Chullin 25a — the Talmud in English

And even if

the earthenware vessel

was full

of small grains of

mustard,

all the mustard became impure.

And it is proven that although the earthenware vessel touches only the grains adjacent to its walls, nevertheless all the grains are impure, since they entered into the interior space of the impure earthenware vessel.

And if so, it is proven that “its interior,” stated with regard to “to render impure,” means that although the earthenware vessel did not touch the food that entered it, the food became impure through the interior space of the vessel.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let an earthenware vessel become impure from its outside,

so that if impurity touched the outside of the earthenware vessel, the earthenware vessel should be impure,

by a kal va-chomer: Just as all vessels, which do not become impure through their airspace,

for if the impurity did not touch them but merely entered the airspace, into their interior space, the vessels did not become impure, nevertheless they are

rendered impure from their outside,

for if impurity touched them, even from outside, the vessels became impure.

An earthenware vessel,

which is more stringent,

which becomes impure through its airspace,

even though the impurity did not touch it,

is it not logical that it should become impure

that it should receive impurity

from its outside?!

And we answer:

The verse says

with regard to a vessel found in the tent of the corpse, “

And every open vessel upon which there is no tightly attached cover—

“it is impure.” And we expound from “open”:

Which vessel is such that its impurity precedes its opening?

That is, whose opening causes impurity for it?

You must say that this is an earthenware vessel,

with regard to which it is stated that it receives impurity from a creeping creature that enters it.

And when there is no tightly attached cover upon it,

when it is not tightly covered,

it is impure,

and because the impurity of the corpse, which is in the tent, penetrates into the interior space of the vessel,

but

if

there is a tightly attached cover upon it,

so that the covering is firmly attached to it—

the earthenware vessel is pure,

because the impurity cannot enter the closed vessel. And although the impurity touches the outside of the vessel, it remains pure. And it is proven that an earthenware vessel does not receive impurity from its outside, but only from its interior.

And furthermore, we consider this:

Let all vessels become impure through their airspace,

even though the impurity did not touch them, but merely entered into their interior space,

by a kal va-chomer:

Just as an earthenware vessel, which does not become impure from its outside, becomes impure through its airspace, all vessels

that are more stringent than it,

which become impure from their outside—is it not logical that they should become impure through their airspace?!

And we answer:

The verse says

with regard to an earthenware vessel,

“ its interior”

to exclude:

The interior of this one, but not the interior of another.

For the other vessels, apart from an earthenware vessel, do not become impure through impurity that enters into the interior of the vessel without touching it.

And we object:

But these “its interior” expressions—behold,

already

we expounded them,

for two “its interior” expressions were stated. One is for its own matter, to teach about an earthenware vessel that renders impure through its interior. And the second teaches from it by a gzera shava, as we say: “Its interior is stated with regard to rendering impure, and its interior is stated with regard to becoming impure.” If so, no superfluous “its interior” remains to exclude “the interior of this one but not the interior of another”?

And we resolve:

Four “its interior” expressions are written.

That is, each of the two “its interior” expressions contains two expositions. How?

“Its interior”—

“interior, its interior”—

“interior.”

For it could have written “interior,” but it wrote “its interior”; thus each “its interior” contains two expositions, and the two “its interior” expressions contain four expositions.

One

“its interior” comes

for its own matter,

and this is the “its interior” written with regard to the impure earthenware vessel, that all food within it becomes impure. And from it we learn that even if the vessel did not touch the food, the food became impure, for the Torah testified concerning an earthenware vessel that everything within it becomes impure, even if it was full of grains of mustard.

And one—

for a gzera shava:

the “its interior” written with regard to the receiving of impurity by an earthenware vessel is used to learn the gzera shava, “its interior to render impure, its interior to become impure,” that the vessel becomes impure through impurity in its interior space, even though it did not touch it.

And one—

to expound

“the interior of this one, but not the interior of another.” And one—

to expound:

“Its interior, but not the interior of its interior.”

For if a vessel were placed inside an impure earthenware vessel [an oven], and food were inside the inner vessel, the food would not become impure. Since that food is not located inside the impure earthenware vessel, but inside the vessel located inside the earthenware vessel.

