פסחים יט

פסחים יט

בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּנָגַע בְּשֵׁנִי. רְבִיעִי מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר, כִּדְאָמְרִינַן.

any impure thing shall not be eaten” (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.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סָבַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, נִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: רְבִיעִי בַּתְּרוּמָה וַחֲמִישִׁי בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ.

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’s opinion on this issue.

אֶלָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לָא סָבַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְנָלַן?

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’s a fortiori inference and holds that teruma assumes fourth-degree impurity status and consecrated items assume fifth-degree impurity status.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּלָא לִישְׁתְּמִיט תַּנָּא וְלִיתְנֵי רְבִיעִי בַּתְּרוּמָה וַחֲמִישִׁי בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ, וְנֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא. וַאֲנַן אַהָכִי נֵיקוּם וְנִסְמוֹךְ?!

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’s opinion be cited from the fact that no such tanna was found? Perhaps there is some source for that halakha.

נְפַק רַב אָשֵׁי, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַב כָּהֲנָא, דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח הָא דִּתְנַן: הַכְּלִי מְצָרֵף אֶת מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ לַקּוֹדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה. וְהָרְבִיעִי בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ פָּסוּל, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי בַּתְּרוּמָה.

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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵעֵדוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נִשְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ. (דְּתַנְיָא:) הוֹסִיף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הַסּוֹלֶת וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַגֶּחָלִים, שֶׁאִם נָגַע טְבוּל יוֹם בְּמִקְצָתָן פָּסַל אֶת כּוּלָּן.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

רְבִיעִי אִין, חֲמִישִׁי לָא. שְׁלִישִׁי אִין, רְבִיעִי לָא.

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.

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: צֵירוּף דְּרַבָּנַן. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חָנִין, דְּאָמַר: צֵירוּף דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כַּף אַחַת עֲשָׂרָה זָהָב מְלֵאָה קְטֹרֶת״, הַכָּתוּב עָשָׂה כׇּל מַה שֶּׁבַּכַּף אַחַת.

The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan disputes that statement of Rabbi Ḥanin, who said: Joining in a vessel is a halakha by Torah law, as it is stated: “One golden spoon of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:20). The verse rendered everything in the spoon, i.e., all the incense, as one entity.

תְּנַן הָתָם: עַל מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּבָּשָׂר, שֶׁהַסַּכִּין וְהַיָּדַיִם — טְהוֹרוֹת, וְהַבָּשָׂר טָמֵא. נִמְצֵאת בַּפֶּרֶשׁ — הַכֹּל טָהוֹר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: זָכִינוּ שֶׁאֵין טוּמְאַת יָדַיִם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.

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’s 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.

וְנֵימָא: שֶׁאֵין טוּמְאַת יָדַיִם וְכֵלִים בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: יָדַיִם קוֹדֶם גְּזֵירַת כֵּלִים נִשְׁנוּ.

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 Ḥanina: 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.

אָמַר רָבָא: וְהָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם גָּזְרוּ, דִּתְנַן: הַסֵּפֶר וְהַיָּדַיִם וְהַטְּבוּל יוֹם וְהָאוֹכָלִין וְהַכֵּלִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּמַשְׁקִין!

Rava said: But weren’t 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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הַנַּח לְטוּמְאַת סַכִּין, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּחוּלִּין נָמֵי לָא מְטַמֵּא. הַאי סַכִּין דִּנְגַע בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דִּנְגַע בְּבָשָׂר — הָא אֵין אוֹכֶל מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, וְאֶלָּא דִּנְגַע בְּמַחַט — וְהָא אֵין כְּלִי מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי!

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.

הַאי מַחַט מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ? אִי נֵימָא סְפֵק מַחַט, וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵק הָרוּקִּין שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְחַד אָמַר: לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵק הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

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’t it stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina? 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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָבְדָה לוֹ מַחַט טְמֵא מֵת, וְהִכִּירָהּ בַּבָּשָׂר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה פָּרָה חֲסוּמָה, וּבָאָה מִחוּץ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם.

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.

גּוּפָא. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵק הָרוּקִּין שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְחַד אָמַר: לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵק הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. רוּקִּין תְּנֵינָא, כֵּלִים תְּנֵינָא!

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 Ḥanina, 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’im add to the earlier tannaitic rulings?

רוּקִּין תְּנֵינָא, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הָרוּקִּין הַנִּמְצָאִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל שׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן! לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיתַּחְזַק זָב.

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.

כֵּלִים תְּנֵינָא, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְבֵית הַטְּבִילָה — טְמֵאִין. הָא דְּעָלְמָא — טְהוֹרִין!

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.

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: דֶּרֶךְ עֲלִיָּה — טְהוֹרִין. הָא דְּעָלְמָא — טְמֵאִין!

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.

אֶלָּא: רֵישָׁא דַּוְקָא, וְסֵיפָא לָאו דַּוְקָא. וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי גָּזְיָיתָא.

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.

וּלְרַב דְּאָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָבְדָה לוֹ מַחַט טְמֵא מֵת וְהִכִּירָהּ בַּבָּשָׂר, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: ״בַּחֲלַל חֶרֶב״, חֶרֶב הֲרֵי הוּא כֶּחָלָל — אָדָם וְכֵלִים נָמֵי לִיטַמֵּא!

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: “One who is slain with a sword” (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.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת עֲזָרָה רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הִיא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְכׇל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר.

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’s 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.

הָא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא הוּא. מִכְּדֵי הַאי מַחַט דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל הוּא. וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר!

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.

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי סְפֵק טוּמְאָה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סְפֵק טוּמְאָה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם

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 Yoḥanan stated another principle: In a case of uncertainty with regard to impurity that comes about by means of a person,