Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 8, 2020 | ื›ืดื‘ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 17

Today’s daf is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in honor of Natalie Taylor. “Natalie, thank you for inspiring me to start learning Daf Yomi with Hadran. You are a true friend and I’m grateful for your encouragement and support during these uncertain times.” ย And by Bill Futornick in memory of his grandmother, Ruth Feiring Starace, Rivka Rachel bat Chaim Zvi z”l. And a refuah shlema of our One Week at a Time teacher, Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz, Tamara Blimah bat Gitah and her parents, Joseph Matityahu ben Tehilla, and Gita bat Sima, who are struggling with Covid-19.

The gemara deals with different opinions regarding liquids and their ability to become impure or pass on impurity by Torah law. How if at all does this connect with Yosi ben Yoezer’s opinion regarding the exemption for impurities in the Temple? Does his leniency relate to liquids in the slaughtering area (blood and water) or the liquids that went on the altar (wine, oil, blood and water for libations)? Rav and Levi each have two different versions of the mishna where Yosi ben Yoezer’s opinion is brought. Rav Papa thinks that the whole exemption the Temple was a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai. But the gemara raises several questions against his approach. Does Rabbi Yehuda hold that by Torah law, liquids can pass impurity on to vessels as it seems from the braita quoted in the previous page (Pesachim 16)?

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื”ื•ื ื˜ืขืžื ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ืชื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืžื˜ืžื


And Rav said: The priests erred in this regard, as those substances are actually impure. This source indicates that along with the meat, the stew, wine, and oil, which are liquids, also become ritually impure. The Gemara rejects this proof. This difficulty is reasonable only according to Rav, and Rav teaches that the testimony of Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer was that the liquids of the slaughterhouse, blood and water associated with the slaughter of offerings, do not become ritually impure. However, Rav agrees that the liquids of the chamber of the altar, wine and oil that accompany the offering on the altar, can become impure. The rabbinic decree that liquids can become impure is not in effect with regard to the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse, but it is in effect with regard to the liquids offered on the altar. Therefore, the liquids listed by Haggai can become impure and transmit impurity by rabbinic law.


ื’ื•ืคื ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™


Apropos Ravโ€™s statement with regard to Haggaiโ€™s exchange with the priests, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav said: The priests erred, as they should have said the oil is rendered impure. And Shmuel said: The priests did not err.


ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจ


The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that the priests erred, as Haggai raised the dilemma before them whether or not consecrated items become impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity. The question in the verse pertains to the following case: One is carrying a dead creeping animal in the corner of his garment and bread comes into contact with it, conferring upon the bread first-degree ritual impurity status; and stew comes in contact with the bread, conferring upon the stew second-degree ritual impurity status; and wine comes in contact with the stew, conferring upon the wine third-degree ritual impurity status; and oil comes into contact with the wine. The question is: In that case, does the wine confer upon the oil fourth-degree ritual impurity? And when the priests said to him that it is pure, they erred. In fact, the oil is disqualified with fourth-degree ritual impurity, because it is a consecrated item.


ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจ


And Shmuel said: The priests did not err, as Haggai raised the dilemma before them whether or not consecrated items become impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity. According to Shmuelโ€™s explanation, the case is as follows: The corner of the garment comes into contact with a dead creeping animal, conferring upon the garment first-degree ritual impurity status; bread comes into contact with the garment, conferring upon the bread second-degree ritual impurity status; stew comes in contact with the bread, conferring upon the stew third-degree ritual impurity status; and wine comes in contact with the stew, conferring upon the wine fourth-degree ritual impurity status; and oil comes into contact with the wine. In that case, does the wine confer upon the oil fifth-degree ritual impurity? And the priests correctly said to him that the oil is pure.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื—ื ื•ื ื–ื™ื“ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืืœื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื—ืžืฉื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื”


The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, that is the reason that it is four items that are written in the dilemma raised in the verse: Bread, stew, wine, and oil, as the dilemma pertains to fourth-degree ritual impurity. However, according to Shmuel, from where does he learn that the dilemma involves five items?


ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ื’ืข ื›ื ืคื• ื•ื ื’ืข ื‘ื›ื ืคื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ื’ืข ื‘ื›ื ืคื•


The Gemara explains Shmuelโ€™s opinion. Is it written in the verse: And its corner touched the bread, indicating that the primary source of impurity that was in the corner of the garment touched the bread? It is actually written in the verse: โ€œAnd it touched the corner of his garment,โ€ meaning the bread came into contact with that which touched the primary source of ritual impurity that was in the corner of his garment. The bread came into contact with the corner of the garment, not with the primary source of impurity itself. Accordingly, the garment assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the bread second-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the stew third-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the wine fourth-degree ritual impurity status. Since the wine cannot confer fifth-degree ritual impurity status upon the oil, the oil remains pure.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื—ื’ื™ ืื ื™ื’ืข ื˜ืžื ื ืคืฉ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื” ื”ื™ื˜ืžื ื•ื™ืขื ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ื™ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžื“ื”ื›ื ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ


The Gemara cites proof from the subsequent verse. Come and hear: โ€œAnd Haggai said: If one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse touches any of these, shall he be impure? And the priests answered and said: He shall be impureโ€ (Haggai 2:13). Granted, according to Shmuel, from the fact that here, with regard to a dead creeping animal, the priests did not err, as Shmuel maintains that the dilemma was with regard to fifth-degree ritual impurity, there too they did not err. However, according to Rav, what is different here, concerning the impurity of a creeping animal, such that the priests erred, and what is different there, with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, such that they did not err?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืฉืจืฅ


Rav Naแธฅman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The priests of Haggaiโ€™s era were experts with regard to the severe ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, as they knew that the impurity of a dead body confers upon a consecrated item fourth-degree ritual impurity status. However, they were not experts with regard to the lesser impurity of a creeping animal.


ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ืชื ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื”ื›ื ืฉืœื™ืฉื™


Ravina said that the distinction between the cases is different. There, the first dilemma addressed fourth-degree ritual impurity, whereas here, the dilemma addressed third-degree ritual impurity. Haggaiโ€™s second dilemma does not begin with contact with an item that came into contact with a corpse; rather, it begins with contact with the corpse itself. Since a corpse is the ultimate primary source of impurity, the fourth item is impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The priests knew that halakha.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื™ืขืŸ ื—ื’ื™ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื›ืŸ ื”ืขื ื”ื–ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ ื”ื–ื” ืœืคื ื™ ื ืื ื”ืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ืžื ืืœื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืื™ ื˜ืžื


Come and hear a resolution to this matter from the next verse: โ€œAnd Haggai answered and said: So is this people, and so is this nation before me, said God; and so is all the work of their hands; and that which they offer there is impureโ€ (Haggai 2:14). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav that the priests erred, that is the reason that it is written: โ€œThat which they offer there is impure,โ€ as the priestsโ€™ lack of familiarity with the halakhot of impurity increase the likelihood that all of their Temple service is ritually impure. However, according to Shmuel, why does the verse say that their offerings are ritually impure?


ืื™ืชืžื•ื”ื™ ืงื ืžืชืžื” ื•ื”ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืงืœืงืœื• ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื”ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


The Gemara answers: According to Shmuel, this is not a statement. Rather, the verse is a rhetorical question expressing bewilderment: Is all the Temple service of the priests really impure? Apparently, they are familiar with the halakhot of impurity. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isnโ€™t it written in that verse: โ€œAnd so is all the work of their hands,โ€ which is a statement, not a question? Mar Zutra, and some say it was Rav Ashi, said: Since they corrupted their deeds by sinning in general, the verse ascribes to them wrongdoing as if they sacrificed offerings in a state of impurity.


ื’ื•ืคื ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ืœื•ื™ ืชื ื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื


Apropos the two versions of Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezerโ€™s testimony that the liquids in the Temple are ritually pure, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. Rav teaches that Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer spoke of the liquids of the slaughterhouse, blood and water, and Levi taught that this halakha applies to the liquids of the altar, which include the wine of libations and oil of meal-offerings in addition to blood and water.


ืœืœื•ื™ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื›ืŸ ืžืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื—ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืขืฆืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื“ื ื’ืขื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ


The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Levi, this works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer testified that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items but they themselves can become impure. In that case, you can find a scenario for Haggaiโ€™s second question; all the substances mentioned made contact with an object with first-degree ritual impurity status. Levi can explain that the prophetโ€™s dilemma is not in a case where the different items came into contact with each other, as he is of the opinion that liquids do not transmit impurity. Rather, the stew, wine, and oil each came in contact with an object with first-degree impurity, in accordance with Shmuelโ€™s opinion that consecrated liquids themselves can become impure. Accordingly, the priests answered that these objects are impure.


ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื›ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”


However, if Levi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the liquids are actually ritually pure, under what circumstances can a scenario in which wine and oil, liquids offered on the altar, can become ritually impure be found? Rather, perforce you must say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel with regard to the meaning of the term pure in this context.


