Pesachim 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

And

24

Rabbi Yohanan said: In the case of uncertain ritual impurity

in an object that has no awareness with which to be asked, if the impurity comes

through a person— !(pamud.bmp "

exact page position")

they may be asked about it!

That is, this uncertainty concerning ritual impurity is considered as though it occurred in an object that does have awareness with which to be asked, so that if its uncertainty arose in the private domain, it is impure.

Rashi further explained that this uncertainty concerning ritual impurity does not have the simple ruling that applies to every uncertainty concerning ritual impurity in an object that has no awareness with which to be asked, namely, that it is pure. Rather, the uncertainty remains, and the owners must ask the court what should be done with it.

And it is not necessary to say this only when the vessel in which the uncertainty arose is in the person's hand; rather,

even when the vessel is lying on the ground,

and it is uncertain whether the person brought the creeping creature onto it or not, it is likewise

as

an uncertainty in

an object that has awareness with which to be asked.

Since the impurity came through a person, who has awareness with which to be asked.

We learned above: A needle found in meat—

the meat is impure.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: We have established that food does not become susceptible to ritual impurity unless it has first been rendered susceptible to impurity, through liquid being placed upon it.

And

this meat—

by what was it rendered susceptible?

And the reason that he did not challenge this from the verse, “And the meat that touches anything impure,” is that we can establish the verse as referring to the meat of peace-offerings after slaughter, which is eaten throughout the city. And they washed it with water outside the courtyard. Rashi. However, in Hullin 36b we do raise this challenge from the verse: Where do we find impurity in meat? And this requires examination: Why does he not answer there as Rashi wrote here? One can say according to what is explained below [note 10], that preparation is effective only for lesser sacred offerings, which belong to the owners. And it is stated in Kiddushin 52a that even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who holds that lesser sacred offerings belong to the owners, this is only during the animal’s lifetime. But after slaughter, they acquire it from the table of the Most High. Therefore, after slaughter preparation is no longer effective for them. And we were compelled to establish the case specifically when the water was placed upon them during the animal’s lifetime. And although in any event they were not prepared before slaughter, since living creatures do not receive impurity, nevertheless the liquid is still wet upon them after slaughter, before the four rites. And until the completion of the rites, they belong to the owners. Ketzot HaChoshen, addendum, section 1.

If you say that it was rendered susceptible through blood:

But Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: From where is it derived that sacrificial blood does not render food susceptible

to ritual impurity?

Because

it is stated

with regard to blood:

“You shall not eat it; on the ground

you shall pour it like water.”

And we derive: Specifically

blood

of non-sacred animals

that is poured like water

is compared to water and is considered a liquid; therefore, it

renders

food susceptible to ritual impurity. But sacrificial blood,

which

must be sprinkled on the altar, and

is not poured like water—

it is not considered a liquid,

and it does not render

food susceptible to ritual impurity.

And blood of the residue, which is not sprinkled on the altar, is in any event not a liquid, because it is not called blood, as stated above.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that

it was rendered susceptible

the meat

through the liquids

[of water] of

the slaughterhouse.

This cannot be said.

For

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: The liquids of the slaughterhouse—not only are they pure,

[ritually pure],

but

they

do not

render

food susceptible to ritual impurity.

For he holds that by Torah law only water that is still attached to the ground renders food susceptible. But water that has been detached and placed in a vessel renders food susceptible by rabbinic law בלבד. In the Temple courtyard, the Sages did not issue this decree, because of the loss of sacrificial food.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that

it was rendered susceptible

the meat

through the special significance of sacred offerings

—that sacred offerings contract ritual impurity even without having been rendered susceptible, because their special significance as sacred offerings makes them food capable of contracting ritual impurity.

This cannot be said.

For it does not teach, “the meat is disqualified,” but rather, “the meat is impure.” This implies that it can even render others impure.

And

perhaps

the fact that

is effective

for it,

the special significance of sacred offerings,

to give them the status of food, applies only

to disqualifying

its

own body,

enabling it itself to contract impurity.

But with regard to rendering others impure, and

counting in it

[when one touches it] levels of

first and second degree of ritual impurity—

does

also

the special significance of sacred offerings help for this purpose?!

And if you would say that the special significance of sacred offerings indeed helps food contract impurity, and even to render others impure, then

resolve

from it

what Reish Lakish asked.

For Reish Lakish asked:

Dry

[dry flour that the oil did not touch

of meal-offerings

that became impure, which was rendered susceptible only through the special significance of sacred offerings,

Does it render the person who touches it impure, and

are first and second degrees counted through it

of ritual impurity?

Or

perhaps

not

The special significance of sacred offerings is effective only to make it itself impure, but not to render others impure.

And since Reish Lakish did not resolve his question from the Mishna, learn from this that this meat was not rendered susceptible through the special significance of sacred offerings, but through liquids.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

What are we dealing with here?

