Pesachim 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

And Rav said: The priests erred!

They made a mistake in this matter. For the fourth degree of ritual impurity with regard to sacrificial food is disqualified by means of a kal va-chomer, as stated below [18b].

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

And even if we say that in the days of the prophet Haggai the Sages had already decreed ritual impurity upon liquids, and Haggai examined the priests even with regard to rabbinic ritual impurities, it is still difficult. For they did not issue a decree concerning liquids in the Temple courtyard, because of the loss of sacrificial items. And this is as Yosei ben Yo'ezer of Tzereida said.

And we answer:

The reason is only

that the entire objection applies

only ac

cording to the words of

Rav,

who said, “They are truly pure,” and also said, “The priests erred.” According to Rav, there is no difficulty.

For

Rav

teaches

“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 ritual impurity. But with regard to the liquids of the altar, such as the wine and oil used for libations, the Sages did decree ritual impurity.

And the verse concerning Haggai must necessarily be referring to rabbinic ritual impurities. For it is written there that the bread renders the stew impure, and the wine renders the oil impure. But food does not render food impure, nor does liquid render liquid impure, by Torah law; these impurities apply only by rabbinic law.

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

The essential matter: Rav said: The priests erred.

Their statement that the fourth degree of impurity with regard to sacrificial food is not impure was a mistake.

And Shmuel said: The priests did not err.

They answered correctly that it is not impure.

And we explain:

Rav said

“The priests erred”,

because Haggai asked them

about the fourth degree with regard to sacrificial food

and asked

them

whether it is impure.

For the creeping creature is a primary source of ritual impurity, the bread is a first-degree impurity, the stew is a second-degree impurity, the wine is a third-degree impurity, and the oil and the food are fourth-degree impurities. And the phrase “and to the oil and to any food” is stated with regard to separate cases: The wine touched the oil or the food.

And

they erred in this, as

they said to him

that it is

pure.

And Shmuel said: “The priests did not err,”

because the oil and the food are only fifth-degree impurities with regard to sacrificial food, as will be explained nearby. And Haggai asked

about the fifth degree with regard to sacrificial food

and asked

them

whether it is impure.

And

if so, they properly

said to him

that it is

pure.

We raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rav,

who said, “He asked them about the fourth degree with regard to sacrificial food,”

this is why it is written

in the verse that there are

four

items:

bread, stew, wine, and oil

or food.

But according to Shmuel,

who said, “He asked them about the fifth degree with regard to sacrificial food”—from where did he derive

five

items?

From where does he derive it?

But only four are written.

And we answer: Shmuel could say, Is it written

“and its wing touched

the bread,”

which would indicate that the creeping creature in the wing of his garment touched the bread and made the bread a first-degree impurity?

But

“and he touched with his wing

the bread” is what is written.

This implies that the wing itself did not touch the bread. Rather, it touched something else and made it a first-degree impurity. And the bread touched

that which his wing touched,

and thereby became a second-degree impurity. Consequently, the stew was third-degree impurity, the wine fourth-degree impurity, and the oil or food fifth-degree impurity.

We raise an objection:

Come and hear:

It is written afterward:

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

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

And it initially entered our minds that he asked them about one impure through contact with a corpse who rendered sacrificial items impure in the same sequence stated with regard to the creeping creature: One 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—whether the oil became impure or not. For in such a case the oil is fourth-degree impurity. And they properly answered him that it is impure.

And we conclude the objection:

Granted, according to Shmuel,

here, certainly, the priests did not err.

And

since they did not err here, there

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

they likewise did not err.

But according to Rav,

in both questions he asked them about the fourth degree with regard to sacrificial food.

If so, this is difficult:

What is the difference here,

with regard to the creeping creature,

that they erred,

and answered that the oil is pure,

and what is the difference there, with regard to

one impure through contact with a corpse,

that they did not err,

and answered correctly that the oil is impure?

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: They are well versed

—the priests—

in the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse,

and therefore they did not err in it. But

they are not well versed in the ritual impurity imparted by a creeping creature,

and therefore they erred by saying that the third degree does not generate a fourth degree with regard to sacrificial food.

Ravina said: There,

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

fourth-degree

impurity.

But

here,

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

third-degree

impurity with regard to sacrificial food. For that which is written, “If one impure through contact with a corpse touches,” is not referring to one impure through contact with a corpse, but to the corpse itself. It is the father of the fathers of ritual impurity, and the bread that it touched became a primary source of ritual impurity. Consequently, the stew was first-degree impurity, the wine second-degree impurity, and the oil third-degree impurity. The priests held that third-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food is impure, but not fourth-degree impurity.

We raise an objection:

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 deed of their hands, and that which they offer there is impure.”

