Pesachim 17a — the Talmud in English

And Rav said: “The priests were mistaken!”

They erred in this matter. For the fourth degree with regard to sacred things is disqualified by a kal va-chomer, as stated below [18b].

And this is difficult: is it not the case that liquids do not have impurity by Torah law? If so, the priests correctly declared the wine and the oil pure, since they are liquids. Why, then, did Rav say that the priests were mistaken?

And even if we say that in the days of the prophet Haggai the Sages had already decreed impurity upon liquids, and Haggai examined the priests even with regard to impurity by rabbinic law, it is still difficult. For with regard to liquids in the Temple courtyard they did not decree impurity, because of the loss of sacred things, as Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida said.

And we answer:

Is that the reason

—indeed, the entire difficulty is

only according to

the words of

Rav,

who said, “pure ממש,” and also said, “the priests were mistaken.” But according to Rav’s approach there is no difficulty at all.

For

Rav

taught

“the liquids of the slaughterhouse”

in the statement of Yosei ben Yo’ezer. Only with regard to the water and blood in the slaughterhouse did they not decree impurity. But with regard to the liquids of the altar, such as the wine and oil of the libations, the Sages did decree impurity.

And the verse of Haggai must necessarily be speaking of impurity by rabbinic law. For it is written there that the bread renders the stew impure, and the wine renders the oil impure. But, according to Torah law, food does not render food impure, nor does liquid render liquid impure; this is only by rabbinic law.

Therefore Rav properly said, “the priests were mistaken.” For at least by rabbinic law they should have declared it impure.

The body of the matter: Rav said: “The priests were mistaken.”

For what they said concerning the fourth degree with regard to sacred things—that it is not impure—was an error.

And Shmuel said: “The priests were not mistaken.”

And they answered correctly that it is not impure.

And we explain:

Rav said

“the priests were mistaken”,

because Haggai asked them

about the fourth degree with regard to sacred things

Haggai

from them,

whether it is impure.

For the creeping creature is a primary source of impurity, the bread is a first degree, the stew is a second degree, the wine is a third degree, and the oil and the food are fourth degrees. And that which is taught, “and to the oil and to every food,” is stated with regard to separate possibilities: the wine touched the oil or the food.

And

they erred in this, for

they said to him

that it is

pure.

And Shmuel said: “The priests were not mistaken,”

because the oil and the food were only a fifth degree with regard to sacred things, as he explains shortly. And Haggai asked them

about the fifth degree with regard to sacred things

Haggai

from them,

whether it is impure.

And

if so, they properly

said to him

that it is

pure.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rav,

who says, “He asked them about the fourth degree with regard to sacred things,”

this is why it is written

in the verse

four

things:

bread, stew, wine, and oil

or food.

But according to Shmuel,

who says, “He asked them about the fifth degree with regard to sacred things”—

five

things,

from where does he derive it?

But only four are written.

And we answer: Shmuel could say to you, but is it written

“did the corner of his garment”

“touch

the bread,” from which you could infer that the creeping creature in the corner of his garment touched the bread and the bread became a first degree?

But

“and it touched the bread with its corner”

is written.

And this implies that the corner itself did not touch the bread. Rather, it touched something else and made it a first degree. And the bread touched

that which the corner had touched,

and became a second degree. It follows that the stew was a third degree, the wine a fourth degree, and the oil or the food fifth degrees.

And we challenge this:

Come and hear:

It is written afterward,

“And Haggai said: If one impure through contact with a corpse touches any of these, will it become impure?

And the priests answered and said: It will become impure!”

And it entered our minds that he asked them about one impure through contact with a corpse who rendered sacred things impure in the same order stated with regard to the creeping creature: the person impure through contact with a corpse touched the bread, the bread touched the stew, the stew touched the wine, and the wine touched the oil—is the oil impure or not? For in such a case the oil is a fourth degree. And they properly answered him that it is impure.

And we resolve the difficulty:

Granted, according to Shmuel,

here the priests certainly were not mistaken.

And

since here they were not mistaken, there

[in Haggai’s first question concerning the creeping creature]

too they were not mistaken.

But according to Rav,

in both questions he asked them about the fourth degree with regard to sacred things.

And if so, this is difficult:

what is different here,

with regard to the creeping creature,

that they were mistaken

and answered that the oil is pure,

and what is different there, with regard to

one impure through contact with a corpse,

that they were not mistaken,

and answered correctly that the oil is impure?

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: “They are experts

the priests

in impurity imparted by a corpse,

and therefore they did not err concerning it. But

they are not experts in impurity imparted by a creeping creature,

and therefore they erred concerning it, saying that the third degree does not produce a fourth degree with regard to sacred things.”

Ravina said: “There,”

with regard to impurity imparted by a creeping creature, the oil was

a fourth degree

of impurity.

But

here,

with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, the oil was

a third degree

with regard to sacred things. For that which is written, “If one impure through contact with a corpse touches,” is not speaking of a person impure through contact with a corpse, but of the corpse itself. And it is the father of the fathers of impurity. And the bread that it touched became a primary source of impurity. It follows that the stew was a first degree, the wine a second degree, and the oil a third degree. And the priests held that a third degree with regard to sacred things is impure, but not a fourth degree.

And we challenge this:

Come and hear:

It is written afterward,

“And Haggai answered and said: So is this people, and so is this nation before Me, declares the Lord,

and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is impure.”

Granted, according to Rav,

who says, “The priests were mistaken,”

this is why it is written

that Haggai called the work of their hands

“impure.”

But according to Shmuel, why

does he call

“impure”

the work of their hands? Yet they answered him according to the law concerning the laws of impurity.

