Pesachim 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught in a beraita:

Liquids of uncertain status

are impure [for example, an impure person extended his feet toward pure liquids, and it is uncertain whether he touched them or did not touch them]—with regard to

becoming impure

with their own impurity, their uncertainty is treated stringently. Therefore, they are

impure

due to the uncertainty.

If he had a stick in his hand, and impure liquids were on the end of the stick, and he threw it among pure loaves, and it is uncertain whether the liquids touched the loaves or did not touch them— since the matter under discussion is with regard to

rendering others impure,

their uncertainty is treated leniently.

Therefore, the loaves are

pure

—

the statement of Rabbi Meir!

For he holds that the impurity of liquids themselves is by Torah law, as it is written: “And any liquid that is drunk in any vessel shall become impure.” Uncertain impurity in a private domain is treated stringently. However, liquids render others impure only by rabbinic decree, and an uncertainty concerning a rabbinic law is treated leniently.

And Rabbi Elazar likewise would state in accordance with his words.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Even when the uncertainty concerns whether the liquids rendered something else impure,

in every

matter, its uncertainty is

impure!

Whether it is uncertain whether they rendered food impure, or whether it is uncertain whether they rendered vessels impure.

For he holds that the impurity of liquids, with regard to rendering others impure, is by Torah law, and they render both vessels and food impure. For it is written: “And any liquid that is drunk in any vessel shall become impure.”

Although it is written yitma—“shall become impure”—we regard it as though it were written yetamme—“shall render impure.”

And since the verse juxtaposes this law to “any vessel,” it indicates that liquids render even vessels impure.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

If the uncertainty concerns whether the liquids rendered

food

impure, the

food is impure

due to the uncertainty.

But if the uncertainty concerns whether the liquids rendered

vessels

impure, the vessels are pure due to the uncertainty.

For they hold that liquids render food impure by Torah law. Therefore, the food is impure due to the uncertainty, in accordance with the law of uncertain impurity in a private domain, whose uncertain status is impure. However, liquids render vessels impure by Torah law only; rabbinically, and an uncertainty concerning a rabbinic law is treated leniently.

And we raise an objection: Since it teaches, “And Rabbi Elazar likewise would state in accordance with his words,” it is evident that he holds that the impurity of liquids themselves is by Torah law.

This is difficult:

and

does

Rabbi Elazar hold

that

liquids have any impurity at all

by Torah law?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says:

By Torah law,

liquids have no impurity whatsoever!

Know this, for Yosei ben Yo’ezer, man of Tzereida, testified concerning the “ayal kamsa”

[a type of locust], that it is

pure

[pure] and fit to eat.

And

he likewise testified

concerning the liquids of the slaughterhouse

that they are

pure

[pure]. The blood and water found in the slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard do not become impure, because the impurity of liquids is only rabbinic. The Sages did not decree impurity upon liquids in the courtyard, so that consecrated offerings would not come to loss.

Thus, even their own impurity is not by Torah law. How, then, does it teach, “And Rabbi Elazar likewise would state in accordance with his words”?

This works out according to Shmuel, who said:

The liquids of the slaughterhouse

are pure

[pure] only

with regard to rendering others impure.

But they do have their own impurity.

According to him, the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the beraita cited above

works out well

.

But according to Rav, who said: “

The liquids of the slaughterhouse

are pure

[they themselves are pure]

literally,”

and they do not even have their own impurity—

what can be said?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

When it teaches, “And Rabbi Elazar likewise would state in accordance with his words,” meaning the words of Rabbi Meir, he did not agree with all of his words.

Rather,

with regard to one

matter בלבד he spoke.

He agreed with Rabbi Meir’s statement, “Liquids of uncertain status are pure with regard to rendering others impure,” since they do not render others impure by Torah law. But he did not agree with Rabbi Meir’s statement, “Liquids of uncertain status are impure with regard to becoming impure [with their own impurity].” Rather, he would hold that even in this regard their uncertain status is pure, because even their own impurity is not by Torah law.

And we refute this:

But it says, “

And Rabbi Elazar would state

in accordance with his words,”

it says.

This implies “words”

in the plural

[a plural expression], which means the two laws stated above.

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

But it says,

“And so

would Rabbi Elazar,”

it teaches, implying that it refers to all of Rabbi Meir’s words.

And we conclude:

It is

difficult!

The discussion itself: Rav said:

The liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard

are pure

[pure]

literally.

And Shmuel said: They are pure

only with regard to

rendering others impure, but they do have their own impurity,

even in the courtyard.

And we explain:

Rav said

“they are literally pure”

because

he holds:

All

impurity of liquids

is only

rabbinic.

And when the Sages decreed,

they decreed only concerning ordinary liquids.

But

concerning the liquids of the slaughterhouse

in the courtyard, they

did not decree,

so that consecrated offerings would not come to loss.

And Shmuel said:

“They are pure with regard to rendering others impure, but they do have their own impurity,” for he holds that the impurity of liquids themselves

is

by Torah law.

Only the impurity of liquids with regard to

rendering others impure

is

rabbinic.

And when the Sages decreed, they decreed concerning ordinary liquids,

they decreed. But

concerning the liquids of the slaughterhouse they did not decree.

And when the Sages did not decree

in the courtyard

to render others impure,

they did not decree.

