Chullin 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

And even if

the earthenware vessel was

full

of small grains of

mustard,

all the mustard became impure.

This proves that although the earthenware vessel touches only the grains adjacent to its walls, nevertheless all the grains become impure, since they entered the space of the impure earthenware vessel.

If so, it is proven that the “inside” stated with regard to “rendering impure” means that although the earthenware vessel did not touch the food that entered it, the food became impure through the vessel’s interior space.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: Let an earthenware vessel become impure through its back,

so that if impurity touched the back of an earthenware vessel, the earthenware vessel should become impure,

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

for if the impurity did not touch them but merely entered the airspace within them, the vessels did not become impure, nevertheless they

become impure through their backs,

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

an earthenware vessel,

which is more stringent,

as it becomes impure through its airspace,

even when the impurity did not touch it,

is it not logical that it should become impure

[that it should contract impurity]

through its back?

And we answer:

The verse states

with regard to a vessel located in a tent containing a corpse: “And every open vessel that has no tightly attached cover on it”

“is impure.”

And we derive from the word “open”:

Which vessel is one whose impurity precedes its opening?

That is, whose opening causes it to become impure?

You must say that this is an earthenware vessel,

as it is stated with regard to it that it contracts impurity from a creeping creature that enters it.

And when it has no tightly attached cover on it,

when it is not tightly sealed,

that is when it is impure,

because the impurity of the corpse present in the tent penetrates into the vessel’s interior space;

but

if

it has a tightly attached cover on it,

with the cover firmly attached to it,

it is pure

—the earthenware vessel—because the impurity cannot enter the closed vessel. And although the impurity touches the back of the vessel, it remains pure. This proves that an earthenware vessel does not contract impurity through its back, but only through its interior.

We further examine this matter:

Let all vessels become impure through their airspace,

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

by means of a kal va-chomer:

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

which are more stringent than it,

as they become impure through their backs, is it not logical that they should become impure through their airspace?

And we answer:

The verse states

with regard to an earthenware vessel:

“Its inside”

to exclude:

“The inside of this one,” but not the inside of another.

Other vessels, apart from earthenware vessels, do not become impure through impurity that enters the vessel’s interior without touching it.

And we challenge this:

And these expressions “its inside,”

have they not already

been expounded

—as two expressions of “its inside” are stated? One is expounded in its own context, to teach that an earthenware vessel renders impure through its interior. The other teaches through a gzera shava, as we said: “The word ‘its inside’ is stated with regard to rendering impure, and the word ‘its inside’ is stated with regard to becoming impure.” If so, no expression of “its inside” remains superfluous to exclude “the inside of this one, but not the inside of another.”

And we answer:

Four expressions of “its inside” are written.

That is, each of the two expressions of “its inside” contains two derivations. How so?

“Its inside”—

“inside,” “its inside”—

“inside.”

The Torah could have written merely “inside,” but wrote “its inside”; thus each expression of “its inside” yields two derivations, and the two expressions of “its inside” yield four derivations.

One

expression of “its inside” comes

for its own context,

and this is the “its inside” written with regard to an impure earthenware vessel, whose every food item inside it becomes impure. From this we learn that even if the vessel did not touch the food, the food becomes impure, as the Torah attested 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 expression “its inside” written with regard to an earthenware vessel’s contracting impurity is used for the gzera shava: “The word ‘its inside’ is stated with regard to rendering impure, and the word ‘its inside’ is stated with regard to becoming impure,” teaching that the vessel becomes impure through impurity in its interior space, even when the impurity did not touch it.

And one

is expounded as:

“The inside of this one, but not the inside of another.” And one

is expounded as:

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

If a vessel was placed inside an impure earthenware vessel [an oven], and there was food inside the inner vessel, the food did not become impure. Since that food was not located inside the impure earthenware vessel, but inside the vessel located within the earthenware vessel,

and even

if the inner vessel was

a non-earthenware vessel,

that is, one of the other types of vessels that are not earthenware vessels, it too

protects

the food inside it from becoming impure through the outer vessel, by virtue of “its inside, but not the inside of its inside.” The food is considered to be located in the “inside” of the vessel, and not in the “inside” of the oven [but only in the inside of the inside]; therefore, it does not become impure through the oven’s airspace, which imparts impurity through a creeping creature.

We do not say that the non-earthenware vessel, which contracts impurity through its back, itself becomes impure from the earthenware vessel because its back touches the earthenware vessel, and therefore it lacks the power to interpose before the impurity of the earthenware vessel so that it will not render the food inside the non-earthenware vessel impure. For in truth, the non-earthenware vessel does not contract impurity from the earthenware vessel, since the law is that a vessel contracts impurity only from an av ha-tuma; here, the earthenware vessel is merely a rishon le-tuma.

We further examine this matter:

And let all vessels not become impure through their backs, but

only

through their insides, and through contact,

so that the vessel would become impure only if the impurity entered the vessel and also touched the vessel there,

by means of a kal va-chomer:

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

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

is it not logical that they should not become impure through their backs?

The verse states: “And every open vessel that has no tightly attached cover on it is impure,”

and we derive from the word “is”:

this one,

that is, specifically an earthenware vessel, about which the verse is speaking [as we derived it from “Which vessel is one whose impurity precedes its opening?”]

is

what we say

that when it has no tightly attached cover on it, it is impure.

It

but when it has a tightly attached cover on it, it is pure

—it is pure. For we learned above that an earthenware vessel does not contract impurity through its back.

But all other vessels

are not subject to this law; rather,

whether they have a tightly attached cover on them or whether they do not have a tightly attached cover on them, they become impure.

Since they contract impurity through their backs, even if the vessel was closed, it becomes impure through its back, which is located in the tent containing the corpse and contracts impurity from it.

Mishna:

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

If it has a receptacle, it contracts impurity from the moment it is fit for its designated use, even if the vessel’s construction has not been completed entirely.

A vessel made of metal has the opposite law: As long as the vessel’s construction has not been completed entirely, it does not contract impurity. But if the vessel is complete, it contracts impurity even if it has no receptacle.

We learn from this 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 construction has not been completed entirely,

are impure.

That is, they are fit to contract impurity.

Unfinished flat wooden vessels

—that is, vessels that have no receptacle—even if their construction has been completed,

are pure,

as they do not contract impurity.

Unfinished metal vessels

are pure,

whereas

flat vessels

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 smoothed,

to rub down the vessel.

To be inlaid,

to make inlaid patterns in it.

To be scraped,

to smooth it.

To be engraved,

to carve circles in it.

To be polished with a tunas,

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

And likewise if the vessel was—

lacking a stand,

as it had no base on which it could stand properly;

or

lacking an

rim

that had no lip along the vessel;

or

lacking a

handle

by which the vessel is held—

it is

impure.

But if the vessel was

lacking hollowing,

as its receptacle had not yet been carved, it is

pure.

And the Gemara analyzes:

Lacking hollowing—

it is obvious

that it is pure, since there is not yet even the beginning of a vessel here!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for the beraita to teach this only in a case where

he hollowed out a kavzai in a kav.

He intended to make a receptacle holding a kav, which is four log, but in the meantime he hollowed it to a depth holding only three log, so that it is already fit for use. However, since it is not yet fit for the use for which it was intended, as the hollowing has not been completed according to his intention, the vessel is considered unfinished and does not contract impurity.