And we answer:

He is expressing astonishment!

Haggai said it in the language of astonishment. And this is what he said: Since they are experts in the laws of impurity and do not err, is the work of their hands impure?! It is certainly pure.

And we reject this:

But

“and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is impure,”

and what they offer there is impure”

is written

and it does not sound like the language of astonishment.

Rather,

Mar Zutra said, and some say Rav Ashi:

Haggai did not say that the work of their hands at present was impure. Rather, he prophesied concerning the future.

Since they corrupted

during the time of the Second Temple

their deeds

through other sins,

Scripture considers it for them as though they had offered in impurity.

The body of the matter: Rav taught

in the statement of Yosei ben Yo’ezer:

“The liquids of the slaughterhouse

are pure!” The blood and water in the slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard are pure.

And Levi taught: “The liquids of the altar

are pure!” Even the liquids of the altar, such as wine and oil for libations, are pure.

And we say:

For Levi, this works well if he holds

like Shmuel, who says

“pure

[pure]

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

the verses of Haggai are explained well. At first he asked them about the creeping creature that touched the bread and made it a first degree, and the bread touched the stew, and the stew touched the wine, and the wine touched the oil. The wine itself was impure, since it has its own impurity by Torah law. But it did not render the oil impure, since the liquids of the altar do not render others impure at all. And they properly answered him that the oil is not impure, and the priests were not mistaken.

And when he added to ask them about one impure through contact with a corpse, he did not ask them according to this order. Rather,

it can be found

that he asked them how

all of them touch

the bread and the stew [the wine, the oil, and the food], each one separately,

with

the impure

first degree,

namely, the person impure through contact with a corpse. And they properly answered him that all of them are impure.

But if he holds

Levi

like Rav, who says

“they are truly pure,”

and he holds that even the wine of the libations and the oil of the meal-offerings do not have their own impurity—

how can it be found

that the priests answered concerning wine and oil that became impure through impurity imparted by a corpse that they are impure? After all, they have no impurity by Torah law at all, and the Sages likewise did not decree impurity upon liquids of sacred things.

And we conclude: Rather,

necessarily,

Levi

holds like Shmuel,

and they have their own impurity.

And we say further:

And for Shmuel,

who says, “The priests were not mistaken,”

this works well if he holds like Rav, who taught: ‘The liquids of the slaughterhouse

are pure,

but the liquids of the altar

[oil and wine for libations]

also become impure.”

For they also render others impure by rabbinic law. The explanation Shmuel gave—that the oil is pure because it is a fifth degree—then works well. And it implies that had the oil been a fourth degree, it would have been impure, because specifically

a fourth degree does not make

the oil

a fifth degree,

and although the oil received its impurity from the wine, which is among the liquids of the altar, it properly became impure. For only the liquids of the slaughterhouse are pure from rendering others impure, whereas the liquids of the altar do render others impure.

Thus, a third degree—

does make a fourth degree!

But if Shmuel holds

Shmuel

like Levi, who taught, “The liquids of the altar

are pure,” this is difficult:

why specifically

does the wine not render the oil impure because

a fourth degree does not make a fifth degree?

The wine does not render the oil impure under any circumstances.

Even

if the wine were a first degree, it would not render it impure, since the liquid of the altar is pure from rendering others impure. And

even a second and a third do not make [a subsequent degree]!

Why, then, did Shmuel need to say as the reason that the oil is a fifth degree with regard to sacred things?

And we conclude: Rather,

necessarily,

Shmuel

holds like Rav

in this matter.

It was taught in accordance with Rav’s view, and it was taught in accordance with Levi’s view.

It was taught in accordance with Levi’s view: The blood, the wine, the oil, and the water,

all of which are

the liquids of the altar

[and they are called by the name of the altar because the blood is sprinkled upon it, the wine and water are poured as libations upon it, and the oil is offered together with the meal-offerings]—

if they became impure inside

the Temple courtyard, even if

he took them outside,

and they had already become disqualified through the disqualification of being taken outside, they are

pure

from rendering others impure. For when they became impure inside, the status of impurity that renders others impure did not descend upon them, since they are not included in the decree concerning liquids to render others impure.

But if

they became impure outside, even if

even if one

he brought them inside,

they are

impure

to render others impure. For as long as they are outside the Temple courtyard, they are not included among the liquids of the altar. And once the status of impurity that renders others impure had already descended upon them, it does not subsequently depart.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: “The liquids of the altar—

they did not say

about them that they are

pure except in their place

inside the Temple courtyard.”

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

Does this not mean that it comes

to exclude liquids of the altar that

the liquids of the altar area that

became impure inside and

afterward

he took them outside?

For after they went outside, impurity that renders others impure retroactively took effect upon them. But this is difficult, since the beraita explicitly teaches otherwise.

And we answer:

No,

this is not what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said.

Rather, it comes

to exclude liquids of the altar that

the liquids of the altar area that

became impure outside, and

afterward

he brought them inside.

While they were outside, complete impurity had already descended upon them, and it does not subsequently depart.

And we challenge again:

But “they did not say except

“they were said only

in their place”

he says.

This implies that as long as they are in their place they are pure, but no longer afterward.

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: “They did not say

that they are

pure, except

when they

became impure in their place.

For in such a case they are pure even after they leave their place.

In any event, it teaches: “The liquids of the altar are pure,” like Levi.

It was taught in accordance with Rav’s view: The blood and the water,

which are

the liquids of the slaughterhouse

in the Temple courtyard,

if they became impure, whether

when they are

in vessels,

or

whether

when they are

on the ground,

they are

pure.