Pesachim 17b (יז:) — 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 own reasoning, as he holds that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law. Therefore, the Sages could not be lenient with the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse. The reason why they are pure when they are on the ground will be explained below.

Nevertheless, the first tanna explicitly stated in accordance with Rav that the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse are pure, but not the liquids of the Temple chambers.

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

is

by Torah law,

nevertheless,

the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse

are pure, because

it is a halakha received by tradition

that this is so; it is not merely a rabbinic leniency.

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

according to your view, there is a difficulty from

that which Rabbi Elazar said: There is no impurity of liquids whatsoever

by Torah law.

Know this, for Yose ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified concerning the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse

that they are

pure ].

pure].

From the fact that the Sages were lenient with the liquids in the Temple courtyard, so that they would not render anything impure, Rabbi Elazar proved that their impurity is only rabbinic. For if this were not so, the Sages could not have nullified a Torah impurity because of the loss of consecrated items.

And if

it is as you say, that

it is a halakha received by tradition

that they are pure—

do we derive from it

that the impurity of liquids is not by Torah law? How, then, did Rabbi Elazar prove this from Yose ben Yo’ezer’s testimony? Even if the impurity of other liquids is by Torah law, the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse are pure by a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi,

and he raised an additional difficulty against Rav Pappa’s words:

But Rabbi Shimon

is the one

who says that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law.

As

it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

If there is uncertainty whether the liquids rendered

vessels impure,

the vessels are

pure.

This is because liquids render vessels impure only by rabbinic law, and the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to a case of uncertainty.

If there is uncertainty whether the liquids rendered

food impure,

the food is

impure

due to the uncertainty, because liquids render food impure by Torah law, and uncertain impurity in a private domain renders the item impure.

Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that the impurity of liquids that renders food impure is by Torah law.

And

if

Rabbi Shimon said here

that the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse that are

in vessels

are

impure,

whereas if they are

on the ground

they are

pure,

necessarily, his reason is that liquids in vessels are impure by Torah law, whereas liquids on the ground are impure only by rabbinic law, as will be explained immediately below. And in the Temple courtyard the Sages did not issue the decree.

And if

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

is a halakha,

what difference is there

whether they are

in vessels, and what difference is there

whether they are placed

on the ground?

And we conclude: Rav Pappa’s statement

is difficult!

Rav Pappa said:

When you said, “

Rabbi Shimon says:

When they are on the ground they are pure,”

this was taught

only with regard to water,

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

But

with regard to

blood,

which does not have the status of a ritual bath,

he did not

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

And

even with regard to

water as well, we said

that “when it is on the ground it is pure”

only

where

there is

a measure of

a quarter-log.

Although immersion of a person requires, by Torah law, a measure of forty se'a [as we derive from the verse “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 fit to immerse needles and spindles in it [

used for spinning gold], they have the status of a ritual bath by Torah law as long as they are connected to the ground. And the water of a ritual bath does not contract impurity.

But

if

there is not

in the water a 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 when they are to render others impure. But they possess intrinsic impurity even in the smallest amount. Rashi.] Rabbi Shimon holds that Yose ben Yo’ezer testified concerning water connected to the ground in the Temple courtyard that if it contains a measure of a quarter-log, it does not become impure, because its impurity is not by Torah law, as it has the status of a ritual bath. The Sages nevertheless disqualified it by rabbinic law even for immersing vessels, until it contains a measure of forty se'a.

And since, by rabbinic law, it does not have the status of a ritual bath, it is impure by rabbinic law. But the water of the Temple slaughterhouse in the Temple courtyard does not become impure even by rabbinic law, because the Sages did not issue their decree with regard to it, due to the loss of consecrated items.

The Master said:

Uncertain liquids are impure; they themselves are impure because uncertain impurity in a private domain renders the item impure. But with regard to rendering others impure, their uncertain status is pure—this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, because the ability of the impurity of liquids to render others impure is only rabbinic, and the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to uncertainty.

Rabbi Yehuda says: For every

matter, their uncertain status is

impure!

Whether there is uncertainty as to whether they rendered food impure or whether they rendered vessels impure, the food and the vessels are impure due to the uncertainty, because this is uncertainty concerning impurity by Torah law, and in a private domain an uncertain case is impure.

And we challenge this:

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

is

by Torah law?

And

this cannot be said.

For

we learned in the Mishna: All vessels that have an outer side and an interior [

that are fit for use both on their interior and on their outer side],

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

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

its interior became impure,

it becomes impure

even on

its outer side.

But if

its outer side became impure ,

its interior does not become impure

as a result.

And Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said [

that the interior does not become impure]? It is where the vessels

became impure

through

impure liquids.

But

if

they

became impure through a creeping animal—

if

its interior became impure, it becomes impure

also on

its outer side.

And if

its outer side became impure, it becomes impure

also on

its interior.

The difficulty is resolved as follows: This works if the impurity of liquids that renders vessels impure is only rabbinic [a decree because of the liquid of a zav, such as his saliva and urine, which render vessels impure by Torah law]. It is then understandable that Rabbi Yehuda distinguished between a vessel that became impure through liquids and one that became impure through a creeping animal.

For if it became impure through liquids, whose impurity is only rabbinic, the Sages were lenient in their decree and said that if its outer side became impure, its interior did not become impure. They did not want to equate this impurity entirely with impurity by Torah law. Therefore, they made this distinction, so that people would know that this impurity is only rabbinic and would not mistakenly think that the vessel is impure by Torah law and burn teruma and consecrated items that came into contact with it.

But

if it could enter your mind

that Rabbi Yehuda holds

“the impurity of liquids that renders vessels impure is by Torah law,”

what difference is there

if it

became impure through liquids,

and

what difference is there

if it

became impure through a creeping animal? Both are impurity by Torah law, and it makes no difference whether the interior or the outer side became impure.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda retracted

what he had said, that in a case of uncertain impurity from liquids that renders vessels impure, the uncertain status is impure. Rather, it is not by Torah law, and in a case of uncertainty one is lenient.

Ravina said: Actually, he did not retract

from his position, Rabbi Yehuda.

Rather,

this

statement that “if its outer side became impure, its interior did not become impure” concerns a vessel that became impure

through liquids that come because of hands.

The impurity of hands is only a rabbinic decree. The Sages decreed that hands render liquids impure, giving them first-degree impurity [first in the hierarchy of impurity]. They were lenient with this impurity, so that if the liquids rendered the vessel impure on its outer side, its interior did not become impure. This was done as an indication that this impurity is not by Torah law, and that teruma and consecrated items should not be burned because of it.

And

this

statement in which Rabbi Yehuda was stringent concerning vessels that became impure through liquids concerns

liquids that come because of a creeping animal,

which render vessels impure by Torah law.

And we reject this:

If so, instead of teaching

that Rabbi Yehuda said,

“In what case is this statement said,

with regard to vessels

that became impure through liquids?

But with regard to vessels that became impure through a creeping animal, if their outer side became impure, their interior became impure as well”—

let him distinguish and teach the distinction within that very case,

by distinguishing between vessels that became impure through liquids themselves.

And let him say as follows:

“In what case is this statement said,

with regard to vessels that became impure

through liquids that come because of hands,

as, since their impurity is only rabbinic, the Sages made this distinction with regard to them and were lenient, so that if their outer side became impure, their interior did not become impure.

But

if the vessel became impure

through liquids that come because of a creeping animal,

whose impurity is by Torah law, if

its interior became impure, it becomes impure

also on

its outer side.

And if

its outer side became impure, it becomes impure

also on

its interior.”

Since Rabbi Yehuda did not make this distinction, conclude from it that even liquids that come because of a creeping animal do not render vessels impure by Torah law.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as we originally answered,

that

Rabbi Yehuda retracted

what he said above, “In a case of uncertain impurity from liquids, the status is impure in every respect” [whether with regard to rendering food impure or with regard to rendering vessels impure]. Rather, they are pure due to the uncertainty, since their impurity is only rabbinic, and in a case of rabbinic uncertainty one is lenient.

They raised a dilemma:

From what did Rabbi Yehuda retract?

Did he retract only

from

what he had said, that liquids render

vessels

impure by Torah law?

That is what he retracted,

and he returned to ruling that they render vessels impure only by rabbinic law.

But with regard to

the impurity of liquids that renders

food

impure, he held that it is by Torah law, and

he agrees with Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon.

For they said in the baraita above: In a case of uncertain liquids that may have rendered food impure, it is impure; if they may have rendered vessels impure, it is pure.

Or perhaps he retracted entirely,

and he holds

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear: If a cow drank the water of purification [

water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer 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 is slaughtered, because the water of purification renders things impure with the severity of a primary source of impurity.

[But before its slaughter, the cow does not become impure through it, because living creatures cannot contract impurity.]