Pesachim 16a — the Talmud in English

For it was taught:

Exact page location")

Uncertain liquids

are impure [such as when 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. And they are

impure

because of the uncertainty.

And if there was a stick in his hand, and at the end of the stick there were impure liquids, 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

making others impure,

their uncertainty is treated leniently.

Therefore, the loaves are

pure

—

the words of Rabbi Meir!

For he holds that the impurity of the liquids themselves is from the Torah, as it is written: “And every liquid that will be drunk in any vessel shall become impure.” And uncertain impurity in a private domain is treated stringently. But the liquids make others impure only by rabbinic law. And a rabbinic uncertainty is treated leniently.

And Rabbi Elazar likewise used to say in accordance with his words.

Rabbi Judah says:

Even when the uncertainty arose as to whether the liquids made another thing impure,

every

matter: its uncertainty is

impure!

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

For he holds that the impurity of liquids to make others impure is from the Torah, and they make impure both vessels and food, as it is written: “And every liquid that will be drunk in any vessel shall make impure.”

And although it is written yitma—“shall become impure”—we regard it as though it were written yetamme—“shall make impure.”

And since it is juxtaposed to “any vessel,” it indicates that it makes even vessels impure.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

If the uncertainty is whether the liquids made

food

impure,

impure

is the food because of the uncertainty.

But if the uncertainty is whether the liquids made

vessels

impure, the vessels are pure because of the uncertainty.

For they hold that liquids make food impure from the Torah. Therefore, the food is impure because of the uncertainty, according to the law of uncertain impurity in a private domain, whose uncertainty is impure. But liquids make vessels impure from the Torah only by rabbinic law. And a rabbinic uncertainty is treated leniently.

And we raise an objection: Since it teaches, “And Rabbi Elazar likewise used to say in accordance with his words,” it follows that he holds that the impurity of liquids to become impure themselves is from the Torah.

And this is difficult:

and

if

Rabbi Elazar holds

that

liquids have impurity in the world

at all from the Torah?

But it was taught: Rabbi Elazar says:

From the Torah,

liquids have no impurity whatsoever!

Know that this is so, for Yosei ben Yo'ezer, the man of Zereda, testified concerning the “ram-hopper”

[a species 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]. For the blood and the water found in the slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard do not receive impurity, because the impurity of liquids is only rabbinic. And the Sages did not decree impurity upon liquids in the Temple courtyard, so that sacred things would not come to loss.

It follows that even their own impurity is not from the Torah. And how does it teach, “And Rabbi Elazar likewise used to say in accordance with his words”?

This works out for Shmuel, who says:

The liquids of the slaughterhouse are

pure

[pure] only

from making others impure.

But they do have their own impurity.

According to him,

properly

the view of Rabbi Elazar in the beraita cited above follows.

But according to Rav, who says: “

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 Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

That which it teaches, “And Rabbi Elazar likewise used to say in accordance with his words,” meaning the words of Rabbi Meir, does not mean that he agreed with all his words.

Rather, he stated

one

matter only.

He agreed with what Rabbi Meir said: “Uncertain liquids, with regard to making others impure, are pure,” since they do not make others impure by Torah law. But he did not agree with what Rabbi Meir said: “Uncertain liquids, with regard to becoming impure [with their own impurity], are impure.” Rather, even in this he would hold that their uncertainty is pure, since even their own impurity is not from the Torah.

And we refute this:

But “

And Rabbi Elazar used to say

in accordance with his words”

is what it says.

It implies “words”

many

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

And furthermore,

this is difficult:

But

“And

Rabbi Elazar

teaches,” and it implies that it refers to all Rabbi Meir’s words.

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

It is difficult!

The body of the matter: Rav said:

The liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard are

pure

[pure]

literally.

And Shmuel said: They are pure

only

from making others impure, but they do have their own impurity,

even in the Temple courtyard.

And we explain:

Rav said

“pure literally”,

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 Temple courtyard, they

did not decree,

so that sacred things would not come to loss.

And Shmuel said

“They are pure from making others impure, but they do have their own impurity,” for he holds: the impurity of liquids themselves

is

from the Torah.

And only the impurity of liquids

to make 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 Temple courtyard

to make others impure,

they did not decree it.

But they do have their own impurity,

from the Torah; therefore it applies even in the Temple courtyard.

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

[challenge him]: Is it so that

Shmuel said

that the liquids in the Temple courtyard are

“pure from making others impure, but they do have their own impurity”

from the Torah?