ื•ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ ื“ืชื ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื˜ืžืื• ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื”ื ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™


The Gemara continues: And according to Shmuel, this works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who taught that the decree to which Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer testified was issued with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse, but the other liquids of the altar transmit impurity as well. If that is Shmuelโ€™s opinion he can explain Haggaiโ€™s dilemma, as it is only an item with fourth-degree impurity status that does not render another item impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity. However, an item with third-degree impurity status renders another item impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity.


ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื™ืš ื›ืจื‘ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”


However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Levi, who taught that the liquids of the altar, including wine and oil, do not transmit impurity, why does Haggai specifically state that a liquid with fourth-degree impurity status does not render another liquid impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity? Even if these liquids had first- or second-degree ritual impurity status, they do not render another item impure with second- and third-degree ritual impurity, as Levi maintains that consecrated liquids do not transmit impurity at all. Rather, perforce he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav with regard to the object of Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezerโ€™s decree.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืœื•ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืœื•ื™ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืืŸ ืœื—ื•ืฅ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื”ื›ื ื™ืกืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ


The Gemara cites a source in support of each version, as it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi. The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: With regard to the blood, the wine, the oil, and the water, in the case of all liquids of the altar that became ritually impure inside the Temple and one took them outside, they are pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other objects. This is because when they were within the Temple confines that more stringent form of impurity did not take effect. However, if they became impure outside the Temple and one took them inside the Temple, they are impure even in terms of transmitting impurity to other items, as they too retain their prior level of impurity.


ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืœื ืืžืจื• ื“ื›ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืืŸ ืœื—ื•ืฅ ืœื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื”ื›ื ื™ืกืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: With regard to the liquids of the altar, the Sages said they are ritually pure only in their place. What, does this statement not come to exclude liquids that became impure inside the Temple and one took them outside, as in that case once they left the Temple they would be retroactively impure in terms of transmitting impurity? This contradicts the Gemaraโ€™s previous assertion. The Gemara responds: No, the statement comes to exclude liquids that became impure outside the Temple and one brought them inside.


ื•ื”ื ื‘ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื“ื›ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืžืงื•ืžืŸ


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: In their place, indicating that these liquids are pure in terms of transmitting impurity only if they remain inside the Temple? The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is saying: The Sages said they are pure only with regard to those liquids that became impure in their place, not with regard to those that became impure elsewhere and were brought into the Temple. In any case, the language of the baraita clearly indicates that the legal status of wine and oil is like that of other sacred liquids, in accordance with the opinion of Levi.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ืžื™ื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ


And it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The blood and the water, the liquids of the slaughterhouse, that became ritually impure, whether they were in vessels or on the ground, are pure.


(ืจื‘ืŸ) ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ


Rabban Shimon says: If the liquids were in vessels, they are ritually impure; however, if they were in the ground, they are ritually pure, as explained below.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ืชืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ืชื“ืข ืฉื”ืจื™ ื”ืขื™ื“ (ื™ื•ืกืฃ) ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืขื–ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืฆืจื™ื“ื” ืขืœ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ื›ืŸ


Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that in general the ritual impurity of liquids is by Torah law, the purity of the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which the Sages learned through tradition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But with regard to that which Rabbi Eliezer said: There is no impurity for liquids at all by Torah law, know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer of Tzereida testified about liquids in the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they were ritually pure. This statement indicates that liquids become impure only by rabbinic decree, a decree that is not in effect in the Temple.


ื•ืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื ื”


Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, continued: And if they learned the ritual purity of liquids of the slaughterhouse as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai through tradition, do we derive other halakhot from it? There is a principle that one cannot derive halakhic principles from halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer cite this halakha as a proof for his opinion?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ


Furthermore, Ravina said to Rav Ashi, also in rejection of Rav Pappaโ€™s statement: Isnโ€™t it Rabbi Shimon, who said that in general the ritual impurity of liquids is by Torah law? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: With regard to vessels that came into contact with impure liquid, the vessels are pure, as by Torah law liquids do not transmit impurity to vessels. However, with regard to foods that came into contact with impure liquid, the foods are impure, as by Torah law liquids transmit impurity to foods.