For example, it was a cow belonging to a shelamim offering, and it was led through a river

before it was slaughtered,

and

afterward

it was slaughtered. And liquid was still

from the river

moist upon it

after slaughter. It is impossible that some liquid did not fall from the hide onto the meat and render it susceptible to contracting impurity from the needle. And this is why it specifies a cow belonging to a shelamim offering: because its hide and meat belong to the owners. Therefore, he leads it through the river in order to improve them.

We learned there: If

the needle was found

in the feces,

everything is pure.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Even if the needle did not touch the meat, nevertheless the feces themselves became impure because of it.

Let the feces return and render the meat impure

since it was customary to water the animal before slaughter so that it would be easy to flay it. Therefore, the feces remain soft after slaughter and have the status of liquid. And liquid renders food impure.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

What are we dealing with here?

With thick feces,

which cannot contract ritual impurity at all, because they are not a liquid.

Rav Ashi said: Even you may say

that the Mishna is speaking about

soft feces,

and nevertheless they cannot contract ritual impurity,

because they are foul liquid

and we exclude them from the verse, “And any liquid that may be drunk”—excluding foul liquid.

A tanna taught before Rav Sheshet: A creeping creature renders liquids impure

through a kal va-chomer: If a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature renders liquids impure, then a creeping creature itself certainly does so!

by an a-fortiori inference: If a utensil that became impure through a creeping creature renders liquids impure, then a creeping creature itself should certainly render them impure!

And

those

liquids

that became impure through contact with a sheretz in turn

render the vessel impure.

And we had initially understood that this was in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda before he retracted his position, and that he held that impure liquids render a vessel impure.

And

that

vessel

which is a second-degree source of impurity

renders the food impure.

For it is written: “Everything that is inside it shall become impure.” And we had initially understood that this also applies to a vessel that became impure through liquids that were themselves brought into contact with a sheretz.

And

those

foods

which are third-degree sources of impurity

render the liquids impure.

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who expounds “shall become impure” and “shall render impure,” teaching that food that became impure through a vessel renders liquids impure.

[And this is not actually so according to Rabbi Akiva. For Rabbi Akiva said only that second-degree foods resulting from a vessel that became impure through contact with a sheretz render liquids impure. But foods that became impure through a vessel that became impure through liquids brought into contact with a sheretz, which are only third-degree, do not render liquids impure. Rather, the Gemara raises an objection from a stronger point.]

And

we learn

from this

three degrees of impurity from a sheretz.

For the impurity of a sheretz can produce even a third-degree source of impurity.

And we ask: But all

these that were enumerated

that were counted

are four.

For the liquids are first-degree, the vessel is second-degree, the foods are third-degree, and the liquids are fourth-degree.

And we answer:

Cut

[cut] the

liquids that were

enumerated in the

opening clause.

And this is what it teaches: The sheretz renders the vessel impure; the vessel renders the foods impure; and the foods render the liquids impure. And this is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says: A second-degree loaf produces a third-degree status with regard to non-sacred food. But a third-degree status does not produce a fourth-degree status.

And we raise a difficulty:

On the contrary, cut the liquids from the latter clause.

And let it teach as follows: The sheretz renders the liquids impure; the liquids render the vessel impure; and the vessel renders the foods impure—and no more. In that case, there are indeed only three degrees of impurity.

And we reject this: It is not reasonable to establish it in this manner. For

we have not found

any

tanna who says

“liquids render a vessel impure,” other than Rabbi Yehuda

who alone said so.

And

he too

retracted his position

from this, as stated above.

And

so that you will not err in the order of the three degrees of impurity resulting from a sheretz,

your mnemonic is: nezayta

[brewers]! First they set out the vessel, then they put the barley in it, and afterward the liquid. And so too is the order of impurity from a sheretz: The sheretz renders the vessel impure, the vessel renders the food impure, and the food renders the liquid impure.

We learned there: A sheretz that is found in an oven

renders the oven impure. And

the bread inside it

becomes

second-degree

only.

Because

the sheretz does not touch the bread; rather, it renders

the oven a first-degree source of impurity,

and the oven renders the bread impure, making it second-degree with regard to impurity.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava:

But we have established that an earthenware vessel becomes impure through its airspace. And if a sheretz is found in its interior, it becomes impure because of it even if it did not touch it. Evidently, if a source of impurity is found inside it, the vessel is considered as though it were filled with impurity. If so,

let us regard this oven as though it were filled with impurity, and let this bread be first-degree

with regard to impurity, as though it touched the sheretz itself and became impure from it.

He said to him,

Rava:

It cannot enter your mind

to say so.

For

indeed,

it is taught: Could it be that all vessels

such as metal vessels and wooden vessels placed inside a large earthenware vessel

become impure

[become impure]

through the airspace of an earthenware vessel

when there is a dead sheretz inside it?