Granted, according to Rav,

who said, “The priests erred,”

this is why it is written

that Haggai called the deed of their hands

“impure.”

But according to Shmuel, why

did he call

“impure”

the deed of their hands? They had answered him correctly according to the laws of ritual impurity.

And we answer:

He was expressing astonishment!

Haggai said it in the form of a rhetorical question. And this is what he meant: Since they are well versed in the laws of ritual impurity and do not err, is the deed of their hands impure?! Certainly it is pure.

We reject this:

But

“and so is every deed of their hands

and that which they offer there is impure,”

is written.

This does not sound like a rhetorical question.

Rather,

Mar Zutra said, and some say Rav Ashi: Haggai was not saying that the deed of their hands at that time was impure. Rather, he prophesied concerning the future.

Haggai was not saying that the work of their hands at that time was impure. Rather, he prophesied about the future.

Because they corrupted

during the Second Temple period

their deeds

through other sins,

Scripture considers it as though they had offered sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity.

The essential matter: Rav teaches

in the statement of Yosei ben Yo'ezer:

The liquids of the slaughterhouse

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

And Levi taught: The liquids of the altar

are pure! The liquids of the altar as well, such as the wine and oil used for libations, are pure.

And we say:

According to Levi, this works out well if he holds

like Shmuel, who said

“They are pure

[pure

from rendering other things impure, but they do have impurity themselves,”

the verses concerning Haggai are properly understood. First, he asked them about the creeping creature that touched the bread and made it a first-degree impurity; the bread touched the stew, the stew touched the wine, and the wine touched the oil. The wine itself is impure, since it has its own impurity by Torah law, but it does not render the oil impure, since the liquids of the altar do not render other things impure at all. They therefore properly answered him that the oil is not impure, and the priests did not err.

And when he added his question concerning one impure through contact with a corpse, he did not ask them according to this sequence. Rather,

it can be understood

that he asked them how

all of them touched

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

by

one who renders the

first degree

impure, namely, one impure through contact with a corpse. They therefore properly answered him that all of them are impure.

But if he holds

—Levi—

like Rav, who said

“They are truly pure,”

and maintains that even the wine used for libations and the oil of meal-offerings do not have impurity themselves—

how can it be understood

that the priests answered concerning wine and oil that became impure through contact with a corpse that they are impure? They do not have ritual impurity by Torah law at all, and the Sages did not issue a decree concerning liquids of sacrificial items.

And we conclude: Rather,

you must conclude

that Levi

holds like Shmuel,

and they do have impurity themselves.

And we say further:

And according to Shmuel,

who said, “The priests did not err,”

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

are pure,

but the liquids of the altar

[the oil and wine used for libations]

also render others impure.

For they render others impure by rabbinic law as well. This properly explains Shmuel’s interpretation that the oil is pure because it is fifth-degree impurity. The implication is that had the oil been fourth-degree impurity, it would have been impure, because only

the fourth degree does not make

the oil

fifth-degree

impurity. And although the oil received its impurity from the wine, which is one of the liquids of the altar, it properly became impure. Only the liquids of the slaughterhouse are pure from rendering others impure; the liquids of the altar do render others impure.

Thus, the third degree

does make a fourth degree!

But if he holds

—Shmuel—

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

are pure,” this is difficult:

Why specifically

does the wine not render the oil impure because

the fourth degree does not make a fifth degree?

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

Even

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

a second and third degree do not make one impure!

Why, then, did Shmuel need to say that the reason is that the oil is fifth-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food?

And we conclude: Rather,

you must conclude

that Shmuel

holds like Rav

in this matter.

It was taught in accordance with Rav’s opinion. And it was taught in accordance with Levi’s opinion.

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

all of which are

the liquids of the altar

[and are named after 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 one

took them outside,

and they had already become disqualified because 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 apply to them, since they are not included in the decree concerning liquids that render others impure.

But if

they became impure outside, even if one

even if one

brought them inside,

they are

impure

and render others impure. For as long as they are outside the courtyard, they are not included among the liquids of the altar. And once the status of impurity that renders others impure has applied to them, it does not subsequently depart.

We raise an objection:

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

they did not say

that they are

pure except in their place,

inside the Temple courtyard.

We consider 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

were then

were then taken outside?

Once they left, the impurity that renders others impure took effect retroactively. But this contradicts the explicit teaching in the beraita.

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

were then

were then brought inside.

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

And we ask again:

But “they did not say

“they were said only

‘except in their place’”

he said.

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

And we answer:

This is what he said: They did not say

that they are

pure except

when they

became impure in their place.

In such a case they remain pure even after they leave their place.

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

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

which are

the liquids of the slaughterhouse

in the Temple courtyard,

if they became impure, whether

they were

in vessels

or

whether

they were

on the ground,

they are

pure.