Pesachim 14b — the Talmud in English

The Torah states: "

And anything that touches a person slain in the open field, or one killed by a sword, or one who died naturally." Since it writes

“by a sword,”

the verse equated the ritual impurity of the sword—and this means every metal utensil—with the ritual impurity of the corpse itself.

A sword

and likewise any metal utensil that touches a corpse

is like the corpse!

Its impurity is therefore equal to that of the object that imparts impurity to it. If the sword touches a corpse, it becomes a primary source of ritual impurity of the highest degree. And if it touches one who is impure through contact with a corpse [who is a primary source of ritual impurity],

it becomes

also

a primary source of ritual impurity

like him.

This special decree of the Torah applies specifically to impurity imparted by a corpse, and not to other types of impurity.

It follows that a metal lamp that touched one who is impure through contact with a corpse is a primary source of ritual impurity. Through contact with it, it makes the oil a first-degree impurity, whereas previously the oil had been only a third-degree impurity.

And Rabbi Akiva held

that

a third-degree

impurity is

permitted

even

to be made into a first-degree impurity!

It follows that he added to the statement of Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest, who said only that a third-degree impurity may be made into a second-degree impurity.

And we raise a difficulty:

What forced him

to interpret [what forced Rav Yehuda]

to establish

Rabbi Akiva’s statement

as referring to a metal lamp?

Let us establish it as referring to an earthenware lamp, which can become only a first-degree impurity. In that case, Rabbi Akiva teaches us that it is permitted to make the third-degree oil into a second-degree impurity.

And

if you ask

why

did he add

more than Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest—this is not difficult.

There are three levels of impurity:

a. With regard to non-sacred food, we find only a second-degree impurity. But non-sacred food that touches a second-degree impurity does not become a third-degree impurity.

b. With regard to teruma, a second-degree impurity causes a third-degree impurity. But a third-degree impurity does not disqualify a fourth-degree impurity.

c. With regard to sacrificial food, even a third-degree impurity causes a fourth-degree impurity and disqualifies it.

Therefore, Rabbi Akiva did indeed add to the statement of Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest.

For there,

with regard to sacrificial food, when a third-degree impurity touches another piece of sacrificial meat, it makes that meat a fourth-degree impurity and disqualifies it. It follows that meat which became impure through a derivative of a derivative of impurity and thereby became third-degree impure is not merely disqualified from being eaten; it is also considered “impure,” so that it can disqualify other sacrificial meat that touches it.

Therefore, even when the third-degree impurity becomes second-degree because it touched meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity, no new law of impurity has been added to it. For from the outset, while it was still third-degree impure, it was

impure. And

even now it

is impure.

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

But here,

with regard to teruma, a third-degree impurity does not disqualify teruma that touches it. A second-degree impurity, however, does disqualify teruma that touches it and makes it third-degree impure. It follows that the third-degree oil disqualified by one who immersed that day had until then not been impure in a manner that could impart impurity to other objects; it had merely been

disqualified

and nothing more.

Now, when the oil becomes second-degree impure through the lamp, a new law is added to it: from now on it is also

impure

in a manner that can impart impurity to others;

it

has become so.

One might have said that for this reason it should be prohibited to make it second-degree impure. 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 impurity may be made into a first-degree impurity?

Rava said: The Mishna was what posed the difficulty

to Rav Yehuda.

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

why specifically

does it teach

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

Let it teach

“a lamp”

“that became impure,”

and no more. It would then be self-evident that it became impure through one of the primary sources of impurity, such as a creeping animal or the like, since a derivative of impurity cannot impart impurity to utensils. And what difference is there between a lamp that became impure through one impure through contact with a corpse and one that became impure through a creeping animal?

Rather,

come and understand:

What object has a different degree of impurity depending on whether it became

impure

through the impurity of one impure through contact with a

dead body

or

whether it became 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 a primary source of ritual impurity, and the oil that touches it becomes first-degree impure.

It is evident, then, that Rabbi Akiva came to teach us that a third-degree impurity may even be made into a first-degree impurity.