And even

if the inner vessel were

a vessel of rinsing,

that is, one of the other vessels that are not earthenware vessels, also

protects

the food within it, so that it does not become impure from the outer vessel, because of “its interior, but not the interior of its interior.” And the food is regarded as though it is located in the “interior” of the vessel and not in the “interior” of the oven [but only in the “interior of its interior”], and therefore it does not become impure through the airspace of the oven, which renders impure with the impurity of a creeping creature.

For we do not say that a vessel of rinsing, which receives impurity from its outside, itself becomes impure from the earthenware vessel because its outside touches the earthenware vessel, and therefore lacks the power to interpose before the impurity of the earthenware vessel, preventing it from rendering the food inside the vessel of rinsing impure. For in truth the vessel of rinsing does not receive impurity from the earthenware vessel, since the law is that a vessel receives impurity only from a source of impurity, whereas here the earthenware vessel is merely a first degree of impurity.

And furthermore, we consider this:

Let all vessels not become impure from their outside, but

only

from their interiors, and through contact,

so that only if the impurity entered into the vessel and also touched the vessel there should the vessel be impure,

by a kal va-chomer:

Just as an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure through its airspace, does not become impure from its outside, all vessels, which do not become impure through their airspace,

as we derive from “the interior of this one, but not the interior of another,”

is it not logical that they should not become impure from their outside?!

The verse says, “And every open vessel upon which there is no tightly attached cover is impure,”

and we expound from “it”:

this one,

that is, specifically an earthenware vessel, about which the verse speaks [as we derive it from “Which vessel is such that its impurity precedes its opening?”]

it

is what we say:

when there is no tightly attached cover upon it, it is impure

it.

But when there is a tightly attached cover upon it, it is pure

it. For thus we learned above, that an earthenware vessel does not receive impurity from its outside.

But all vessels

this law was not stated concerning them; rather,

whether there is a tightly attached cover upon them or whether there is no tightly attached cover upon them, they become impure.

For they receive impurity from their outside, and therefore even if the vessel were closed, it becomes impure through its outside, which is in the tent of the corpse and receives impurity from it.

Mishna:

A vessel made of wood that has no receptacle, although it is a complete vessel and is fit for use, does not receive impurity.

And if it has a receptacle, it receives impurity from the time that it is fit for its intended use, even though the work of the vessel has not been entirely completed.

Whereas a vessel made of metal has the opposite law: as long as the work of the vessel has not been entirely completed, it does not receive impurity. And if the vessel is complete, then even if it has no receptacle, it receives impurity.

We learn: that

what is pure with regard to a wooden vessel—

is impure with regard to a metal vessel.

And

what is pure with regard to a metal vessel—

is impure with regard to a wooden vessel.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Unfinished wooden vessels,

whose work has not been entirely completed,

are impure.

That is, they are fit to receive impurity!

Their flat forms

of wooden vessels, that is, those that have no receptacle, even if their work has been completed—

are pure,

for they do not receive impurity!

Unfinished metal vessels—

are pure,

whereas

their flat forms—

are impure!

It follows:

that

what is pure with regard to a wooden vessel—

is impure with regard to a metal vessel!

And

what is pure with regard to a metal vessel—

is impure with regard to a wooden vessel!

And these are unfinished wooden vessels: anything that is destined—

to be rubbed smooth,

to rub the vessel.

to be ornamented,

to make settings in it.

to be scraped,

to smooth it.

to have circles engraved in it,

to engrave circles in it.

to be rubbed with tunas,

to rub it with the skin of a fish called tunas.

And likewise, if the vessel was—

lacking a stand,

so that it has no base upon which it can stand properly.

Or

lacking

a rim

so that the vessel had no lip.

Or

lacking

a handle

by which the vessel is held—

it is

impure.

But if the vessel was

lacking hollowing,

so that its receptacle had not yet been hollowed out in it, it is

pure.

And the Gemara analyzes:

“Lacking hollowing”—

it is obvious

that it is pure, for there is still no beginning of a vessel here!?

And we resolve:

It is necessary

for the beraita to teach us, but in a case of

one who hollowed out a kaviz in a kav.

For he intended to make a receptacle containing a kav, which is four log, but meanwhile he hollowed it to a depth containing only three log, which is already fit for use. However, since it is not yet fit for the use for which it is intended, for the hollowing has not been completed as he intended, the vessel is therefore considered as one whose work has not been completed, and it does not receive impurity.