Pesachim 17b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says:

when they are

in vessels

they are

impure.

But when they are

on the ground

they are

pure!

For Rabbi Shimon follows his reasoning, as he holds that the impurity of liquids is from the Torah. Therefore, the Sages could not be lenient concerning the liquids of the slaughterhouse. And the reason for declaring them pure when they are on the ground will be explained below.

In any event, the first tanna explicitly stated like Rav, that the liquids of the slaughterhouse are pure. But not the liquids of the slaughtering house.

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that the impurity of liquids

is

from the Torah,

in any event

the liquids of the slaughterhouse

are pure. Because

it is a halakha that was received,

yes, and it is not a leniency of the Sages.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But

according to your words, there is a difficulty from

what Rabbi Elazar said: There is no impurity whatsoever for liquids

from the Torah.

Know this, for Yosei ben Yo'ezer, a man of Tzereidah, testified concerning the liquids of the slaughterhouse

that they are

pure [

pure].

From the fact that the Sages were lenient with the liquids in the Temple courtyard, so that they should not render [others] impure, Rabbi Elazar proved that their impurity is not from the Torah but from rabbinic law. For if this were not so, the Sages could not have removed a Torah impurity because of the loss of sacred objects.

And if

it is as you say, that

it is a received halakha

that they are pure—

do we derive from it

that the impurity of liquids is not from the Torah? And how did Rabbi Elazar prove this from Yosei ben Yo'ezer’s testimony? After all, even if the impurity of other liquids is from the Torah, the liquids of the slaughterhouse are pure by a halakha transmitted from Moses at Sinai.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi,

and he raised another difficulty against Rav Pappa’s words:

But Rabbi Shimon

is the one

who says that the impurity of liquids is from the Torah.

And

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

If it is uncertain whether the liquids rendered

vessels

impure, the vessels are

pure.

Because liquids render vessels impure only by rabbinic law, and they did not decree concerning uncertainty.

If it is uncertain whether the liquids rendered

food

impure, the food is

impure

by uncertainty! Because liquids render food impure by Torah law, and uncertain impurity in a private domain is impure.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon holds that the impurity of liquids to render food impure is from the Torah.

And

if

here Rabbi Shimon said

that the liquids of the slaughterhouse which are

in vessels

are

impure.

And if they are

on the ground

they are

pure.

Necessarily, his reason is that liquids in vessels are impure by Torah law, while liquids on the ground are impure only by rabbinic law, as will be explained nearby. And in the Temple courtyard they did not decree.

And if

it is as Rav Pappa said, that the statement “the liquids of the slaughterhouse are pure”

is a halakha—

what difference is it to me

whether they are

in vessels, and what difference is it to me

whether they are placed

on the ground?

And we conclude: what Rav Pappa said is

difficult!

Rav Pappa said:

That which you said, “

Rabbi Shimon says:

those on the ground are pure,”

was taught

only concerning water,

for when it is connected to the ground, it has the status of a ritual bath.

But

with

blood,

which does not have the status of a ritual bath,

he did not

say this. Rather, it is impure in every case. For Rabbi Shimon holds that the impurity of liquids is from the Torah.

And

even with

water as well, we said

that “those on the ground are pure”

only

where

there is

the measure of

a quarter-log,

for although immersion of a person requires, by Torah law, a measure of forty seah [as we derive from “all his flesh,” water in which his entire body can be immersed], for immersion of vessels a quarter-log suffices by Torah law. And since

it is suitable to immerse needles and spindles in it [

with which gold is spun], they have the status of a ritual bath by Torah law as long as they are connected to the ground. And the water of the ritual bath does not receive impurity.

But

if

there is not

in the water the measure of

a quarter-log,

they do not have the status of a ritual bath at all. Therefore they are

impure.

[The fact that we hold that the measure for the impurity of liquids is a quarter-log applies only to rendering others impure. But they have their own impurity in any amount. Rashi.] And Rabbi Shimon holds that Yosei ben Yo'ezer testified concerning water connected to the ground of the Temple courtyard that, if it contains the measure of a quarter-log, it does not become impure. For its impurity is not from the Torah, since it has the status of a ritual bath. But by rabbinic law they disqualified it even for the immersion of vessels, until it contains a measure of forty seah.

And since by rabbinic law it does not have the status of a ritual bath, it is impure by rabbinic law. But water of the slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard does not become impure even by rabbinic law, for they did not decree concerning it because of the loss of sacred objects.

The Master said:

Uncertain liquids are impure; they themselves are impure because uncertain impurity in a private domain is impure. But with regard to rendering others impure, their uncertainty is pure—these are the words of Rabbi Meir, because the impurity of liquids to render others impure is only rabbinic, and they did not decree concerning uncertainty.

Rabbi Yehuda says: For everything

—their uncertainty is

impure!

