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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 10, 2020 | 讻状讚 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 is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Pesachim 19

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Neil Green in honor of Sabina. You are an inspiration in your leadership of our temple education committee and in your teaching of children in the school. You live the Torah you teach. I am so grateful that you are learning Daf Yomi with Hadran with me!

Rava says that Rabbi Yosi doesn’t agree with Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Akiva doesn’t agree with Rabbi Yosi so how did we say before that Rabbi Yosi’s opinion is derived from Rabbi Akiva. How do we know that each doesn’t hold like the other? The gemara brings another halacha that Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim testified about. A needle found inside a slaughtered animal will not pass on impurity to the hands of the slaughterer or the knife but it makes the meat impure. What exactly is the case? What is the doubt referring to?

讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讙注 讘砖谞讬 专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉


any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). Are we not dealing even with a case where meat touched an object that was ritually impure with second-degree ritual impurity? And nevertheless, the verse states explicitly that it is impure and assumes third-degree ritual impurity status. No other source is needed to teach that consecrated objects can assume third-degree ritual impurity status. Therefore, fourth-degree impurity status can be derived by means of the a fortiori inference, as we stated above.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 专讘讬注讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖


The Gemara returns to its previous point: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that non-sacred objects can assume third-degree impurity status, let him also teach the halakha of the fourth degree of impurity with regard to teruma, and the fifth degree with regard to consecrated items, on the basis of that same a fortiori inference. The fact that he does not extend the a fortiori inference to include these halakhot proves that Rabbi Yosei does not agree with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion on this issue.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞诇谉


However, with regard to the fact that Rabbi Akiva does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, from where do we derive this? Perhaps he accepts Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 a fortiori inference and holds that teruma assumes fourth-degree impurity status and consecrated items assume fifth-degree impurity status.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转诪讬讟 转谞讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 专讘讬注讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖 讜谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讜讗谞谉 讗讛讻讬 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞住诪讜讱


Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi that there is indirect proof that this is the case. As it is not possible to avoid finding at least one tanna who teaches fourth-degree impurity with regard to teruma and fifth-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items, and says that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who derived it from the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Yosei. In response to this claim, the Gemara asks: And will we stand and rely on that proof? Can proof for Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion be cited from the fact that no such tanna was found? Perhaps there is some source for that halakha.


谞驻拽 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讻诇讬 诪爪专祝 讗转 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 诇拽讜讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讛专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 驻住讜诇 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘转专讜诪讛


Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Kahana, left the study hall to examine this matter. He analyzed the issue and found proof positive that Rabbi Akiva does not hold that there is fifth-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items. He proved this from that which we learned in a mishna: A vessel joins that which is in it into a single unit. For example, if there are fruits in a vessel between which there is no contact and one of them became ritually impure, all of the fruits are impure, as they are joined by the vessel. This principle applies with regard to consecrated property, but not with regard to teruma. And the fourth degree of impurity disqualifies consecrated items but does not transmit impurity, while third-degree impurity disqualifies teruma.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪注讚讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 (讚转谞讬讗) 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛住讜诇转 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讙讞诇讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇谉


And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is from the testimony of Rabbi Akiva that this mishna is taught, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva added in his testimony with regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals on the altar, which are not foods and do not ordinarily become impure, that if a person who immersed during that day, who disqualifies consecrated items, touches some of them, he disqualifies all of them, as the vessel joins them into one unit.


专讘讬注讬 讗讬谉 讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬谉 专讘讬注讬 诇讗


This baraita, which is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, states that with regard to fourth-degree impurity, yes, consecrated objects assume that status; however, with regard to fifth-degree impurity, no, consecrated objects do not assume that status. With regard to third-degree impurity, yes, teruma assumes that status; however, with regard to fourth-degree impurity, no, teruma does not assume that status.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 爪讬专讜祝 讚专讘谞谉 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 爪讬专讜祝 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻祝 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讝讛讘 诪诇讗讛 拽讟专转 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讛 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘讻祝 讗讞转


The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that joining in a single vessel, of frankincense, incense, or coals, is a halakha by rabbinic law, not by Torah law, as the ritual impurity of frankincense and coals is by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Yo岣nan disputes that statement of Rabbi 岣nin, who said: Joining in a vessel is a halakha by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淥ne golden spoon of ten shekels, filled with incense鈥 (Numbers 7:20). The verse rendered everything in the spoon, i.e., all the incense, as one entity.