But if they have their own impurity, they make even other sacred things impure. And even if they do not make ordinary things impure, certainly they make sacred things impure.

For

here applies

“And the flesh that touches any impure thing—

it shall not be eaten”,

for in this the verse included everything that is itself impure, that it should make other sacred things impure through its contact.

Rav Shisha said:

It is not a general rule. Rather, it is properly possible to say that although the liquids are themselves impure, they do not make sacred things impure. The proof is:

Is there anything

like

a fourth degree

of impurity

in sacred things?

For although it itself is impure, nevertheless it does not make others impure.

Rav Ashi challenged Rav Shisha:

It is indeed a general rule: every impure thing makes sacred things impure. And different is

a fourth degree in sacred things,

for it

is not called

at all

“impure”,

but is called only “disqualified.” For impurity is not explicitly written concerning it; rather, we derive that it is disqualified by means of a kal va-chomer.

But

this

liquid, with regard to its own impurity,

is called

“impure”,

for it is written: “And every liquid that will be drunk in any vessel shall become impure,” and Shmuel interprets it as referring to its own impurity. Why should it not make sacred things 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 that is within it shall become impure, and it you shall break. Of all the food that is eaten, upon which water comes, it shall become impure,”

“and every liquid that will be drunk in any vessel”—

“shall become impure.”

Here it is explicit that the liquids became impure through the impure vessel, and at the very least they have their own impurity. And this is difficult for Rav.

And we answer: All the verse speaks only of the impurity of food. And

what

“shall become impure”

written concerning the liquid?—

It makes fit!

For food does not become impure unless it has been “made fit” through water or other liquids coming upon it.

And thus the verse says: Every food that comes within the vessel shall become impure only if that food was “made fit” through water or through every liquid that will be drunk.

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

made fit

the food to receive impurity was already

heard by you from the first part of the verse.

For it is written:

“Of all the food that is eaten

upon which water comes.”

And since it again writes, “And every liquid that will be drunk,” it proves that the verse is not referring to making fit, but comes to state the impurity of the liquids themselves. And this is difficult for Rav.

And we answer: In truth, even the latter part of the verse speaks concerning making fit, and both verses are necessary.

One verse [“And every liquid that will be drunk”] informs us concerning detached liquids, which have already been placed in a vessel, that they make food fit.

And one verse [“upon which water comes”] informs us concerning liquids attached to the ground, which have not yet been placed in a vessel, that they make fit.

And they are necessary

both verses, and one cannot be learned from the other.

For if it had informed us

of making fit

with detached liquids,

I would have said that specifically they make fit,

because we have considered them important,

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

But

liquids

attached, I would say not

make fit, because he did not consider them important.

And if it had taught

concerning

attached liquids

that they make fit, I would have said that specifically they make fit,

because they remain in their place

[they stand in their natural place and have not yet been uprooted from it], they are considered important.

But

detached liquids,

I would say

that they

are not

considered important, and therefore they would not make fit.

Therefore,

they are necessary

both of them, to inform us that all liquids make fit, whether detached or attached.

Come and hear:

It is written:

“But a spring and a pit, a gathering of water, shall be pure.”

For water attached to the ground does not receive impurity.

It follows that detached water does receive impurity. And this is difficult for Rav, who says that liquids do not have their own impurity from the Torah.

And we answer:

What

does the writing

“shall be pure”

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

And thus the verse says: If the impure person enters a spring or a pit, a gathering of water, he shall be pure

from his impurity.

And furthermore we ask: How do we establish for Rav the verse, “And every liquid that will be drunk in any vessel shall become impure,” as referring to making detached liquids fit?

And

detached liquids—

do they make food fit

from the Torah?!

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

in the Temple courtyard,

not only are they pure

[pure],

but

they also

do not

render

make food fit

to receive impurity!

And it occurred to us that this is because they are detached liquids. It follows that their making fit is only rabbinic, and in the Temple courtyard the Sages did not decree it, because of the loss of sacred things.

And we answer:

Interpret it—

establish that which it says, “The liquids of the slaughterhouse do not make fit,”

with regard to blood.

For sacrificial blood does not make fit. But water makes fit even when it is detached.

And as

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: From where is it derived that sacrificial blood does not make fit

food to receive impurity?—

As it is stated

concerning ordinary non-sacred blood:

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

To teach us: specifically

blood

of non-sacred animals that is

poured

for disposal

like water

is compared to water, and it

makes

food fit like water.