Rava said:

Since the Mishna teaches, “Rabbi Akiva added,”

it follows that Rabbi Akiva holds: The impurity of liquids that enables them to impart impurity to

objects

other

objects

is a matter of Torah law.

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

There is a dispute below as to whether liquids impart impurity to other objects by Torah law.

For if it enters your mind

that liquids impart impurity to others only

by rabbinic law,

consider: What benefit does this lamp provide this oil?

What deterioration has it added to the oil?

If it is to disqualify the oil itself,

that

that

it was already

disqualified and in that state,

because it became impure through one who immersed that day, and it is destined to be burned.

Although previously it was third-degree impure and now it becomes first-degree impure, its legal status has not changed at all.

Rather, it must be that by making it first-degree impure, an additional law of impurity has been added to it: the ability to impart impurity to others.

It is therefore evident that it imparts impurity to others by Torah law.

And we challenge this:

From where

do we know that this is by Torah law?

Perhaps

it adds a deterioration to the oil by making it capable of imparting impurity to others

by rabbinic law!

только по постановлению мудрецов, почему именно «лампа, осквернённая осквернённым умершим», который является отцом нечистоты?

And we answer:

If

there is here an addition of impurity

by rabbinic law

alone,

why specifically

“a lamp that became impure

through

one impure through contact with a corpse,” which is

a primary source of impurity?

The same would be true

even

—

first-degree

or

second-degree

impure;

also

then the oil

initially [

first-degree impure]

becomes, and imparts impurity to others by rabbinic law. For the Sages decreed that liquids become first-degree impure even when they touch a second-degree impurity.

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

Every

second-degree impurity

that disqualifies teruma—

makes liquids become initially impure

and able to impart impurity to others. Since liquids are easily susceptible to impurity, as they do not require “preparation for impurity” like food, the Sages imposed great stringency upon them, so that the priests would take care to guard them.

Except for one who immersed that day.

Although his status is like that of a second-degree impurity and he disqualifies teruma, the Sages did not decree that he make liquids initially impure. This is because his impurity is by Torah law, and the words of the Torah do not require reinforcement.

Rather, since Rabbi Akiva discussed a lamp that is a primary source of impurity, he must have come to teach that it is permitted to make the oil impure even with an impurity capable of imparting impurity to others by Torah law. And it follows that the impurity of liquids that enables them to impart impurity to others

. 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.

is by Torah law.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir said: From their words we learned

that on Passover one burns pure teruma together with impure teruma.

And we inquire about this:

From whose words

did we learn this?

If you say, from the words of Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest,

who said, “They did not refrain from burning meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity together with meat that became impure through a derivative of impurity”—this cannot teach us the law under discussion.

Are the cases comparable?

After all,

there,

the meat that became impure through a derivative was already

impure.

And

when it touches meat that became impure through a primary source, it remains

impure

as it was. Although previously it was third-degree impure and now it becomes second-degree impure, its legal status has not changed at all.

But

here,

with regard to teruma leaven, initially it was

pure.

And

if it is burned with impure teruma, it will become

impure!

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?

pure.

And

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

impure!

И отвечаем: скажем, что рабби Меир полагает, что Мишна говорит о сжигании мяса, осквернённого

There,

the oil had been

disqualified

from the outset, and therefore it is permitted to make it

impure.

But

here,

with regard to leaven, the teruma leaven was initially

completely pure.

And

perhaps it is prohibited 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

And we answer:

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

which had touched it . By Torah law, a utensil does not become impure through liquids that are first-degree impure. The Sages decreed that they make a utensil impure, as a preventive decree because of the liquids of a man with a discharge, which are a primary source of impurity].

For by Torah law

the meat is

entirely pure.

Rabbi Hanina teaches us that it is permitted even to make it impure through a first-degree impurity by Torah law. For even the impurity through which it has now become impure is only by rabbinic law, since by Torah law food does not impart impurity to food. By rabbinic law, it was already impure in any event. It follows that no new law of impurity has been added to it.

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.