转谞谉 讛转诐 注诇 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘讘砖专 砖讛住讻讬谉 讜讛讬讚讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛讘砖专 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗转 讘驻专砖 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讻讬谞讜 砖讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讬讚讬诐 讘诪拽讚砖


Apropos ritual purity and impurity in the Temple, the Gemara cites that we learned in a mishna there: The Sages testified about the case of a needle that was found in the meat of an animal that was led through water, that the knife and the hands that touched the needle are ritually pure but the meat is impure, as the needle might have been impure. If the needle was found in the secretions of the animal鈥檚 stomach, everything is pure, as secretions do not transfer impurity to the meat. Rabbi Akiva said: We were privileged to learn a novel halakha from here, which is that there is no impurity of hands in the Temple as in this case the hands did not become impure upon contact with the needle.


讜谞讬诪讗 砖讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讬讚讬诐 讜讻诇讬诐 讘诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讬讚讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讙讝讬专转 讻诇讬诐 谞砖谞讜


The Gemara asks: And let us say that Rabbi Akiva says that we learn from here that there is no ritual impurity of hands and vessels in the Temple, as the mishna says that the knife which touched the needle is also pure. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: The testimony that there is no ritual impurity for hands was taught prior to the decree of impurity for vessels that came in contact with impure liquids outside the Temple. Therefore, there was no novelty in the fact that there is no ritual impurity of vessels in the Temple.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讙讝专讜 讚转谞谉 讛住驻专 讜讛讬讚讬诐 讜讛讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉


Rava said: But weren鈥檛 both decrees issued on the same day? As we learned in a mishna: The impurity of a Torah scroll and other sacred scrolls, and the impurity of hands that were not washed or immersed, and the impurity of one who immersed himself during that day, and the impurity of foods and vessels that became impure by contact with impure liquids, all these are included in the eighteen matters with regard to which decrees were issued on the same day.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讞 诇讟讜诪讗转 住讻讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讛讗讬 住讻讬谉 讚谞讙注 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞讙注 讘讘砖专 讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜讗诇讗 讚谞讙注 讘诪讞讟 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬


Rather, Rava said: Leave the impurity of the knife, as even outside the Temple in non-sacred circumstances it does not become impure. As in the case of this knife, what did it touch that could transmit impurity? If you say that it touched the meat, food does not transmit impurity to a vessel. If you say, rather, that it touched the needle, a vessel does not transmit impurity to another vessel.


讛讗讬 诪讞讟 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 住驻拽 诪讞讟 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛专讜拽讬谉 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐


With regard to this needle, the Gemara asks: What is its impurity status? If we say that there is uncertainty with regard to the impurity of the needle, wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina? One said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of spittle that is found in Jerusalem. Any spittle found outside of Jerusalem might have come from a zav or from a gentile, whose legal status in this regard is like that of a zav. The Sages decreed that any contact with this spittle should be treated as uncertain contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. That decree was not issued with regard to spittle found in Jerusalem. And one said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of vessels in Jerusalem. As opposed to the situation outside of Jerusalem, there is no presumption of impurity with regard to vessels found in Jerusalem, including a needle.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 诪讞讟 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讛讻讬专讛 讘讘砖专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 讞住讜诪讛 讜讘讗讛 诪讞讜抓 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐:


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is referring to a case where one lost a needle that became impure through contact with a person or vessel impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Since the needle is a metal utensil, it assumes the same degree of impurity as the source of its impurity, in this case a primary source of impurity. And he then recognized the needle in the meat of the offering. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Avin, said: This is referring to a case where the cow was muzzled as it came from outside of Jerusalem. The needle is clearly from outside of Jerusalem, and in all cases of uncertainty with regard to vessels outside of Jerusalem the ruling is that they are impure.


讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛专讜拽讬谉 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 专讜拽讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇讬诐 转谞讬谞讗


The Gemara analyzes the dispute with regard to the decree that was not issued in Jerusalem itself. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, disagreed. One said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of spittle that is found in Jerusalem. And one said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of vessels in Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: We already learned the halakha of spittle, and similarly, we already learned the halakha of vessels. What do these amora鈥檌m add to the earlier tannaitic rulings?


专讜拽讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛专讜拽讬谉 讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 砖讜拽 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讝讘


The Gemara elaborates: We already learned the halakha of spittle, as we learned in a mishna: Any spittle found in Jerusalem is pure, except for the spittle that is found in the upper market, an area frequented by gentiles (Rambam). The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for the amora to teach that this halakha applies even in a case where there is a presumption that there had been a zav in the area where the spittle was found. Even in that case, no decree of impurity was issued with regard to spittle in Jerusalem.


讻诇讬诐 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞诪爪讗讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讟诪讗讬谉 讛讗 讚注诇诪讗 讟讛讜专讬谉


Likewise, we already learned the halakha of vessels, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to all the vessels found in Jerusalem, if they were found on the path leading down to the ritual bath they are presumed ritually impure. These vessels were probably not yet immersed, as people typically bring impure vessels to the ritual bath. By inference, all other vessels found elsewhere are presumed pure.


讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚专讱 注诇讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛讗 讚注诇诪讗 讟诪讗讬谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to your reasoning, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: If the vessels were discovered on the path up from the ritual bath, they are presumed ritually pure. One can learn by inference from this statement the diametric opposite: All other vessels are presumed ritually impure.


讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讚讜拽讗 讜住讬驻讗 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙讝讬讬转讗


Rather, the first clause of the mishna is precise in its formulation, and therefore inferences may be drawn with regard to other vessels. And the latter clause is not precise in this way, and it comes to exclude only the small passageways near the ritual bath, where it is unclear whether the vessels there were being taken to the bath for immersion or from the bath after being immersed. Since the vessels were certainly impure when brought to the ritual bath, and it is uncertain whether or not they were immersed, they retain the presumptive status of impurity. However, in cases where the uncertainty is whether or not the vessels were impure at all, then where the impurity is by rabbinic decree, that decree is not in effect in Jerusalem, and the vessels are ritually pure.


讜诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 诪讞讟 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讛讻讬专讛 讘讘砖专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讞专讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞诇诇 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讗


And the Gemara suggests that according to Rav, who said this is referring to a case where one lost a needle that became impure through contact with a person or vessel impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and he recognized the needle in the meat of the offering, the conclusion should be different. Since the Master said that the verse: 鈥淥ne who is slain with a sword鈥 (Numbers 19:16) teaches that the legal status of a metal sword is like that of one who is slain in terms of its degree of impurity, not only the meat, but a person and vessels as well should become ritually impure by touching the needle. Just as a sword that comes into contact with a corpse assumes its status as an ultimate primary source of ritual impurity, so too, any metal vessel that comes into contact with a person or vessel that is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse assumes its status as a primary source of ritual impurity.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讝专讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专


Rav Ashi said: That is to say that the Temple courtyard is a public domain with regard to the halakhot of uncertain impurity. And therefore, the ruling in this case is that of uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain, as there is no proof that either the vessels or one鈥檚 hands came into contact with the ritually impure needle. And the guiding principle in any case of uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain is that its uncertainty is ruled to be ritually pure. Therefore, the meat, which definitely came into contact with the needle, is impure, while everything else is ritually pure.


讛讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讞讟 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专


The Gemara asks: One can learn by inference that if this uncertainty developed in the private domain, its uncertainty is ruled to be ritually impure. Why would that be the case? Since this needle is an item that does not have knowledge to be asked, as an inanimate object cannot be consulted with regard to how it became impure or whether it became impure at all, the following principle is in effect: With regard to any item or person that does not have knowledge to be asked, the person referring to one who lacks the competence to answer the question, whether the uncertainty developed in the public domain or whether it was in the private domain, its uncertainty is ruled to be ritually pure.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐


The Gemara responds: Although a needle does not have knowledge to be asked, it is nevertheless impure due to the fact that its uncertainty is uncertainty with regard to impurity that comes about by means of a person. The knife did not come into contact with the needle on its own; rather, a person was holding the knife. And Rabbi Yo岣nan stated another principle: In a case of uncertainty with regard to impurity that comes about by means of a person,


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 is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

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 18-24 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week will continue discussing the laws of purity and impurity and the difference between the Temple and outside the...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 19: Pure Spit

What levels of tumah for which kinds of foods (consecrated, terumah, chullin)? And what happens to kadosh (consecrated) items that...
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...

