Pesachim 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

The Merciful One stated “And whatever touches anything that is upon the open field, whether it be one slain with a sword or one who died a natural death.” And from the fact that it is written

“with a sword” ,

the phrase “with a sword” indicates that the verse equated the impurity of the sword—and likewise that of every metal utensil—with the impurity of the corpse itself

, whose impurity is identical to that of the object that renders it impure. If the sword touched a corpse, it becomes an avi avot ha-tum'a. And if it touched one impure through contact with a corpse, who is an av ha-tum'a

A sword

(and likewise any metal utensil that touches a corpse) is

like the corpse itself!

It has the same degree of impurity as the object that renders it impure. If the sword touched a corpse, it becomes an avi avot ha-tum'a. And if it touched one impure through contact with a corpse [who is an av ha-tum'a]], it

becomes

also

an av ha-tum'a

like him.

[And this scriptural decree applies specifically to impurity imparted by a corpse, and not to other types of impurity.]

It follows that a metal lamp that touched one impure through contact with a corpse is an av ha-tum'a. Through contact with it, it renders the oil rishon le-tum'a. Previously, however, the oil had been only shlishi le-tum'a.

And he held

that Rabbi Akiva considered a

third degree

of impurity

permitted

even

to make it a first degree!

Thus, he adds to the statement of Rabbi Hanina, Deputy High Priest, who said only that a third degree may be made into a second degree.

And we raise an objection:

What compelled him

[what necessity was there] for Rav Yehuda

to establish

Rabbi Akiva’s statement

with regard to a metal lamp?

Let us establish it with regard to an earthenware lamp, which becomes no more than a first degree. This would teach us that it is permitted to make third-degree oil into second-degree oil.

And

And

as for the difficulty you raised,

what did

Rabbi Akiva add beyond Rabbi Hanina, Deputy High Priest?—It is not difficult.

There are three levels of impurity.

a. With ordinary food, we find only a second degree of impurity. Ordinary food that touches a second degree does not become a third degree.

b. With teruma, a second degree makes a third degree. But a third degree does not disqualify a fourth degree.

c. With sacrificial food, even a third degree makes a fourth degree and disqualifies it.

Therefore, Rabbi Akiva properly added to the statement of Rabbi Hanina, Deputy High Priest.

For there,

with regard to sacrificial food, when third-degree sacrificial meat touches other sacrificial meat, it makes that meat fourth-degree impure and disqualifies it. Thus, meat that became impure through a derivative of a derivative of impurity and became third-degree is not merely unfit for consumption; it is also considered “impure,” capable of disqualifying other sacrificial meat that touches it.

Therefore, even when the third degree is made into a second degree because it touched meat that had become impure through an av ha-tum'a, no new law of impurity is added to it. For from the outset, while it was still third-degree, it was

impure. And

even now it

is impure.

For this reason, it is permitted to make the third degree into a second degree.

But here,

with regard to teruma, a third degree does not disqualify the teruma that touches it. A second degree, however, does disqualify the teruma that touches it and makes it third-degree impure. Thus, the third-degree oil disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day had not previously been impure in a manner capable of rendering other things impure; it was

merely unfit

until then.

Now, when it becomes second-degree through the lamp, a new law is added to it: from this point onward, it also

is impure

in a manner capable of rendering others impure;

it

has become so.

One might have thought that for this reason it should be forbidden to make it second-degree. Rabbi Akiva therefore adds that we are not concerned about this.

If so, there is a difficulty: Why did Rav Yehuda need to say that Rabbi Akiva added that a third degree may be made into a first degree?

Rava said: The Mishna posed a difficulty to Rav Yehuda

.

For if we are dealing with an earthenware lamp, which becomes only first-degree impure,

why particularly

does it teach

“a lamp that became impure through contact with one impure through contact with a corpse”?

Let it teach

“a lamp”

“that became impure,”

and no more. It would be self-evident that it became impure through one of the primary sources of impurity, such as a creeping animal and the like, since a derivative of impurity does not render utensils impure. What difference is there whether it became impure through one impure through contact with a corpse or through a creeping animal?

Rather,

infer from here:

What object has a distinction in its impurity between

becoming impure

through the impurity of

one impure through contact with a

corpse and

becoming impure through a

creeping animal?—

You must say: This is

a

metal utensil!

For if it became impure through a creeping animal, it is first-degree impure. But if it became impure through one impure through contact with a corpse, it becomes an av ha-tum'a, and oil that touches it becomes first-degree impure.

This proves that Rabbi Akiva came to teach us that a third degree may even be made into a first degree.

Rava said:

Since it teaches, “Rabbi Akiva added,”

infer from here that Rabbi Akiva holds: The impurity of liquids, rendering

other

things

impure,

is by Torah law.

He added that it is permitted to make third-degree teruma into a first degree that renders others impure by Torah law.

[This is a dispute below as to whether liquids render others impure by Torah law.]

For if it enters your mind

that liquids render others impure only

by rabbinic law,

consider: What benefit does this lamp provide to this oil?

What deterioration has it added to it?

If it is to disqualify the oil itself,

that

is

already

disqualified and stands

as a result of having become impure through one who immersed that day, and it is destined to be burned.

Even though it was previously third-degree and has now become first-degree, its status has not changed in any respect.

Rather, necessarily, by making it first-degree, a law of impurity capable of rendering others impure has been added to it.

Therefore, it renders others impure by Torah law.

And we refute this:

From where

do you know that it is by Torah law?

Perhaps

it adds a deterioration by rendering it impure even

so as to render others impure by rabbinic law!