ื•ื”ื›ื ืงืืžืจ (ืจื‘ืŸ) ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื”ื™ื ืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ืงืฉื™ื


Ravina continues: And yet here, with regard to the liquids in the Temple, Rabban Shimon said: Liquids in vessels are ritually impure, and liquids in the ground are pure. And if you say that the purity of the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, what difference is there to me if the liquids are in vessels and what difference is there to me if the liquids are in the ground? If there is an accepted halakhic tradition that ritual impurity does not apply to these liquids, there should be no difference whether the liquid is in vessels or in the ground. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult according to Rav Pappaโ€™s opinion.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืช ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื“ื ืœื


Rav Pappa said: That which you said, that the liquids in the Temple are ritually pure when in the ground, the Sages taught this halakha only with regard to water, but with regard to blood, no, it does not apply. According to Rabbi Shimon, blood can become impure even in the ground.


ื•ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœื”ื˜ื‘ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืจื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ:


And even with regard to water, we said that it is ritually pure only when it is a quarter-log, which is a suitable measure in which to immerse needles and hooks. By Torah law, a quarter-log of water collected in one place can serve as a ritual bath in which one can immerse objects that can be completely immersed in that amount of water. Because it has the status of a ritual bath, it too does not become ritually impure. Although the Sages decreed that one should not immerse vessels in a quarter-log of water, the water is pure by Torah law. Therefore, the Sages did not extend their decree to this measure of water inside the Temple. However, if the water is less than a quarter-log, it is ritually impure even in the ground, as that water cannot be used as a ritual bath.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื›ืœื™ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


The Master said in the baraita cited above, with regard to uncertainty about contact with impure liquids, that Rabbi Yehuda says: They are impure in all cases. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the impurity of liquids in terms of their capability to transmit impurity to vessels is by Torah law?


ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืš ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ื›ืจื™ื ื•ื”ื›ืกืชื•ืช ื•ื”ืฉืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืžืจืฆื•ืคื™ืŸ ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ืœื ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื•


But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: With regard to all vessels that have an exterior that can be used and an interior that serves as a receptacle, such as cushions, blankets, sacks, and leather grain sacks, if the interior of one of these vessels became ritually impure, its exterior is impure as well. However, if its exterior became impure, its interior is not impure, because the primary use of these vessels is as a receptacle.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื—ืžืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื•


Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the vessels became impure due to contact with impure liquids. However, if they became impure due to contact with a creeping animal, then if the interior became impure the exterior is impure, and likewise, if the exterior became impure the interior is also impure.


ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื›ืœื™ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื” ืœื™ ื ื˜ืžื ืžื—ืžืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ื ื˜ืžื ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื—ื–ืจ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


The Gemara explains the difficulty posed by Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s statement in this mishna: And if it enters your mind that the ritual impurity of liquids with regard to their capacity to transmit impurity to vessels is by Torah law, what difference is there to me if the vessel is rendered impure due to liquids, and what difference is there to me if the vessel is rendered impure due to a creeping animal? Rather, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the impurity of liquids is by rabbinic law, and the Sages distinguished between the impurity of the exterior and interior of a vessel to distinguish between impurity by Torah law and impurity by rabbinic law and prevent the burning of teruma that is impure with impurity by rabbinic law. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous statement in the baraita and accepted the ruling that the impurity of liquids is only by rabbinic decree.


ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื”ื ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ื™ื“ื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ


Ravina said: Actually, it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his previous statement, as this case, where he distinguishes between impurity on the interior and the exterior of vessels, was stated with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with impure hands that did not undergo ritual washing. Unwashed hands are impure by rabbinic decree, and therefore the impurity of such liquid is likewise rabbinic. Conversely, that case, where the impurity of liquids is by Torah law, was stated with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal. As that impurity is by Torah law, no distinction is made between the interior and exterior of vessels.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืชื ื™ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื—ืžืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ื™ื“ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื›ื“ืฉื ื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื–ืจ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, instead of teaching: In what case is this statement said? In a case where the vessels were rendered impure due to contact with liquids, as opposed to the other case in which the vessels became impure due to contact with creeping animals, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where these vessels became impure by contact with liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with impure hands. However, in a case where these vessels became impure by contact with liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, if the interior became impure, the exterior is impure, and if the exterior became impure, the interior is likewise impure. Rather, the Gemara rejects Ravinaโ€™s explanation and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous ruling.


ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืžื›ืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Was it only from his ruling with regard to liquids that transmitted ritual impurity to vessels by Torah law that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion, but with regard to foods he still holds in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, that liquids transmit impurity to foods by Torah law? Or perhaps he completely retracted his previous opinion, and Rabbi Yehuda in fact holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that there is no Torah basis for the impurity of liquids.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื ืฉืžืข ืคืจื” ืฉืฉืชืชื” ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฉืจื” ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna: With regard to a cow that drank purification waters in which the ashes of the red heifer were mixed and which were to be sprinkled on one who was ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and the cow was slaughtered before it digested the water, its flesh is impure due to contact with this water. Pure items that come in contact with the purification waters become impure, as derived from a verse. Rabbi Yehuda says:

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 11-17 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn the laws of eating leavened bread on the 14th of Nisan, Erev Pesach....
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 17: Inside Outside

What's What: The 7 (!) Liquids of Machshirim. More on impurity.... Continuing the discussion of whether the liquids in the...
Tuma and Tahara - and intoduction

Tuma & Tahara: an Introduction

General Introduction to Tuma/Tahara Tuma/Tahara is a chok โ€“ not related to hygiene or ability to use the object/person. Usually...

Pesachim 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 17

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื”ื•ื ื˜ืขืžื ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ืชื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืžื˜ืžื


And Rav said: The priests erred in this regard, as those substances are actually impure. This source indicates that along with the meat, the stew, wine, and oil, which are liquids, also become ritually impure. The Gemara rejects this proof. This difficulty is reasonable only according to Rav, and Rav teaches that the testimony of Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer was that the liquids of the slaughterhouse, blood and water associated with the slaughter of offerings, do not become ritually impure. However, Rav agrees that the liquids of the chamber of the altar, wine and oil that accompany the offering on the altar, can become impure. The rabbinic decree that liquids can become impure is not in effect with regard to the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse, but it is in effect with regard to the liquids offered on the altar. Therefore, the liquids listed by Haggai can become impure and transmit impurity by rabbinic law.


ื’ื•ืคื ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™


Apropos Ravโ€™s statement with regard to Haggaiโ€™s exchange with the priests, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav said: The priests erred, as they should have said the oil is rendered impure. And Shmuel said: The priests did not err.


ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจ


The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that the priests erred, as Haggai raised the dilemma before them whether or not consecrated items become impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity. The question in the verse pertains to the following case: One is carrying a dead creeping animal in the corner of his garment and bread comes into contact with it, conferring upon the bread first-degree ritual impurity status; and stew comes in contact with the bread, conferring upon the stew second-degree ritual impurity status; and wine comes in contact with the stew, conferring upon the wine third-degree ritual impurity status; and oil comes into contact with the wine. The question is: In that case, does the wine confer upon the oil fourth-degree ritual impurity? And when the priests said to him that it is pure, they erred. In fact, the oil is disqualified with fourth-degree ritual impurity, because it is a consecrated item.


ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจ


And Shmuel said: The priests did not err, as Haggai raised the dilemma before them whether or not consecrated items become impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity. According to Shmuelโ€™s explanation, the case is as follows: The corner of the garment comes into contact with a dead creeping animal, conferring upon the garment first-degree ritual impurity status; bread comes into contact with the garment, conferring upon the bread second-degree ritual impurity status; stew comes in contact with the bread, conferring upon the stew third-degree ritual impurity status; and wine comes in contact with the stew, conferring upon the wine fourth-degree ritual impurity status; and oil comes into contact with the wine. In that case, does the wine confer upon the oil fifth-degree ritual impurity? And the priests correctly said to him that the oil is pure.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื—ื ื•ื ื–ื™ื“ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืืœื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื—ืžืฉื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื”


The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, that is the reason that it is four items that are written in the dilemma raised in the verse: Bread, stew, wine, and oil, as the dilemma pertains to fourth-degree ritual impurity. However, according to Shmuel, from where does he learn that the dilemma involves five items?


ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ื’ืข ื›ื ืคื• ื•ื ื’ืข ื‘ื›ื ืคื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ื’ืข ื‘ื›ื ืคื•


The Gemara explains Shmuelโ€™s opinion. Is it written in the verse: And its corner touched the bread, indicating that the primary source of impurity that was in the corner of the garment touched the bread? It is actually written in the verse: โ€œAnd it touched the corner of his garment,โ€ meaning the bread came into contact with that which touched the primary source of ritual impurity that was in the corner of his garment. The bread came into contact with the corner of the garment, not with the primary source of impurity itself. Accordingly, the garment assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the bread second-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the stew third-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the wine fourth-degree ritual impurity status. Since the wine cannot confer fifth-degree ritual impurity status upon the oil, the oil remains pure.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื—ื’ื™ ืื ื™ื’ืข ื˜ืžื ื ืคืฉ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื” ื”ื™ื˜ืžื ื•ื™ืขื ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ื™ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžื“ื”ื›ื ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืฉ


The Gemara cites proof from the subsequent verse. Come and hear: โ€œAnd Haggai said: If one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse touches any of these, shall he be impure? And the priests answered and said: He shall be impureโ€ (Haggai 2:13). Granted, according to Shmuel, from the fact that here, with regard to a dead creeping animal, the priests did not err, as Shmuel maintains that the dilemma was with regard to fifth-degree ritual impurity, there too they did not err. However, according to Rav, what is different here, concerning the impurity of a creeping animal, such that the priests erred, and what is different there, with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, such that they did not err?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ืื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืฉืจืฅ


Rav Naแธฅman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The priests of Haggaiโ€™s era were experts with regard to the severe ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, as they knew that the impurity of a dead body confers upon a consecrated item fourth-degree ritual impurity status. However, they were not experts with regard to the lesser impurity of a creeping animal.


ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ืชื ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื”ื›ื ืฉืœื™ืฉื™


Ravina said that the distinction between the cases is different. There, the first dilemma addressed fourth-degree ritual impurity, whereas here, the dilemma addressed third-degree ritual impurity. Haggaiโ€™s second dilemma does not begin with contact with an item that came into contact with a corpse; rather, it begins with contact with the corpse itself. Since a corpse is the ultimate primary source of impurity, the fourth item is impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The priests knew that halakha.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื™ืขืŸ ื—ื’ื™ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื›ืŸ ื”ืขื ื”ื–ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ ื”ื–ื” ืœืคื ื™ ื ืื ื”ืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื˜ืžื ืืœื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืื™ ื˜ืžื


Come and hear a resolution to this matter from the next verse: โ€œAnd Haggai answered and said: So is this people, and so is this nation before me, said God; and so is all the work of their hands; and that which they offer there is impureโ€ (Haggai 2:14). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav that the priests erred, that is the reason that it is written: โ€œThat which they offer there is impure,โ€ as the priestsโ€™ lack of familiarity with the halakhot of impurity increase the likelihood that all of their Temple service is ritually impure. However, according to Shmuel, why does the verse say that their offerings are ritually impure?


ืื™ืชืžื•ื”ื™ ืงื ืžืชืžื” ื•ื”ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžืขืฉื” ื™ื“ื™ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืงืœืงืœื• ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื”ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


The Gemara answers: According to Shmuel, this is not a statement. Rather, the verse is a rhetorical question expressing bewilderment: Is all the Temple service of the priests really impure? Apparently, they are familiar with the halakhot of impurity. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isnโ€™t it written in that verse: โ€œAnd so is all the work of their hands,โ€ which is a statement, not a question? Mar Zutra, and some say it was Rav Ashi, said: Since they corrupted their deeds by sinning in general, the verse ascribes to them wrongdoing as if they sacrificed offerings in a state of impurity.


ื’ื•ืคื ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ืœื•ื™ ืชื ื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื


Apropos the two versions of Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezerโ€™s testimony that the liquids in the Temple are ritually pure, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. Rav teaches that Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer spoke of the liquids of the slaughterhouse, blood and water, and Levi taught that this halakha applies to the liquids of the altar, which include the wine of libations and oil of meal-offerings in addition to blood and water.


ืœืœื•ื™ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื›ืŸ ืžืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื—ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืขืฆืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื“ื ื’ืขื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ


The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Levi, this works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer testified that the liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other items but they themselves can become impure. In that case, you can find a scenario for Haggaiโ€™s second question; all the substances mentioned made contact with an object with first-degree ritual impurity status. Levi can explain that the prophetโ€™s dilemma is not in a case where the different items came into contact with each other, as he is of the opinion that liquids do not transmit impurity. Rather, the stew, wine, and oil each came in contact with an object with first-degree impurity, in accordance with Shmuelโ€™s opinion that consecrated liquids themselves can become impure. Accordingly, the priests answered that these objects are impure.


ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื›ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”


However, if Levi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the liquids are actually ritually pure, under what circumstances can a scenario in which wine and oil, liquids offered on the altar, can become ritually impure be found? Rather, perforce you must say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel with regard to the meaning of the term pure in this context.


ื•ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ ื“ืชื ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื˜ืžืื• ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ื”ื ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™


The Gemara continues: And according to Shmuel, this works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who taught that the decree to which Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer testified was issued with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse, but the other liquids of the altar transmit impurity as well. If that is Shmuelโ€™s opinion he can explain Haggaiโ€™s dilemma, as it is only an item with fourth-degree impurity status that does not render another item impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity. However, an item with third-degree impurity status renders another item impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity.


ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื™ืš ื›ืจื‘ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”


However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Levi, who taught that the liquids of the altar, including wine and oil, do not transmit impurity, why does Haggai specifically state that a liquid with fourth-degree impurity status does not render another liquid impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity? Even if these liquids had first- or second-degree ritual impurity status, they do not render another item impure with second- and third-degree ritual impurity, as Levi maintains that consecrated liquids do not transmit impurity at all. Rather, perforce he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav with regard to the object of Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezerโ€™s decree.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืœื•ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืœื•ื™ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืืŸ ืœื—ื•ืฅ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื”ื›ื ื™ืกืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ


The Gemara cites a source in support of each version, as it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi. The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: With regard to the blood, the wine, the oil, and the water, in the case of all liquids of the altar that became ritually impure inside the Temple and one took them outside, they are pure in the sense that they do not transmit impurity to other objects. This is because when they were within the Temple confines that more stringent form of impurity did not take effect. However, if they became impure outside the Temple and one took them inside the Temple, they are impure even in terms of transmitting impurity to other items, as they too retain their prior level of impurity.


ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ื‘ื—ื™ื ืœื ืืžืจื• ื“ื›ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืืŸ ืœื—ื•ืฅ ืœื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื”ื›ื ื™ืกืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: With regard to the liquids of the altar, the Sages said they are ritually pure only in their place. What, does this statement not come to exclude liquids that became impure inside the Temple and one took them outside, as in that case once they left the Temple they would be retroactively impure in terms of transmitting impurity? This contradicts the Gemaraโ€™s previous assertion. The Gemara responds: No, the statement comes to exclude liquids that became impure outside the Temple and one brought them inside.


ื•ื”ื ื‘ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื“ื›ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืžืงื•ืžืŸ


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: In their place, indicating that these liquids are pure in terms of transmitting impurity only if they remain inside the Temple? The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is saying: The Sages said they are pure only with regard to those liquids that became impure in their place, not with regard to those that became impure elsewhere and were brought into the Temple. In any case, the language of the baraita clearly indicates that the legal status of wine and oil is like that of other sacred liquids, in accordance with the opinion of Levi.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ืžื™ื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ


And it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The blood and the water, the liquids of the slaughterhouse, that became ritually impure, whether they were in vessels or on the ground, are pure.


(ืจื‘ืŸ) ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ


Rabban Shimon says: If the liquids were in vessels, they are ritually impure; however, if they were in the ground, they are ritually pure, as explained below.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ืชืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ืชื“ืข ืฉื”ืจื™ ื”ืขื™ื“ (ื™ื•ืกืฃ) ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืขื–ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืฆืจื™ื“ื” ืขืœ ืžืฉืงื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ื›ืŸ


Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that in general the ritual impurity of liquids is by Torah law, the purity of the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which the Sages learned through tradition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But with regard to that which Rabbi Eliezer said: There is no impurity for liquids at all by Torah law, know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yoโ€™ezer of Tzereida testified about liquids in the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they were ritually pure. This statement indicates that liquids become impure only by rabbinic decree, a decree that is not in effect in the Temple.


ื•ืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื ื”


Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, continued: And if they learned the ritual purity of liquids of the slaughterhouse as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai through tradition, do we derive other halakhot from it? There is a principle that one cannot derive halakhic principles from halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer cite this halakha as a proof for his opinion?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ


Furthermore, Ravina said to Rav Ashi, also in rejection of Rav Pappaโ€™s statement: Isnโ€™t it Rabbi Shimon, who said that in general the ritual impurity of liquids is by Torah law? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: With regard to vessels that came into contact with impure liquid, the vessels are pure, as by Torah law liquids do not transmit impurity to vessels. However, with regard to foods that came into contact with impure liquid, the foods are impure, as by Torah law liquids transmit impurity to foods.


ื•ื”ื›ื ืงืืžืจ (ืจื‘ืŸ) ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื”ื™ื ืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ืงืจืงืข ืงืฉื™ื


Ravina continues: And yet here, with regard to the liquids in the Temple, Rabban Shimon said: Liquids in vessels are ritually impure, and liquids in the ground are pure. And if you say that the purity of the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, what difference is there to me if the liquids are in vessels and what difference is there to me if the liquids are in the ground? If there is an accepted halakhic tradition that ritual impurity does not apply to these liquids, there should be no difference whether the liquid is in vessels or in the ground. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult according to Rav Pappaโ€™s opinion.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืช ื‘ืงืจืงืข ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื“ื ืœื


Rav Pappa said: That which you said, that the liquids in the Temple are ritually pure when in the ground, the Sages taught this halakha only with regard to water, but with regard to blood, no, it does not apply. According to Rabbi Shimon, blood can become impure even in the ground.


