חולין כד

חולין כד

אָמַר קְרָא ״וְשָׁחַט״ וְחוּקָּה: בִּשְׁחִיטָה אִין, בַּעֲרִיפָה לָא.

The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the red heifer: “And he shall slaughter it” (Numbers 19:3), and it mentions the term statute: “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2), indicating that with slaughter, yes, the red heifer is rendered fit; with breaking the neck, the red heifer is not rendered fit.

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה, לָא דָּרְשִׁינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר? וְהָא גַּבֵּי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה, וְתַנְיָא: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״ – הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

The Gemara asks: And is it so that anywhere that statute is written with regard to a certain matter, we do not learn an a fortiori inference? But what about Yom Kippur, with regard to which statute is written: “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you” (Leviticus 16:34), and nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: “And Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin offering” (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin offering does not render it a sin offering.

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא קִדֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל, קִדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, מְקוֹם שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

The baraita continues: A verse is necessary to teach this halakha, as one might have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If in a case where the lottery does not sanctify the animal with a specific designation, such as in the case of two birds brought by a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless a verbal designation of that offering sanctifies it, in a case where the lottery sanctifies the animal on Yom Kippur, isn’t it logical that a verbal designation as a sin offering sanctifies it? Therefore, the verse states: “And render it a sin offering;” the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of a sin offering does not render the goat a sin offering.

טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הָא לָאו הָכִי דָּרְשִׁינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר!

The Gemara infers: The reason that the a fortiori inference is not learned is that the Merciful One writes: “And he shall offer it for a sin offering.” But otherwise we would learn an a fortiori inference, despite the fact that statute is written with regard to the Yom Kippur service.

מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי עֶגְלָה הָעֲרוּפָה, ״זֹאת״ בַּעֲרִיפָה, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת בַּעֲרִיפָה.

The Gemara explains: Actually, one may learn an a fortiori inference even in a case where statute is written. Nevertheless, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, the Merciful One restricts the use of breaking the neck: “And all the Elders of that city…shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck is broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun “whose” it is derived: This heifer is killed by breaking the neck, but no other, i.e., the red heifer, is killed by breaking the neck.

וּתְהֵא עֶגְלָה כְּשֵׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה פָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה – כְּשֵׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה, עֶגְלָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְעָרְפוּ הָעֶגְלָה״ – בַּעֲרִיפָה אִין, בִּשְׁחִיטָה לָא.

The Gemara challenges: And let it be derived that the heifer whose neck is broken is rendered fit with slaughter by means of an a fortiori inference: If a red heifer, which is not rendered fit with breaking the neck, is rendered fit with slaughter, then with regard to a heifer whose neck is broken, which is rendered fit with breaking the neck, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter? The Gemara responds that the verse states: “And shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). The doubled reference to breaking the neck in the two verses indicates that by breaking the neck, yes, the heifer may be killed; by slaughter, the heifer may not be killed.

מַתְנִי׳ כָּשֵׁר בַּכֹּהֲנִים פָּסוּל בַּלְוִיִּם, כָּשֵׁר בַּלְוִיִּם פָּסוּל בַּכֹּהֲנִים.

MISHNA: There is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is also an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמוּמִין – פְּסוּלִים, בְּשָׁנִים – כְּשֵׁרִים. לְוִיִּם, בְּמוּמִין – כְּשֵׁרִים, בְּשָׁנִים – פְּסוּלִים. נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בַּכֹּהֲנִים – פָּסוּל בַּלְוִיִּם, כָּשֵׁר בַּלְוִיִּם – פָּסוּל בַּכֹּהֲנִים.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: Priests are rendered unfit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:16–23), but remain fit with the passage of years, as from the moment that they reach majority they are fit for service for the rest of their lives. Levites remain fit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah but are unfit with the passage of years, as they are fit for service only between the ages of thirty and fifty (see Numbers 4:47). It is found that there is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זֹאת אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִבֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה יָשׁוּב״, לָמַדְנוּ לַלְוִיִּם שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם. יָכוֹל מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁאֵין הַשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶן, מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶן – לְוִיִּם שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם״ – זֹאת לַלְוִיִּם, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת לַלְוִיִּם.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: “This is that which pertains to the Levites” (Numbers 8:24); why must the verse state this? Since it is stated: “And from the age of fifty years he shall return from the service” (Numbers 8:25), we learned with regard to the Levites that the passage of years disqualifies them. One might have thought that blemishes disqualify them too. And ostensibly, it could be learned through logical inference: If priests, with regard to whom the passage of years does not disqualify them, blemishes disqualify them, then in the case of Levites, with regard to whom the passage of years disqualifies them, isn’t it logical that blemishes disqualify them? Therefore, the verse states: “This is that which pertains to the Levites,” from which it is derived: “This,” the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains to the Levites, and there is no other disqualification that pertains to the Levites.