This difficulty applies only according to the one who says that “food does not impart impurity to food.” But according to the one who says that it does impart impurity, there is no difficulty at all. For Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest, says that it is permitted to make a third-degree impurity into a second-degree impurity by Torah law. This is a greater innovation than Rabbi Akiva’s statement, since Rabbi Akiva permitted making it only first-degree impure by rabbinic law. What, then, did Rabbi Akiva add? This raises a difficulty against the interpretation of Tosafot [see note 10 to 14a], that the entire give-and-take concerning Rabbi Akiva follows the opinion that “food imparts impurity to food.” Penei Yehoshua.

And we answer:

If

there is an addition of impurity

by rabbinic law

alone,

why particularly does it state, “a lamp that became impure

“a lamp that became impure

through

one impure through contact with a corpse,” which is

an av ha-tum'a?

In fact,

even when the oil is lit with an object that is only

when the oil is lit with an object that is only

first

or

second

degree impure,

also the oil

becomes

first-degree

[first-degree impure]

and is capable of rendering others impure by rabbinic law. For the Sages decreed concerning liquids that even if they touched a second degree, they become first-degree.

As we learned: The Sages decreed concerning several things that they have the status of second-degree impurity. Such things disqualify teruma.

As we learned: The Sages decreed concerning several matters and assigned them the status of second-degree impurity. And they disqualify teruma.

second-degree impurity

Every

second degree

that disqualifies teruma

renders liquids first-degree

, and capable of rendering others impure. Since liquids readily become impure, as they do not require “preparation by liquids” as food does, the Sages imposed numerous stringencies upon them, so that the priests would be careful to guard them.

Except for one who immersed that day

. Although his status is that of a second degree and he disqualifies teruma, the Sages did not decree that he make liquids first-degree. His impurity is by Torah law, and the words of the Torah require no reinforcement.

Rather, since Rabbi Akiva discusses a lamp that is an av ha-tum'a, he necessarily comes to teach that it is permitted to render the oil impure even with an impurity capable of rendering others impure by Torah law.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir said: From their words we learned

And

infer from here that the impurity of liquids, in rendering others impure,

is by Torah law.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir said: We learned from their words

that pure teruma may be burned together with impure teruma on Passover.

And we inquire:

From whose words

did we learn this?

If you say, from the words of Rabbi Hanina, Deputy High Priest, who said, “They did not refrain from burning meat that became impure through an av ha-tum'a together with meat that became impure through a derivative of impurity”—this cannot teach the matter under discussion.

impure.

Are the cases comparable?

But

there,

the meat that became impure through a derivative was already

impure.

And

when it touches meat that became impure through an av, it is

impure

as it had been. Although previously it was third-degree and now becomes second-degree, its status has not changed in any respect.

But

here,

with regard to teruma hametz, it was initially

pure.

And

if it is burned together with impure teruma, it will become

impure!

Maharsha, who found their words difficult: Why did they ask that perhaps Rabbi Meir derived his ruling from Rabbi Hanina’s statement and compared prohibition to ritual impurity? Prohibition is merely like disqualification [as they themselves write below, on 15a]. The discussion here makes clear that one cannot derive the law of disqualification from the law of impurity. They should have asked only that perhaps Rabbi Meir derived his ruling from Rabbi Akiva’s statement, which discusses disqualified oil, and compared disqualification to prohibition. Rather, Rabbi Meir learned the law of leaven from the words of Rabbi Akiva that there. For there, the oil disqualified by one who immersed that day was initially merely disqualified. It was not impure in a manner that could impart impurity to others, since it was third-degree impure, and a third-degree impurity does not make teruma fourth-degree impure. But now, when it is placed in the impure lamp, it becomes first-degree impure and becomes impure even in the sense that it can impart impurity to others. It is therefore evident that once an object is destined to be burned, it is permitted to add a law of impurity that it did not previously have. The same applies to pure teruma leaven: it is permitted to make it impure [even during the sixth hour, when its prohibition is only rabbinic]. Nevertheless, there is a difficulty: Are these cases comparable?

Rather, Rabbi Meir derived the law concerning hametz from Rabbi Akiva’s statement

.

For there, the oil disqualified through one who immersed that day had originally been merely disqualified. It was not impure in a manner capable of rendering others impure, since it was third-degree, and a third degree does not make sacrificial food fourth-degree. Now, however, when it is placed in the impure lamp, it becomes first-degree and becomes impure even in a manner capable of rendering others impure.

Thus, since it is destined to be burned, it is permitted to add to it a law of impurity that it did not previously possess. The same applies to pure teruma hametz: it is permitted to render it impure [even during the sixth hour, when its prohibition is only rabbinic].

Nevertheless, there is a difficulty:

Are these cases comparable

to one another?

There,

the oil had initially been

disqualified,

and therefore it is permitted to make it

impure.

But

here,

with regard to hametz, the teruma hametz had initially been

entirely pure

.

And

perhaps it is forbidden to make it

impure.

Let us say that Rabbi Meir holds that the Mishna is discussing the burning of meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity by Torah law, together with meat that became impure through a derivative of impurity by rabbinic law [such as a utensil that became impure through impure liquids

And we answer:

Let us say that Rabbi Meir holds

that the

Mishna

is discussing the burning of meat that became impure

through an av ha-tum'a by Torah law, together with meat that became impure through a

derivative of

impurity by rabbinic law

[such as a vessel that became impure through impure liquids . By Torah law, a vessel does not become impure through first-degree impure liquids. The Sages decreed that such liquids render a vessel impure, as a preventive decree due to the liquids of a zav, which are an av ha-tum'a].

For by Torah law,

the meat

is completely pure.

Rabbi Hanina teaches us that it is permitted to render it impure even through a first degree by Torah law. For even the impurity through which it became impure now is only rabbinic, since by Torah law food does not render food impure. And by rabbinic law it was already impure in any event. Thus, no novel law of impurity was added to it.