ื•ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœื”ื˜ื‘ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืจื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ:


And even with regard to water, we said that it is ritually pure only when it is a quarter-log, which is a suitable measure in which to immerse needles and hooks. By Torah law, a quarter-log of water collected in one place can serve as a ritual bath in which one can immerse objects that can be completely immersed in that amount of water. Because it has the status of a ritual bath, it too does not become ritually impure. Although the Sages decreed that one should not immerse vessels in a quarter-log of water, the water is pure by Torah law. Therefore, the Sages did not extend their decree to this measure of water inside the Temple. However, if the water is less than a quarter-log, it is ritually impure even in the ground, as that water cannot be used as a ritual bath.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื›ืœื™ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื


The Master said in the baraita cited above, with regard to uncertainty about contact with impure liquids, that Rabbi Yehuda says: They are impure in all cases. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the impurity of liquids in terms of their capability to transmit impurity to vessels is by Torah law?


ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืชื•ืš ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ื›ืจื™ื ื•ื”ื›ืกืชื•ืช ื•ื”ืฉืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืžืจืฆื•ืคื™ืŸ ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ืœื ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื•


But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: With regard to all vessels that have an exterior that can be used and an interior that serves as a receptacle, such as cushions, blankets, sacks, and leather grain sacks, if the interior of one of these vessels became ritually impure, its exterior is impure as well. However, if its exterior became impure, its interior is not impure, because the primary use of these vessels is as a receptacle.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื—ืžืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื•


Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the vessels became impure due to contact with impure liquids. However, if they became impure due to contact with a creeping animal, then if the interior became impure the exterior is impure, and likewise, if the exterior became impure the interior is also impure.


ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื˜ืžื ื›ืœื™ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื” ืœื™ ื ื˜ืžื ืžื—ืžืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ื ื˜ืžื ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื—ื–ืจ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


The Gemara explains the difficulty posed by Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s statement in this mishna: And if it enters your mind that the ritual impurity of liquids with regard to their capacity to transmit impurity to vessels is by Torah law, what difference is there to me if the vessel is rendered impure due to liquids, and what difference is there to me if the vessel is rendered impure due to a creeping animal? Rather, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the impurity of liquids is by rabbinic law, and the Sages distinguished between the impurity of the exterior and interior of a vessel to distinguish between impurity by Torah law and impurity by rabbinic law and prevent the burning of teruma that is impure with impurity by rabbinic law. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous statement in the baraita and accepted the ruling that the impurity of liquids is only by rabbinic decree.


ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื”ื ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ื™ื“ื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ


Ravina said: Actually, it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his previous statement, as this case, where he distinguishes between impurity on the interior and the exterior of vessels, was stated with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with impure hands that did not undergo ritual washing. Unwashed hands are impure by rabbinic decree, and therefore the impurity of such liquid is likewise rabbinic. Conversely, that case, where the impurity of liquids is by Torah law, was stated with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal. As that impurity is by Torah law, no distinction is made between the interior and exterior of vessels.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืชื ื™ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื—ืžืช ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ื™ื“ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืžืช ืฉืจืฅ ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ื’ื‘ื• ื ื˜ืžื ืชื•ื›ื• ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื›ื“ืฉื ื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื–ืจ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, instead of teaching: In what case is this statement said? In a case where the vessels were rendered impure due to contact with liquids, as opposed to the other case in which the vessels became impure due to contact with creeping animals, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where these vessels became impure by contact with liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with impure hands. However, in a case where these vessels became impure by contact with liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, if the interior became impure, the exterior is impure, and if the exterior became impure, the interior is likewise impure. Rather, the Gemara rejects Ravinaโ€™s explanation and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous ruling.


ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืžื›ืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Was it only from his ruling with regard to liquids that transmitted ritual impurity to vessels by Torah law that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion, but with regard to foods he still holds in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, that liquids transmit impurity to foods by Torah law? Or perhaps he completely retracted his previous opinion, and Rabbi Yehuda in fact holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that there is no Torah basis for the impurity of liquids.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื ืฉืžืข ืคืจื” ืฉืฉืชืชื” ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฉืจื” ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna: With regard to a cow that drank purification waters in which the ashes of the red heifer were mixed and which were to be sprinkled on one who was ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and the cow was slaughtered before it digested the water, its flesh is impure due to contact with this water. Pure items that come in contact with the purification waters become impure, as derived from a verse. Rabbi Yehuda says:

Scroll To Top