יָכוֹל יְהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּסוּלִין בְּשָׁנִים? וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה לְוִיִּם שֶׁאֵין מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם – שָׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם, כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהַמּוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם״ – וְלֹא אֲשֶׁר לַכֹּהֲנִים.

One might have thought that priests would be disqualified with the passage of years. And ostensibly, could this not be derived through the following a fortiori inference: If Levites, with regard to whom blemishes do not disqualify them, the passage of years disqualifies them, then in the case of priests, with regard to whom blemishes disqualify them, isn’t it logical that the passage of years disqualifies them? Therefore, the verse states: “Which pertains to the Levites,” and not which pertains to the priests.

יָכוֹל אַף בְּשִׁילֹה וּבְבֵית עוֹלָמִים כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדַת עֲבוֹדָה וַעֲבֹדַת מַשָּׂא״, לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָעֲבוֹדָה בַּכָּתֵף.

One might have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years even in Shiloh, the permanent place of the Tabernacle, and in the eternal Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “To perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens” (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: I stated the disqualification of the passage of years only at a time when there is Levite service involving carrying the Tabernacle on their shoulders.

כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים״, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים. הָא כֵּיצַד? חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים לְתַלְמוּד, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים לַעֲבוֹדָה.

The baraita notes that one verse states: “From twenty-five years old and upward” (Numbers 8:24), and one verse states: “From thirty years old and upward” (Numbers 4:47). It is impossible to say thirty, as twenty-five is already stated, and it is impossible to say twenty-five, as thirty is already stated. How can these verses be reconciled? Twenty-five years old is the time for apprenticeship and thirty for service.

מִכָּאן לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה סִימָן יָפֶה בְּמִשְׁנָתוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְגַדְּלָם שָׁנִים שָׁלֹשׁ״, ״וּלְלַמְּדָם סֵפֶר וּלְשׁוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים״.

From here it is derived that a student who did not see a positive indication in his studies after five years will no longer see a productive result from those studies. Rabbi Yosei says that the period is three years, as it is stated with regard to Daniel and his cohort who instructed the king of Babylonia: “And they should be raised three years” (Daniel 1:5), “and he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1:4).

וְאִידַּךְ – שָׁאנֵי לְשׁוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים, דְּקַלִּיל. וְאִידַּךְ – שָׁאנֵי הִלְכוֹת עֲבוֹדָה, דְּתַקִּיפִין.

The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna explain the verses in Daniel? The Gemara answers: He holds that the verses in Daniel cannot be cited as a source for this principle because the language of the Chaldeans is different, as it is easy and can be learned in a shorter period. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei, explain the verses with regard to the Levites? The Gemara answers: He holds that the halakhot of Temple service are different, as they are difficult and require a longer period of study.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֵן מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּזְקִין – כָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה, וּמוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. בֶּן לֵוִי מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים וְעַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים כָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה, וְשָׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר, אֲבָל בְּשִׁילֹה וּבְבֵית עוֹלָמִים אֵין נִפְסָלִין אֶלָּא בְּקוֹל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַאי קְרָא?

The Sages taught in a baraita: A priest, from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs until he ages, is fit for Temple service, and blemishes disqualify him. A Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty is fit for Temple service, and the passage of years disqualifies him. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. But with regard to Shiloh and in the eternal Temple, Levites are disqualified only due to a change in voice that renders them unable to recite the songs in the Temple with their brethren. Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse from which this is derived?

״וַיְהִי כְאֶחָד לַמְחַצְּצרִים וְלַמְשֹׁרְרִים לְהַשְׁמִיעַ קוֹל אֶחָד״.

“It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard” (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service.

עַד שֶׁיַּזְקִין – עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: עַד שֶׁיְּרַתֵּת.

The baraita teaches that the priest is eligible for service until he ages. The Gemara asks: Until when, i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble.

תְּנַן הָתָם: בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁטָּבַל וְלֹא הֵטִיל מַיִם, לִכְשֶׁיָּטִיל – טָמֵא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּחוֹלֶה וּבְזָקֵן – טָמֵא, בְּיֶלֶד וּבְבָרִיא – טָהוֹר.