Pesachim 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 19

讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讙注 讘砖谞讬 专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉


any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). Are we not dealing even with a case where meat touched an object that was ritually impure with second-degree ritual impurity? And nevertheless, the verse states explicitly that it is impure and assumes third-degree ritual impurity status. No other source is needed to teach that consecrated objects can assume third-degree ritual impurity status. Therefore, fourth-degree impurity status can be derived by means of the a fortiori inference, as we stated above.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 专讘讬注讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖


The Gemara returns to its previous point: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that non-sacred objects can assume third-degree impurity status, let him also teach the halakha of the fourth degree of impurity with regard to teruma, and the fifth degree with regard to consecrated items, on the basis of that same a fortiori inference. The fact that he does not extend the a fortiori inference to include these halakhot proves that Rabbi Yosei does not agree with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion on this issue.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞诇谉


However, with regard to the fact that Rabbi Akiva does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, from where do we derive this? Perhaps he accepts Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 a fortiori inference and holds that teruma assumes fourth-degree impurity status and consecrated items assume fifth-degree impurity status.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转诪讬讟 转谞讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 专讘讬注讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讘拽讜讚砖 讜谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讜讗谞谉 讗讛讻讬 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞住诪讜讱


Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi that there is indirect proof that this is the case. As it is not possible to avoid finding at least one tanna who teaches fourth-degree impurity with regard to teruma and fifth-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items, and says that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who derived it from the a fortiori inference of Rabbi Yosei. In response to this claim, the Gemara asks: And will we stand and rely on that proof? Can proof for Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion be cited from the fact that no such tanna was found? Perhaps there is some source for that halakha.


谞驻拽 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讻诇讬 诪爪专祝 讗转 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 诇拽讜讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讛专讘讬注讬 讘拽讜讚砖 驻住讜诇 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘转专讜诪讛


Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Kahana, left the study hall to examine this matter. He analyzed the issue and found proof positive that Rabbi Akiva does not hold that there is fifth-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items. He proved this from that which we learned in a mishna: A vessel joins that which is in it into a single unit. For example, if there are fruits in a vessel between which there is no contact and one of them became ritually impure, all of the fruits are impure, as they are joined by the vessel. This principle applies with regard to consecrated property, but not with regard to teruma. And the fourth degree of impurity disqualifies consecrated items but does not transmit impurity, while third-degree impurity disqualifies teruma.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪注讚讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 (讚转谞讬讗) 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛住讜诇转 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讙讞诇讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇谉


And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is from the testimony of Rabbi Akiva that this mishna is taught, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva added in his testimony with regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals on the altar, which are not foods and do not ordinarily become impure, that if a person who immersed during that day, who disqualifies consecrated items, touches some of them, he disqualifies all of them, as the vessel joins them into one unit.


专讘讬注讬 讗讬谉 讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬谉 专讘讬注讬 诇讗


This baraita, which is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, states that with regard to fourth-degree impurity, yes, consecrated objects assume that status; however, with regard to fifth-degree impurity, no, consecrated objects do not assume that status. With regard to third-degree impurity, yes, teruma assumes that status; however, with regard to fourth-degree impurity, no, teruma does not assume that status.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 爪讬专讜祝 讚专讘谞谉 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 爪讬专讜祝 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻祝 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讝讛讘 诪诇讗讛 拽讟专转 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讛 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘讻祝 讗讞转


The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that joining in a single vessel, of frankincense, incense, or coals, is a halakha by rabbinic law, not by Torah law, as the ritual impurity of frankincense and coals is by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Yo岣nan disputes that statement of Rabbi 岣nin, who said: Joining in a vessel is a halakha by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淥ne golden spoon of ten shekels, filled with incense鈥 (Numbers 7:20). The verse rendered everything in the spoon, i.e., all the incense, as one entity.