But they do have their own impurity,

by Torah law; therefore, this law applies even in the courtyard.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to his son: When you enter before Rav Pappa, raise this objection to him

[challenge him]: Does

Shmuel really say that the liquids in the courtyard are

“

pure with regard to rendering others impure, but they do have their own impurity”

by Torah law?

For if they have their own impurity, they render even other consecrated offerings impure. Even if they do not render non-sacred food impure, they certainly render consecrated offerings impure.

For

here applies the verse:

“And the flesh that touches anything impure

shall not be eaten,”

for in this verse the Torah included everything that is itself impure, so that it renders other consecrated offerings impure through contact.

Rav Shisha said:

This is not an absolute rule. Rather, it is entirely possible to say that although the liquids are themselves impure, they do not render consecrated offerings impure. The proof is:

Is it anything

like

the fourth degree

of impurity

with regard to consecrated offerings?

Although it is itself impure, it nevertheless does not render others impure.

Rav Ashi challenged Rav Shisha:

The rule is indeed absolute: everything impure renders consecrated offerings impure. But the case of

the fourth degree with regard to consecrated offerings is different,

for it

is not called

in general

“impure,”

but is called only “disqualified.” For it is not explicitly described as impure; rather, we derive by a kal va-homer that it is disqualified.

But

this liquid, with regard to its own impurity,

is

called

“impure,”

for it is written, “And any liquid that is drunk in any vessel shall become impure,” and Shmuel interprets this as referring to its own impurity. Why, then, should it not render consecrated offerings impure?

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

Come and hear:

It is written concerning an earthenware vessel that became impure through a creeping creature: “Everything inside it shall become impure, and you shall break it. Of all the food that may be eaten, upon which water comes, it shall become impure,”

“and any liquid that is drunk in any vessel”—

“shall become impure.”

It is explicit that the liquids became impure through the impure vessel, and at the very least they have their own impurity. This is a difficulty according to Rav.

And we answer: The entire verse is speaking only of the impurity of food.

And what is the meaning of

“shall become impure”

as written with regard to the liquid?

It renders the food fit

for contracting impurity, for food does not become impure unless it has first been made fit through water or other liquids coming upon it.

And this is what the verse is saying: Any food that enters the vessel becomes impure only if that food has been made fit through water or through any liquid that is drunk.

And we raise a difficulty: But the fact that the liquid

made the food fit

to contract impurity has already

been understood from the first clause of the verse.

For it is written:

“Of all the food that may be eaten

upon which water comes.”

And since it again writes, “and any liquid that is drunk,” it is evident that the verse is not referring to making food fit; rather, it comes to state the impurity of liquids themselves. This is a difficulty according to Rav.

And we answer: Actually, the latter clause of the verse also speaks of making food fit, and both verses are necessary.

One verse—“and any liquid that is drunk”—teaches us concerning detached liquids, which have already been placed in a vessel: They render food fit.

And the other verse—“upon which water comes”—teaches us concerning liquids attached to the ground, which have not yet been placed in a vessel: They too render food fit.

And both verses are necessary,

and one cannot be derived from the other.

For had it taught us that food is made fit by liquids

of uncertain status

that are detached,

I would have said that only such liquids render food fit,

because they have been deemed significant: by filling them into a vessel, one demonstrates that they are significant to him.

for by filling them in a vessel, he reveals that they are important to him.

But

with regard to liquids

attached to the ground, one might say that they do not

render food fit, because he has not deemed them significant.

And had it taught

with regard to liquids

attached

to the ground that they render food fit, I would have said that only they render food fit,

because they remain in their place

[they remain in their natural place and have not yet been removed from it], and therefore they are significant.

But

with regard to liquids

that are detached, one might say

that they are

not

considered significant, and therefore they do not render food fit.

Therefore,

both verses are necessary

to teach us that all liquids render food fit, whether they are detached or attached.

Come and hear:

It is written,

“But a spring or a pit, a gathering of water, shall remain pure.”

This teaches that water attached to the ground does not contract impurity.

Thus, detached water does contract impurity. This is a difficulty according to Rav, who says that liquids do not have their own impurity by Torah law.

And we answer: What is the meaning of

“shall remain”

as it is

written,

“pure”? It does not refer to the water, but to the impure person who enters it.

And this is what the verse is saying: If an impure person enters a spring or a pit of gathered water, he shall become pure

from his impurity.

And we raise another difficulty: How can Rav interpret the verse, “And any liquid that is drunk in any vessel shall become impure,” as referring to making detached liquids fit?

And

do

detached liquids really render food fit

by Torah law?!

But Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: The liquids of the slaughterhouse

in the courtyard

not only are they pure

[pure],

but

they

also do not

render

food fit

to contract impurity!

And it had initially entered our minds that this is because they are detached liquids. Thus, their ability to render food fit is only rabbinic, and in the courtyard the Sages did not decree it, because of the potential loss of consecrated offerings.

And we answer:

Interpret it—

the statement, “The liquids of the slaughterhouse do not render food fit”—

as referring to blood.

The blood of consecrated offerings does not render food fit. But water renders food fit even when it is detached.

And as

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it derived that the blood of consecrated offerings does not render food fit

to contract impurity?

As it is stated

with regard to ordinary blood:

“You shall pour it upon the ground like water.”

This teaches us that specifically

ordinary blood that is

of non-sacred animals that is

poured

to waste

like water

is compared to water, and it

renders food fit

like water.