beit haperas only within the area specified in the Gemara.
  11. There is no teruma after teruma — If one sets aside teruma and then sets aside more, the second portion is not teruma.
  12. Gemara: Who is the tanna? — Who teaches that a mixture containing teruma renders another mixture prohibited only according to the calculation?
  13. It renders a mixture prohibited like definite teruma — If a se’a of the mixture falls into another place, and there are not one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce there apart from the fallen se’a, the whole mixture is forbidden.
  14. For I say that the se’a that fell in — The se’a of teruma that originally fell into the mixture is the se’a that was removed and then fell into the other produce.
  15. Only according to the amount within it — The non-sacred produce must be one hundred times the teruma contained in the se’a of mixture that fell in; one hundred whole se’a are not required. For example, if one se’a of teruma first falls into twenty-four se’a of non-sacred produce, every se’a of the resulting mixture contains one log of teruma. If one se’a of that mixture then falls into other non-sacred produce, seventy-seven additional log of non-sacred produce join the twenty-four log of non-sacred produce in that se’a to nullify its one log of teruma.
  16. Leavened dough leavens other dough only according to the calculation—not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer — Rabbi Eliezer does not require the forbidden starter itself to be sufficient to leaven the dough. He counts the forbidden and permitted starters together to prohibit it.
  17. I follow the last ingredient — Rabbi Eliezer holds that the last ingredient causes the leavening: if the forbidden starter was added last, the dough is forbidden. Thus, even if most of the leavening comes from non-sacred dough, he forbids it because he holds that a forbidden and a permitted cause acting together make the result forbidden. But “the last ingredient” is not meant strictly. If the forbidden starter was added first and not removed before the permitted starter was added, and both leavened the dough, it is also forbidden, as explained in Bekhorot (7a) and Pesachim (27a).
  18. Rainwater — It is suitable for immersion; only a person with a discharge requires spring water.
  19. He carries water on his shoulder — He brings nineteen se’a of drawn water.
  20. And channels it into the ritual bath — He must not pour it directly from the bucket into the bath, for even three log poured that way would invalidate it. Instead, he pours it into a pit some distance away, and the water flows through a channel into the bath. This is called drawing the water along the ground.
Tosafot on Temurah 12a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. A teruma mixture renders another mixture forbidden only according to its proportion of teruma — As the Gemara explains, a se’a of teruma fell into fewer than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce, making a forbidden mixture, and some of that mixture then fell elsewhere. The second mixture is forbidden only according to the teruma in what fell into it. If the second mixture has enough non-sacred produce to nullify that amount of teruma, it is permitted, even though the first mixture did not have enough to nullify the original se’a. This follows the Sages in the Gemara, not Rabbi Eliezer, who treats what fell as pure teruma. Rabbi Eliezer’s rule applies even if the second mixture has one hundred times the amount that fell into it, because no portion had been removed from the first mixture before some fell into the second; a portion must still be removed to avoid depriving the priests of their due.
  2. Leavened dough leavens another dough only according to its proportion of teruma leaven — Rashi explains: If teruma leaven makes non-sacred dough rise, that entire dough is forbidden. If some of it then makes another non-sacred dough rise, the second dough is forbidden only if the portion transferred contains enough of the original teruma leaven to make it rise. Tosafot objects: If so, the Gemara could show that this ruling disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer from the same mishna it cites about a teruma mixture. Why cite a separate mishna about leaven? Rather, the case is an olive-sized piece of teruma leaven and an olive-sized piece of non-sacred leaven that fell together into non-sacred dough and made it rise, though neither could do so alone. The dough is not forbidden: the calculation asks whether the teruma leaven alone could make it rise. This is the very case of the mishna the Gemara cites about leaven.
  3. Drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only according to a calculation — This follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, as the Gemara explains: Drawn water can be made acceptable by being channeled into the bath when the bath contains a majority of qualifying water. Thus, twenty se’a of drawn water with twenty se’a of qualifying water invalidates it, but nineteen se’a of drawn water channeled into twenty-one se’a of qualifying water does not.
Rashi on Temurah 12b, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. And they are pure — that is, the ritual bath is fit for immersion.
  2. Purified by a majority and by flowing in — when most of the water is rainwater that entered the bath on its own, and a smaller amount of drawn water flows in through a channel, the drawn water becomes fit. This is the mishna’s “according to calculation”: drawn water that flows in invalidates the bath only if it amounts to twenty se’a.
  3. It follows that the Rabbis — since you attribute the mishna to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov rather than the Rabbis, and the mishna states a leniency—that drawn water invalidates only according to calculation—it follows that the Rabbis disagree stringently.
  4. But what about Ravin’s statement when he came — he said that a ritual bath made entirely of drawn water that flowed into it is fit. That follows neither Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov nor the Rabbis, as you have understood them.
  5. Rather, Rav Pappa said — the Rabbis disagree leniently, and Ravin’s statement follows their view. The mishna is not discussing water that flowed in, so it does not imply that the Rabbis disagree stringently.
  6. Rather, according to the number of vessels — the mishna follows Yosef ben Choni and requires counting the vessels.
  7. That fell into the ritual bath — from a vessel into the bath by flowing in.
  8. From two or three vessels — if a whole log fell from each vessel, it invalidates the bath. But water from four or five vessels does not, because no whole log fell at once. This, too, is what the mishna means by “according to calculation.”
  9. Only upon placing the ashes — the water becomes water of purification when the ashes are added. Thus the water must be there first: if it is added afterward, there was no water of purification when the ashes were placed.