转谞谉 讛转诐 注诇 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘讘砖专 砖讛住讻讬谉 讜讛讬讚讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛讘砖专 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗转 讘驻专砖 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讻讬谞讜 砖讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讬讚讬诐 讘诪拽讚砖


Apropos ritual purity and impurity in the Temple, the Gemara cites that we learned in a mishna there: The Sages testified about the case of a needle that was found in the meat of an animal that was led through water, that the knife and the hands that touched the needle are ritually pure but the meat is impure, as the needle might have been impure. If the needle was found in the secretions of the animal鈥檚 stomach, everything is pure, as secretions do not transfer impurity to the meat. Rabbi Akiva said: We were privileged to learn a novel halakha from here, which is that there is no impurity of hands in the Temple as in this case the hands did not become impure upon contact with the needle.


讜谞讬诪讗 砖讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讬讚讬诐 讜讻诇讬诐 讘诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讬讚讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讙讝讬专转 讻诇讬诐 谞砖谞讜


The Gemara asks: And let us say that Rabbi Akiva says that we learn from here that there is no ritual impurity of hands and vessels in the Temple, as the mishna says that the knife which touched the needle is also pure. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: The testimony that there is no ritual impurity for hands was taught prior to the decree of impurity for vessels that came in contact with impure liquids outside the Temple. Therefore, there was no novelty in the fact that there is no ritual impurity of vessels in the Temple.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讙讝专讜 讚转谞谉 讛住驻专 讜讛讬讚讬诐 讜讛讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉


Rava said: But weren鈥檛 both decrees issued on the same day? As we learned in a mishna: The impurity of a Torah scroll and other sacred scrolls, and the impurity of hands that were not washed or immersed, and the impurity of one who immersed himself during that day, and the impurity of foods and vessels that became impure by contact with impure liquids, all these are included in the eighteen matters with regard to which decrees were issued on the same day.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讞 诇讟讜诪讗转 住讻讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讛讗讬 住讻讬谉 讚谞讙注 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞讙注 讘讘砖专 讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜讗诇讗 讚谞讙注 讘诪讞讟 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬


Rather, Rava said: Leave the impurity of the knife, as even outside the Temple in non-sacred circumstances it does not become impure. As in the case of this knife, what did it touch that could transmit impurity? If you say that it touched the meat, food does not transmit impurity to a vessel. If you say, rather, that it touched the needle, a vessel does not transmit impurity to another vessel.


讛讗讬 诪讞讟 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 住驻拽 诪讞讟 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛专讜拽讬谉 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐


With regard to this needle, the Gemara asks: What is its impurity status? If we say that there is uncertainty with regard to the impurity of the needle, wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina? One said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of spittle that is found in Jerusalem. Any spittle found outside of Jerusalem might have come from a zav or from a gentile, whose legal status in this regard is like that of a zav. The Sages decreed that any contact with this spittle should be treated as uncertain contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. That decree was not issued with regard to spittle found in Jerusalem. And one said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of vessels in Jerusalem. As opposed to the situation outside of Jerusalem, there is no presumption of impurity with regard to vessels found in Jerusalem, including a needle.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 诪讞讟 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讛讻讬专讛 讘讘砖专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 讞住讜诪讛 讜讘讗讛 诪讞讜抓 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐:


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is referring to a case where one lost a needle that became impure through contact with a person or vessel impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Since the needle is a metal utensil, it assumes the same degree of impurity as the source of its impurity, in this case a primary source of impurity. And he then recognized the needle in the meat of the offering. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Avin, said: This is referring to a case where the cow was muzzled as it came from outside of Jerusalem. The needle is clearly from outside of Jerusalem, and in all cases of uncertainty with regard to vessels outside of Jerusalem the ruling is that they are impure.


讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛专讜拽讬谉 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 专讜拽讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇讬诐 转谞讬谞讗


The Gemara analyzes the dispute with regard to the decree that was not issued in Jerusalem itself. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, disagreed. One said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of spittle that is found in Jerusalem. And one said: The Sages did not issue a decree in the case of uncertainty with regard to the impurity of vessels in Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: We already learned the halakha of spittle, and similarly, we already learned the halakha of vessels. What do these amora鈥檌m add to the earlier tannaitic rulings?