Whether it is uncertain that they rendered food impure or uncertain that they rendered vessels impure, the food and the vessels are impure by uncertainty. Because uncertain impurity is from the Torah, and in a private domain its uncertainty is impure.

And we ask:

Does this mean that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the impurity of liquids to render vessels impure

is

from the Torah?

And

this cannot be said.

For

we learned: All vessels that have a back and an inside [

which are fit for use both on their inside and on their back],

such as pillows, cushions, sacks, and leather bags [

leather sacks], if impurity touched the inside of the vessel and

its inside became impure,

it became impure

also

on its back.

But if

its back became impure ,

its inside did not become impure

through this.

And Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case are these words stated [

that its inside did not become impure]? Where

the vessels became impure

through

impure liquids.

But

if

they

became impure through a creeping creature—

if

its inside became impure, it became impure

also

its back.

And if

its back became impure, it became impure

also

its inside.

And we conclude our difficulty: this works if the impurity of liquids to render vessels impure is only rabbinic [a decree because of the liquid of one with a discharge, such as his spittle and urine, which render vessels impure by Torah law]; Rabbi Yehuda properly distinguished between a vessel that became impure through liquids and a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature.

For if it became impure through liquids, whose impurity is only rabbinic, the Sages were lenient in their decree and said that if its back became impure, its inside did not become impure. Because they did not wish to make their impurity entirely equivalent to Torah impurity, they therefore made this distinction so that people would know that this impurity is only rabbinic. This was so that they would not err and say that they are impure by Torah law, and burn teruma and sacred objects that touched them.

Rather,

if it enters your mind

that Rabbi Yehuda holds

“the impurity of liquids to render vessels impure is from the Torah”—

what difference is it to me

if it

became impure through liquids,

and

what difference is it to me

if it

became impure through a creeping creature? Both of them are from the Torah, and it makes no difference whether its inside or its back became impure.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Rabbi Yehuda retracted

what he had said, that in a case of uncertain impurity of liquids to render vessels impure, its uncertainty is impure. Rather, it is not from the Torah, and its uncertainty is treated leniently.

Ravina said: Actually, he did not retract

from it, Rabbi Yehuda.

Rather,

this

statement, “its back became impure, its inside did not become impure,” concerns a vessel that became impure

through liquids that came because of hands.

For the impurity of hands is only because of a decree. And they decreed that hands render liquids impure, making them a first-degree source of impurity. And they were lenient with this impurity: if they rendered the vessel impure through its back, its inside did not become impure, so that there would be a distinction indicating that this impurity is not from the Torah, and teruma and sacred objects would not be burned on account of it.

And

this

with which Rabbi Yehuda was stringent concerning uncertain vessels that became impure through liquids concerns

liquids that came because of a creeping creature,

which render vessels impure by Torah law.

And we reject this:

If so, instead of teaching

Rabbi Yehuda,

“In what case are these words stated,

with vessels

that became impure through liquids?

But with vessels that became impure through a creeping creature, if their back became impure, their inside became impure”—

let him distinguish and teach it concerning that case itself.

Let him distinguish among vessels that became impure through liquids themselves.

And let him say as follows:

“In what case are these words stated,

with vessels that became impure

through liquids that came because of hands?

Since their impurity is only rabbinic, they made a distinction concerning them and were lenient, so that if their back became impure, their inside did not become impure.

But

if the vessel became impure

through liquids that came because of a creeping creature,

whose impurity is from the Torah, if

its inside became impure, it became impure

also

its back.

And if

its back became impure, it became impure

also

its inside.”

And since Rabbi Yehuda did not make this distinction, infer from it that even liquids that came because of a creeping creature do not render vessels impure by Torah law.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as we answered at first,

that

Rabbi Yehuda retracted

what he said above, “in every case of uncertain impurity of liquids, it is impure” [whether concerning rendering food impure or concerning rendering vessels impure]. Rather, they are pure by uncertainty, since their impurity is only rabbinic, and in a matter of rabbinic law uncertainty is treated leniently.

It was raised as a dilemma before them:

From what did Rabbi Yehuda retract?

Was it only

from

what he said, that liquids render

vessels

impure by Torah law,

that he retracted,

and he returned to rule that they render vessels impure only by rabbinic law?

But concerning

the impurity of liquids to render

food

impure, he held that it is from the Torah. And

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon.

For they said in the beraita above: uncertain liquids that render food impure are impure; those that render vessels impure are pure!

Or perhaps, he retracted entirely.

And he holds

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

that liquids do not render others impure by Torah law at all, not even food.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Come and hear: A cow that drank the water of purification [

water mixed with the ashes of the cow for sprinkling upon one impure through contact with the dead], and they slaughtered it while [the water] was still in its intestines,

its flesh is impure

after it was slaughtered, because the water of purification renders impure like a primary source of impurity.

[But before its slaughter, the cow does not become impure through them, because living creatures do not receive impurity.]