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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 8, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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.” 聽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)?

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 专讘 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 转谞讬 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 诪讟诪讗

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬

Apropos Rav鈥檚 statement with regard to Haggai鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讚砖 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专

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 Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讘注讛 诇讞诐 讜谞讝讬讚 讜讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讞诪砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

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?

诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞讙注 讻谞驻讜 讜谞讙注 讘讻谞驻讜 讻转讬讘 讘诪讛 砖谞讙注 讘讻谞驻讜

The Gemara explains Shmuel鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd it touched the corner of his garment,鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 讞讙讬 讗诐 讬讙注 讟诪讗 谞驻砖 讘讻诇 讗诇讛 讛讬讟诪讗 讜讬注谞讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 讬讟诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讚讛讻讗 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬砖转讘砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖

The Gemara cites proof from the subsequent verse. Come and hear: 鈥淎nd 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 impure鈥 (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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The priests of Haggai鈥檚 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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 专讘讬注讬 讛讻讗 砖诇讬砖讬

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. Haggai鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬注谉 讞讙讬 讜讬讗诪专 讻谉 讛注诐 讛讝讛 讜讻谉 讛讙讜讬 讛讝讛 诇驻谞讬 谞讗诐 讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗

Come and hear a resolution to this matter from the next verse: 鈥淎nd 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 impure鈥 (Haggai 2:14). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav that the priests erred, that is the reason that it is written: 鈥淭hat which they offer there is impure,鈥 as the priests鈥 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?

讗讬转诪讜讛讬 拽讗 诪转诪讛 讜讛讗 讜讻谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛诐 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转讜讱 砖拽诇拽诇讜 讗转 诪注砖讬讛诐 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛

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 isn鈥檛 it written in that verse: 鈥淎nd so is all the work of their hands,鈥 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.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 转谞讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讜诇讜讬 转谞讗 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗

Apropos the two versions of Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer鈥檚 testimony that the liquids in the Temple are ritually pure, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. Rav teaches that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer 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.

诇诇讜讬 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚谞讙注讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘专讗砖讜谉

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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 Haggai鈥檚 second question; all the substances mentioned made contact with an object with first-degree ritual impurity status. Levi can explain that the prophet鈥檚 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 Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that consecrated liquids themselves can become impure. Accordingly, the priests answered that these objects are impure.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讚转谞讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讟诪讗讜 专讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞诪讬砖讬 讛讗 砖诇讬砖讬 注讘讬讚 专讘讬注讬

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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 Shmuel鈥檚 opinion he can explain Haggai鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜讬 讚转谞讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讘讬注讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞诪讬砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬 讜砖诇讬砖讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 讻专讘 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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 Yo鈥檈zer鈥檚 decree.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讛讚诐 讜讛讬讬谉 讜讛砖诪谉 讜讛诪讬诐 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讞讜抓 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 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 Gemara鈥檚 previous assertion. The Gemara responds: No, the statement comes to exclude liquids that became impure outside the Temple and one brought them inside.

讜讛讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪拽讜诪谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讚诐 讜讛诪讬诐 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉

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.

(专讘谉) 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讛注讬讚 (讬讜住祝) 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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.

讜讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪讬 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉

Furthermore, Ravina said to Rav Ashi, also in rejection of Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement: Isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讻讗 拽讗诪专 (专讘谉) 砖诪注讜谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讗 诪讛 诇讬 讘讻诇讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 讘拽专拽注 拽砖讬讗

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 Pappa鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讚诐 诇讗

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.

讜诪讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讛讜讬 专讘讬注讬转 讚讞讝讬 诇讛讟讘讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讜讬 专讘讬注讬转 讟诪讗讬谉:

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.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讟诪讗 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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?

讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 讻讙讜谉 讛讻专讬诐 讜讛讻住转讜转 讜讛砖拽讬谉 讜讛诪专爪讜驻讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 诇讗 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜

But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讘诇 谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜

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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛 诇讬 谞讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 谞讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara explains the difficulty posed by Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 讛讚专 讛讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬诐 讛讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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 Ravina鈥檚 explanation and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous ruling.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讻诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讙诪专讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 砖砖转转讛 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘砖专讛 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 鈥 not related to hygiene or ability to use the object/person. Usually...
tomb of prophets entrance

Great Shall Be the Glory of the Later House

In order to prove a point about impurity, the Gemara on pages 16 and 17 brings in some verses from...