专讜拽讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛专讜拽讬谉 讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 砖讜拽 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讝讘


The Gemara elaborates: We already learned the halakha of spittle, as we learned in a mishna: Any spittle found in Jerusalem is pure, except for the spittle that is found in the upper market, an area frequented by gentiles (Rambam). The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for the amora to teach that this halakha applies even in a case where there is a presumption that there had been a zav in the area where the spittle was found. Even in that case, no decree of impurity was issued with regard to spittle in Jerusalem.


讻诇讬诐 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞诪爪讗讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讟诪讗讬谉 讛讗 讚注诇诪讗 讟讛讜专讬谉


Likewise, we already learned the halakha of vessels, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to all the vessels found in Jerusalem, if they were found on the path leading down to the ritual bath they are presumed ritually impure. These vessels were probably not yet immersed, as people typically bring impure vessels to the ritual bath. By inference, all other vessels found elsewhere are presumed pure.


讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚专讱 注诇讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛讗 讚注诇诪讗 讟诪讗讬谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to your reasoning, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: If the vessels were discovered on the path up from the ritual bath, they are presumed ritually pure. One can learn by inference from this statement the diametric opposite: All other vessels are presumed ritually impure.


讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讚讜拽讗 讜住讬驻讗 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙讝讬讬转讗


Rather, the first clause of the mishna is precise in its formulation, and therefore inferences may be drawn with regard to other vessels. And the latter clause is not precise in this way, and it comes to exclude only the small passageways near the ritual bath, where it is unclear whether the vessels there were being taken to the bath for immersion or from the bath after being immersed. Since the vessels were certainly impure when brought to the ritual bath, and it is uncertain whether or not they were immersed, they retain the presumptive status of impurity. However, in cases where the uncertainty is whether or not the vessels were impure at all, then where the impurity is by rabbinic decree, that decree is not in effect in Jerusalem, and the vessels are ritually pure.


讜诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 诪讞讟 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讛讻讬专讛 讘讘砖专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讞专讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞诇诇 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讗


And the Gemara suggests that according to Rav, who said this is referring to a case where one lost a needle that became impure through contact with a person or vessel impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and he recognized the needle in the meat of the offering, the conclusion should be different. Since the Master said that the verse: 鈥淥ne who is slain with a sword鈥 (Numbers 19:16) teaches that the legal status of a metal sword is like that of one who is slain in terms of its degree of impurity, not only the meat, but a person and vessels as well should become ritually impure by touching the needle. Just as a sword that comes into contact with a corpse assumes its status as an ultimate primary source of ritual impurity, so too, any metal vessel that comes into contact with a person or vessel that is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse assumes its status as a primary source of ritual impurity.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讝专讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专


Rav Ashi said: That is to say that the Temple courtyard is a public domain with regard to the halakhot of uncertain impurity. And therefore, the ruling in this case is that of uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain, as there is no proof that either the vessels or one鈥檚 hands came into contact with the ritually impure needle. And the guiding principle in any case of uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain is that its uncertainty is ruled to be ritually pure. Therefore, the meat, which definitely came into contact with the needle, is impure, while everything else is ritually pure.


讛讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讞讟 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专


The Gemara asks: One can learn by inference that if this uncertainty developed in the private domain, its uncertainty is ruled to be ritually impure. Why would that be the case? Since this needle is an item that does not have knowledge to be asked, as an inanimate object cannot be consulted with regard to how it became impure or whether it became impure at all, the following principle is in effect: With regard to any item or person that does not have knowledge to be asked, the person referring to one who lacks the competence to answer the question, whether the uncertainty developed in the public domain or whether it was in the private domain, its uncertainty is ruled to be ritually pure.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐


The Gemara responds: Although a needle does not have knowledge to be asked, it is nevertheless impure due to the fact that its uncertainty is uncertainty with regard to impurity that comes about by means of a person. The knife did not come into contact with the needle on its own; rather, a person was holding the knife. And Rabbi Yo岣nan stated another principle: In a case of uncertainty with regard to impurity that comes about by means of a person,


Scroll To Top