We learned in a mishna there (Mikvaot 8:4): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission who then immersed in a ritual bath and did not urinate before immersing, when he urinates he is ritually impure, because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of an ill person and an elderly person, he is ritually impure; in the case of a young person and a healthy person, he is ritually pure, as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset.

יֶלֶד עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כֹּל שֶׁעוֹמֵד עַל רַגְלוֹ אַחַת וְחוֹלֵץ מִנְעָלוֹ וְנוֹעֵל מִנְעָלוֹ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, שֶׁהָיָה בֶּן שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְהָיָה עוֹמֵד עַל רַגְלוֹ אַחַת וְחוֹלֵץ מִנְעָלוֹ וְנוֹעֵל מִנְעָלוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חַמִּין וָשֶׁמֶן שֶׁסָּכַתְנִי אִמִּי בְּיַלְדוּתִי הֵן עָמְדוּ לִי בְּעֵת זִקְנוּתִי.

Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who is able to stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe is considered young. They said about Rabbi Ḥanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִתְמַלֵּא זְקָנוֹ, רָאוּי לֵיעָשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחַ צִיבּוּר, וְלֵירֵד לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה, וְלִישָּׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו. מֵאֵימָתַי כָּשֵׁר לָעֲבוֹדָה? מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים.

The Sages taught: If one’s beard is fully grown, he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community for various matters, and to descend before the ark as a prayer leader, and to lift his hands for the Priestly Benediction. From when is a priest fit for Temple service? It is from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he is not fit for Temple service until he is twenty years of age.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲמִידוּ [אֶת] הַלְוִיִּם מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה לְנַצֵּחַ עַל מְלֶאכֶת בֵּית ה׳״, וְאִידַּךְ – ״לְנַצֵּחַ״ שָׁאנֵי.

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: “And appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest.

וְהָא הַאי קְרָא בִּלְוִיִּם כְּתִיב? כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מְקוֹמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ כֹּהֲנִים ״לְוִיִּם״, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: ״וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם בְּנֵי צָדוֹק״.

The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isn’t that verse written with regard to Levites? The Gemara answers: It is understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ לְדֹרֹתָם״, מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קָטָן פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ תָּם. מֵאֵימָתַי כָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה? מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אֲבָל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲבוֹד עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים.

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Any man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God” (Leviticus 21:17); from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor priest is unfit for Temple service, even if he is unblemished, as he is not a man. From when is he fit for service? From the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty years of age.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא רַבִּי הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ פָּסוּל דְּרַבָּנַן לֵית לֵיהּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבִּי אִית לֵיהּ פָּסוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וְהָא רַבָּנַן הִיא, וּלְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא דְּלָא, אֲבָל דִּיעֲבַד – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.

There are those who say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he is of the opinion that there is no disqualification for one between puberty and twenty years of age even by rabbinic law. The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service ab initio. And there are those who say: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that there is disqualification by rabbinic law in that case, and this statement in the baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, and they hold that it is ab initio that one may not perform the service, but after the fact, his service is valid.

מַתְנִי׳ טָהוֹר בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ – טָמֵא בְּכׇל הַכֵּלִים, טָהוֹר בְּכׇל הַכֵּלִים – טָמֵא בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ.

MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other types of vessels; that which is ritually pure in all the other types of vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֲוִיר כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ טָמֵא, וְגַבּוֹ טָהוֹר. אֲוִיר כׇּל הַכֵּלִים טָהוֹר, וְגַבָּן טָמֵא. נִמְצָא, טָהוֹר בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ טָמֵא בְּכׇל הַכֵּלִים, טָהוֹר בְּכׇל הַכֵּלִים טָמֵא בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of an earthenware vessel the vessel is ritually impure, and if it fell on its outer side, the vessel is ritually pure. If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of all the other types of vessels, the vessels are ritually pure, and if it fell on their outer side, they are ritually impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other vessels, and that which is ritually pure in all the other vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תּוֹכוֹ״, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls, whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell “in it [tokho],” and even in a case where the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָגַע? רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אַבְטוּלְמוֹס אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹכוֹ״ לְטַמֵּא, וְנֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹכוֹ״ לִיטַּמֵּא, מָה ״תּוֹכוֹ״ הָאָמוּר לְטַמֵּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע, אַף ״תּוֹכוֹ״ הָאָמוּר לִיטַּמֵּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע.

The baraita continues: Do you say that it is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, or perhaps it is impure only if it did come into contact with the vessel? Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: Tokho is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,” and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: “Into which [tokho] any of them falls”; just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, the food is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with it.

וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: הַתּוֹרָה הֵעִידָה עַל כְּלִי חֶרֶס

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, from where do we derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel