Pesachim 19b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises a question about this: But according to rabbinic law, even vessels that came into contact with impure liquids become impure. Although by Torah law liquids do not impart impurity to a vessel, the Sages decreed this because of the liquids of a man with a discharge, such as his saliva and urine, which are primary sources of ritual impurity and can impart impurity even to people and vessels. However, in the Temple they did not apply this decree to vessels.

If so, the knife too should have become impure because of the liquids on the meat [which became impure through the needle]. It is pure only because this type of impurity was not decreed in the Temple. If so, Rabbi Akiva should have said:

“We are fortunate that there is no impurity of hands and vessels in the Temple.”

Why did he mention this only with regard to the hands?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say

that it was

said by

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina: The decree concerning hands—

was taught before the decree concerning vessels!

When this testimony was given, the decree concerning hands had already been enacted, but the impurity of vessels that came into contact with liquids had not yet been decreed. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva referred only to the decree concerning hands.

Rava said:

That is not so.

Both of them—

the decree concerning hands and the decree concerning vessels—

were enacted on the same day,

the day on which the eighteen decrees were enacted in the upper chamber of Hanania ben Hizkiya ben Garon,

they decreed

upon them.

As we learned: On that day they decreed concerning every

On that day they decreed concerning every

scroll

among the twenty-four books of the sacred writings that it would have the status of an object impure at the second degree of impurity, and that it disqualifies teruma. They enacted this decree as a safeguard for the scrolls, because the kohanim—members of the Temple priestly family—would store teruma near the scrolls, and mice would eat the scrolls.

And

they likewise decreed concerning

hands

that had not been ritually washed, that they disqualify teruma.

And

they likewise decreed concerning

one who immersed that day,

who disqualifies teruma. [And the Gemara there objects: But one who immersed that day is impure by Torah law. And it concludes: “Remove one who immersed that day from here”; he is not part of the Mishna.]

And

they likewise decreed concerning

food and vessels that became impure through liquids,

that they are impure and disqualify teruma. This was a decree because of the liquids of a man with a discharge, which by Torah law render food and vessels impure at the first degree.

It is evident, then, that on that same day they decreed both concerning hands and concerning vessels.

The question therefore returns to its place: Let Rabbi Akiva say, “We are fortunate that there is no impurity of hands and vessels in the Temple.”

Rather, Rava said: Leave aside the impurity of

the

knife, since even with ordinary, non-sacred food it does not become impure.

And this is not limited to the Temple.

For

this knife, which came into contact—

with what

did it come into contact?

If you say that it came into contact with

the impure meat,

food does not render a vessel impure,

not even by rabbinic law.

But rather,

let us say

that it came into contact with the needle?

But a vessel does not render another vessel impure.

The Sages decreed only concerning a vessel that became impure through a liquid, because of the liquids of a man with a discharge. But in that case there were no liquids at all together with the meat.

And furthermore, the Gemara raises a question:

This needle—

what was it doing there?

And why should there be concern that it was impure?

If you say that it was a needle of uncertain status,

that is, we did not know whose needle it was or whether it was impure or pure, then it would be included in the decree concerning “vessels of uncertain status that are found,” which are considered impure due to the uncertainty.

This cannot be said.

For

it was stated: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina:

One

of them

said: They did not decree concerning saliva of uncertain status found in Jerusalem.

Ordinarily, they decreed that any saliva that is found, whose source is unknown, is impure, because perhaps it is the saliva of a man with a discharge or of a menstruating woman, both of whom are primary sources of ritual impurity. But in Jerusalem they did not enact this decree.

And the other

of them

said: They did not decree concerning vessels of uncertain status found in Jerusalem.

Although they decreed impurity concerning an ordinary vessel whose status is unknown, they did not enact this decree in Jerusalem.

If so, the needle found in the meat cannot be understood as an ordinary needle. For in Jerusalem it would be pure even by rabbinic law, and the meat would not become impure because of it at all.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

What are we dealing with here?

For example, someone lost a needle

that had come into contact with a corpse and had become

impure with the impurity of a corpse, and he recognized it

as the needle that had now been found

in the meat.

Therefore, the meat is impure.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said:

Actually, the case is one of a needle of uncertain status.

And it is a case where

the

cow had its mouth restrained

and thus

came from outside Jerusalem.

The needle certainly came from outside Jerusalem, and its status is therefore like that of a vessel of uncertain status found outside Jerusalem, which is impure.

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina; one said: They did not decree concerning saliva of uncertain status found in Jerusalem.

And the other said: They did not decree concerning vessels of uncertain status found in Jerusalem.

The Gemara wonders:

Saliva—

we have already

learned

this in the Mishna. And

vessels—we have already

learned

this as well.

The Gemara first explains the question concerning

“saliva—

we have

already learned it.”

As we learned: All saliva that is found in Jerusalem is pure, except for

saliva found in

the Upper Market.

For impure people would gather there so as not to render others impure, and we attribute the saliva found there to them.

And it answers:

It is necessary

to teach us only that

even though it had been established

that at that place in Jerusalem there had passed

a man with a discharge,

the saliva found there is nevertheless pure.

The Gemara now explains the question concerning

“vessels

found in Jerusalem—have we

already learned

that they are pure.”

As we learned: All vessels found in Jerusalem,

if they are found on

the path

of

the descent to the ritual immersion facility,

they are

impure.

There were two paths leading to the ritual immersion facility. On one they descended to it, and on the other they ascended from it. A vessel found on the descending path is certainly impure, because presumably someone brought it there in order to immerse it, and it fell before they immersed it.

Learn from this that they are impure specifically there.

But

vessels

elsewhere,

found in other places in Jerusalem, are

pure.

And it answers:

But according to your reasoning, say the latter clause

of the Mishna: If the vessels are found on

the path

of

the ascent

from the immersion facility, they are

pure,

because they certainly fell there after they had been immersed.

Learn from this:

But

vessels

elsewhere,

found in other places in Jerusalem, are

impure.

The inference from the first clause contradicts the inference from the latter clause.

Rather,

necessarily, either the first clause or the latter clause is not meant to be understood precisely. Therefore, the Mishna had to teach us that the inference from

the first clause

is

precise: only vessels found on the descending path are impure, but those found elsewhere in Jerusalem are pure.

And the inference from

the

latter

clause is not precise. Rather, it mentions “the path of the ascent”

in order

to exclude the side alleys,

the small passageways that were near the immersion facility in addition to the main paths of ascent and descent. Sometimes people descended through them to the immersion facility, and sometimes they returned through them. Vessels found there are impure, since it is uncertain whether they fell while being carried toward the immersion facility or while being carried back from it.

The Gemara objects:

And according to Rav, who says

that the Mishna is discussing

“a case where someone lost a needle impure with the impurity of a corpse and recognized it in the meat,”

why are the knife and the hands that touch it not impure?

For

since the Master said: “It is written, ‘in the cavity of a sword,’”

and we interpret this to mean:

A sword

that touches a corpse

is like the corpse itself,

and the sword becomes a primary source of primary ritual impurity, like the corpse [and the same law applies to every metal vessel]. If so,

a person and vessels should also become impure

through this needle.

Rav Ashi said:

What are we dealing with here? It is uncertain whether the knife and the hands touched the needle, and uncertain whether they did not touch it. They are therefore considered pure because of the uncertainty. And

this indicates:

that the

Temple courtyard

is a public domain.

And this is therefore

an instance of

uncertain impurity in a public domain; and any uncertain impurity in a public domain is considered pure.

For we hold: In the case of uncertain impurity in a private domain, its status is impure. This is derived from the case of a woman suspected of adultery: If a husband warned his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man and she then secluded herself with him, she is forbidden to her husband. Although it is uncertain whether she became impure through relations with him, the Torah treats her uncertainty as certainty, as it is written: “And she became impure.” That case took place in a private domain, since only the man and the woman were there. If another person had been present, this would no longer be considered seclusion.

From here we learn that every uncertainty concerning impurity in a private domain is treated by Scripture as certain impurity. But uncertain impurity in a public domain is treated as certainly pure, because it is not comparable to the uncertainty concerning the suspected woman.

The Temple courtyard is also a public domain, because any place in which there are more than two people is considered a public domain with regard to impurity. It is no longer comparable to the case of the suspected woman. Therefore, when it is uncertain whether the knife and the hands touched the impure needle in the Temple courtyard, they are pure.

The Gemara objects: Since Rav Ashi declared them pure because the Temple courtyard is a public domain, it follows that

but

if this uncertainty had been

in

a private domain, its status would be impure.

This is difficult.

After all,

this

knife, regarding which it is uncertain whether it touched the

needle, is

an object

that has no awareness with which it can be questioned.

A knife cannot come and be asked about itself, whether it is pure or not. The derivation from the case of the suspected woman applies only to uncertainty as to whether a person touched a creeping creature, because a person has the awareness to be questioned about himself, whether he is pure.

And any object that has no awareness with which it can be questioned, whether in a public domain or in a private domain,

its status in a case of uncertainty is pure,

because it is not comparable to the case of the suspected woman, which concerns a woman who has the awareness to be questioned. Anything that is not comparable to the case of the suspected woman is pure in a case of uncertainty.

And it answers: This uncertainty concerning the knife is considered uncertainty concerning an object that does have the awareness to be questioned.

Because it is uncertainty concerning impurity brought about by a person.

The knife did not touch the meat on its own; rather, the person holding it brought it into contact with the impure needle. Therefore, if this uncertainty had occurred in a private domain, its status would have been impure.

For the knife did not come into contact with the meat on its own; rather, the person holding it brought it into contact with the impure needle. Therefore, had this uncertainty been in a private domain, its status would have been impure.