Pesachim 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 17

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 专讘 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 转谞讬 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 诪讟诪讗

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬

Apropos Rav鈥檚 statement with regard to Haggai鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讻讛谞讬 讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讚砖 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专

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 Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讘注讛 诇讞诐 讜谞讝讬讚 讜讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讞诪砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

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?

诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞讙注 讻谞驻讜 讜谞讙注 讘讻谞驻讜 讻转讬讘 讘诪讛 砖谞讙注 讘讻谞驻讜

The Gemara explains Shmuel鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd it touched the corner of his garment,鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 讞讙讬 讗诐 讬讙注 讟诪讗 谞驻砖 讘讻诇 讗诇讛 讛讬讟诪讗 讜讬注谞讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 讬讟诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讚讛讻讗 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬砖转讘砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转讘砖

The Gemara cites proof from the subsequent verse. Come and hear: 鈥淎nd 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 impure鈥 (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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The priests of Haggai鈥檚 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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 专讘讬注讬 讛讻讗 砖诇讬砖讬

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. Haggai鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬注谉 讞讙讬 讜讬讗诪专 讻谉 讛注诐 讛讝讛 讜讻谉 讛讙讜讬 讛讝讛 诇驻谞讬 谞讗诐 讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗

Come and hear a resolution to this matter from the next verse: 鈥淎nd 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 impure鈥 (Haggai 2:14). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav that the priests erred, that is the reason that it is written: 鈥淭hat which they offer there is impure,鈥 as the priests鈥 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?

讗讬转诪讜讛讬 拽讗 诪转诪讛 讜讛讗 讜讻谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛诐 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转讜讱 砖拽诇拽诇讜 讗转 诪注砖讬讛诐 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛

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 isn鈥檛 it written in that verse: 鈥淎nd so is all the work of their hands,鈥 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.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 转谞讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讜诇讜讬 转谞讗 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗

Apropos the two versions of Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer鈥檚 testimony that the liquids in the Temple are ritually pure, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. Rav teaches that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer 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.

诇诇讜讬 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚谞讙注讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘专讗砖讜谉

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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 Haggai鈥檚 second question; all the substances mentioned made contact with an object with first-degree ritual impurity status. Levi can explain that the prophet鈥檚 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 Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that consecrated liquids themselves can become impure. Accordingly, the priests answered that these objects are impure.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讚转谞讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讟诪讗讜 专讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞诪讬砖讬 讛讗 砖诇讬砖讬 注讘讬讚 专讘讬注讬

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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 Shmuel鈥檚 opinion he can explain Haggai鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜讬 讚转谞讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讘讬注讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞诪讬砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬 讜砖诇讬砖讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 讻专讘 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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 Yo鈥檈zer鈥檚 decree.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讛讚诐 讜讛讬讬谉 讜讛砖诪谉 讜讛诪讬诐 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讞讜抓 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖拽讬 讘讬 诪讚讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 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 Gemara鈥檚 previous assertion. The Gemara responds: No, the statement comes to exclude liquids that became impure outside the Temple and one brought them inside.

讜讛讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讚讻谉 讗诇讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪拽讜诪谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讚诐 讜讛诪讬诐 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉

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.

(专讘谉) 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讛注讬讚 (讬讜住祝) 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 诪砖拽讬 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉

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 Yo鈥檈zer 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.

讜讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪讬 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉

Furthermore, Ravina said to Rav Ashi, also in rejection of Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement: Isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讻讗 拽讗诪专 (专讘谉) 砖诪注讜谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讗 诪讛 诇讬 讘讻诇讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 讘拽专拽注 拽砖讬讗

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 Pappa鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讚诐 诇讗

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.

讜诪讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讛讜讬 专讘讬注讬转 讚讞讝讬 诇讛讟讘讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讜讬 专讘讬注讬转 讟诪讗讬谉:

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.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讟诪讗 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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?

讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 讻讙讜谉 讛讻专讬诐 讜讛讻住转讜转 讜讛砖拽讬谉 讜讛诪专爪讜驻讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 诇讗 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜

But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讘诇 谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜

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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛 诇讬 谞讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 谞讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara explains the difficulty posed by Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 讛讚专 讛讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬诐 讛讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讞诪转 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 砖专抓 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讘讜 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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 Ravina鈥檚 explanation and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous ruling.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讻诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讙诪专讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 砖砖转转讛 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘砖专讛 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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