  10. Not according to Rabbi Shimon — for Rabbi Shimon deems it fit if the ashes were placed before the water.
  11. As it was taught — regarding a sota, if the dust from the ground was put into the vessel before the water, the mixture is unfit.
  12. And we ask: What is Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning? For it is written — concerning the water of purification, “They shall take for the impure person some of the dust,” and a baraita teaches the following.
  13. “Dust” is stated here — concerning the water of purification, and “dust” is stated concerning the sota. Just as the sota’s dust is placed on the water, so too the ashes here are placed on the water. That is the proper procedure from the outset.
  14. And just as here — as the Gemara explains below when it asks how we know this about the water of purification. Rabbi Shimon evidently holds that placing the ashes before the water is valid.
  15. And it is written, “flowing water into a vessel” — this implies that the water must go into the vessel, not onto the ashes; placing the ashes first would therefore be invalid.
  16. “Upon it” means to mix them — “place upon it” does not teach that placing the ashes first is valid. It teaches that after adding the ashes to the water, one must mix them thoroughly with a finger, bringing the water beneath the ashes over them.
  17. But say that the first part of the verse is meant literally — so the ashes go before the water, as it says, “place water upon it.” “Into a vessel” could instead teach that the flowing water must enter this vessel directly: one must not collect it in another vessel and pour it in, but immerse this vessel in the spring to fill it.
  18. And he answers: As we find everywhere — for example, with a sota, the dust that makes the water fit is placed on top. Everyone agrees that the water should ideally be placed first, as the verse says, “and of the dust...”
  19. So here, too, the item that makes the water fit goes on top — therefore, the end of the verse is meant literally, while its beginning teaches that the ashes and water must be mixed.
  20. Rabbi Eliezer says: A field where a grave was plowed makes other such fields — if the four fields surrounding it are plowed, they too acquire that status, because soil from the first field makes them impure.
Tosafot on Temurah 12b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Rather, Rav Pappa said: According to the number of vessels — The mishna means that drawn water invalidates a ritual bath when three log fall from a number of vessels corresponding to the three log. This follows Yosef ben Choni. On this reading, the Rabbis disagree leniently, so Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling, reported by Ravin, follows them. The mishna is not discussing flowing drawn water; otherwise one might take it to follow Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and understand the Rabbis as disagreeing strictly. This is Rashi’s explanation. Rabbi Shmuel of Lunel objects: Earlier, Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba’s account made Rabbi Eliezer lenient and the Rabbis strict, whereas Ravin’s account would make their positions the reverse. He also asks how an entirely drawn ritual bath could become fit merely by making its water flow. Ta’anit says that immersion in hot water is unavailable on a fast day because hot water is drawn. Yet on Rashi’s reading, one could make hot drawn water flow into a ritual bath. Two mishnayot in Mikvaot raise similar questions: one directs a person to pour drawn water into an upper bath so that it descends into a lower one, rather than simply letting it flow across the ground into the lower bath; another rules that rainwater mixed with drawn water before reaching a ritual bath is fit only when the fit water is the majority. Why require either condition if drawn water alone becomes fit by flowing? Rabbi Shmuel reports a tradition from his teachers: ‘An entirely drawn bath whose water was made to flow is fit’ means that forty se’a of rainwater subsequently enter it. This resolves his questions. Ravin’s ruling can then accord with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: drawn water can help complete the required forty se’a only when fit water is the majority. He finds support in Rav Achai’s She’iltot, which cites both rulings together. Rabbi Yitzchak replies that the Gemara’s discussion can still be understood as assuming that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov requires a majority of rainwater even if forty se’a of rainwater arrive afterward. That is why it asks how Ravin’s ruling could accord with either side. Rabbi Yitzchak also answers the objections. The Gemara elsewhere considers whether a sage’s disagreement is lenient or strict, as it does regarding Rabbi Eliezer and the new grain in Kiddushin. Hot immersion is possible even on Rabbi Shmuel’s view: nineteen se’a of hot water could be made to flow into twenty-one se’a of rainwater, or the bath could be heated with hot iron implements, as described in Yoma. The mishnayot in Mikvaot could follow Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Alternatively, the case of pouring into the upper bath teaches that once a bath contains forty se’a of fit water, even a hundred se’a of drawn water entering it do not invalidate it. In practice, it appears that one should not make a bath entirely of drawn water fit by making it flow: even on Rashi’s reading, the law follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, whose teachings are concise and well founded. But all agree that adding drawn water by way of flow is permitted when fit water is already the majority. Thus, one may add nineteen se’a to twenty-one se’a of fit water by pouring the drawn water into a trench and letting it flow into the bath. The mishna’s distinction about water mixing before reaching the bath excludes a case where a pipe, hollowed out before being fixed in place, empties directly into the bath without the water flowing across the ground.
  2. Yosef ben Choni says: Water from two or three vessels invalidates the ritual bath, but water from four or five does not — The mishna’s phrase ‘according to calculation’ means that three log of drawn water invalidate a bath only when they fall from no more than three vessels, corresponding to the number of log. If they fall in four or five separate pourings, they do not invalidate it. Rabbi Abraham ben David rules like Yosef ben Choni. Accordingly, when water is drawn out to clean a ritual bath and other water replaces it, one need not worry if some old water remains and water drips back from the bucket: ordinarily, three log will not have fallen from no more than three vessels. Some are strict and make a hole in the bucket large enough to admit water, because of this concern.
  3. How so? He may put the dust below or put the dust above — If either order is valid, what does the verbal analogy teach? It teaches the proper procedure: put in the water first and then the dust, as the verse says concerning the sota, ‘The priest shall take of the dust … and put it into the water.’

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 12.