Pesachim 20a — the Talmud in English

24

Rabbi Yohanan said: A doubt concerning impurity

in a matter that has no awareness to ask, if the impurity comes

by human agency:

exact column location")

one is asked about it!

That is, this doubt concerning impurity is considered as though it occurred in a matter that has awareness to ask, for its doubt in the private domain is impure.

Rashi further explained that this doubt concerning impurity does not have the simple rule that applies to every doubt concerning impurity in a matter that has no awareness to ask, namely, that it is pure; rather, the doubt remains, and the owners are required to ask the court what should be done with it.

And it is not necessary to say this if the vessel in which the doubt arose is in the person’s hand; rather,

even when the vessel is lying upon the ground,

and it is doubtful whether the person placed the creeping creature upon it or not, it is also

like

a doubt in

a matter that has awareness to ask.

Since the impurity came through the person, who has awareness to ask.

We learned above: A needle found in meat—

the meat is impure.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: It is established for us that foods do not receive impurity unless they have been prepared for impurity, through liquids being placed upon them.

And

this meat—

with what was it prepared?

If we say that it was prepared by blood.

But Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: From where do we know that the blood of sacred offerings does not prepare

foods?

Because

it is stated

concerning blood:

“You shall not eat it; upon the earth

you shall pour it out like water.”

And we expound: Specifically,

blood

of unconsecrated animals

that is poured out like water

is likened to water and is considered a liquid, and it

prepares

foods. But the blood of sacred offerings,

which

must be sprinkled upon the altar, and

is not poured out like water—

it is not considered a liquid,

and does not prepare

foods. [

And the blood of the discharge, which is not sprinkled upon the altar, is in any event not a liquid, since it is not called blood, as is stated above.]

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the meat

was prepared

by the

liquids [

water] of

the slaughterhouse.

This cannot be said.

For

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: The liquids of the slaughterhouse—it is not enough that they are pure, [

clean],

but they

also

do not

prepare

foods.

For he holds that according to Torah law, only water that is attached [to the ground] prepares. But water that has been detached and placed in a vessel does not prepare foods according to Torah law, but only by rabbinic law. And in the Temple courtyard they did not decree this, because of the loss of sacred offerings.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the meat

was prepared

by

the affection of the sacred —

that sacred offerings receive impurity even without preparation, because their importance [“the affection of the sacred”] makes them foods capable of receiving impurity .

This cannot be said.

For it does not teach, “the meat is disqualified,” but rather, “the meat is impure.” And this implies that it even imparts impurity to others.

And

perhaps,

this

is effective

for it,

the affection of the sacred,

to make them like foods, only

to disqualify

the

substance itself

of the sacred, to enable it to become impure itself.

But with regard to imparting impurity to others, and

counting upon it [

in one who touches it] degrees of

first and second in impurity—

does

also

the affection of the sacred help with regard to this?!

And if you would say that indeed the affection of the sacred is effective for receiving impurity, and even for imparting impurity to others, then

resolve

from it this

matter that Resh Lakish asked.

For Resh Lakish asked:

The dry portion [

dry flour] that the oil did not touch

of meal-offerings,

which became impure and was prepared only through the affection of the sacred,

Does it impart impurity to one who touches it, and

are a first and a second counted upon it

with regard to impurity?

Or

perhaps,

no, the affection of the sacred is effective only to make itself impure, but not to impart impurity to others.

the sanctity of sacred offerings is effective only to make it itself impure, but not to transmit impurity to others.

And since Resh Lakish did not resolve his question from the Mishna, infer from this that this meat was not prepared by the affection of the sacred, but by liquids.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

This is what we are dealing with:

For example, it was a cow of peace-offerings, and he led it through a river

before its slaughter,

and

afterward

he slaughtered it. And liquid was still

from the river

wet upon it

after slaughter. And it is impossible that some liquid did not fall from the hide onto the meat and prepare it to receive impurity from the needle. [ And for this reason he specified a cow of peace-offerings, because its hide and meat belong to the owners. And therefore he leads it through the river, in order to improve them. ]

We learned there: If the needle

was found

in the animal’s

dung—

everything is pure.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Even if the needle did not touch the meat, in any event the dung itself became impure because of it.

Let the dung return and render the meat impure.

For they were accustomed to give the animal water before its slaughter, so that it would be easy to skin it. Therefore, the dung is still soft after slaughter, and has the status of a liquid. And the liquid renders foods impure.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

This is what we are dealing with:

With thick dung,

which does not receive impurity at all, because it is not a liquid.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say

that the Mishna deals with

soft dung,

it likewise does not receive impurity.

Because it is a putrid liquid,

and we exclude it from the verse, “And any liquid that may be drunk”—excluding a putrid liquid.

A tan[n]aitic sage taught before Rav Sheshet: A creeping creature renders liquids impure

by a kal va-chomer: Just as a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature renders liquids impure, surely the creeping creature itself does so!

And

those

liquids

that became impure through contact with a creeping creature in turn

make the vessel impure.

And it initially occurred to us that this was according to Rabbi Yehuda before he retracted his view, and that he held that impure liquids make a vessel impure.

And

that

vessel

which is at the second degree of impurity

makes the food impure.

For it is written: “Everything that is inside it shall become impure.” And it initially occurred to us that this also applies to a vessel that became impure through liquids that came into contact with a creeping creature.

And

those

foods

which are at the third degree of impurity

make the liquids impure.

And this is according to Rabbi Akiva, who expounds the two occurrences of the phrase “shall become impure” to teach that food that became impure through a vessel makes liquids impure.

[This is not actually so according to the truth. For Rabbi Akiva said only that second-degree food, which became impure through a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature, makes liquids impure. But food that became impure through a vessel that became impure through liquids that came into contact with a creeping creature—which is only at the third degree—does not make liquids impure. Rather, the Gemara raises an even stronger objection than this.]

And

we learn

from this

three degrees of impurity caused by a creeping creature.

For impurity caused by a creeping creature can produce even a third-degree impurity.

But we raise a difficulty: All

these

that were counted

are four.

For the liquids are at the first degree, the vessel is at the second degree, the food is at the third degree, and the liquids are at the fourth degree.

And we answer:

Cut out

the

liquids that

were counted in

the first clause.

And this is what it teaches: The creeping creature makes the vessel impure; the vessel makes the food impure; and the food makes the liquids impure. And this is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says: A loaf at the second degree of impurity produces a third degree in ordinary non-sacred food. But a third degree does not produce a fourth degree.

We ask:

On the contrary, cut out the liquids in the latter clause.

And let it teach as follows: The creeping creature makes the liquids impure; the liquids make the vessel impure; and the vessel makes the food 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 the passage in this way. For

we do not find

any

Tanna who says

“Liquids make a vessel impure,” except Rabbi Yehuda

who alone said this.

And

he too

retracted his view

as stated above.

And

so that you will not err regarding the order of the three impurities caused by a creeping creature,

your mnemonic is: brewers

[those who make beer]. First they put down the vessel, then they put the barley into it, and afterward they add the liquid. So too is the order of impurity caused by a creeping creature: The creeping creature makes the vessel impure, the vessel makes the food impure, and the food makes the liquid impure.

We learned in a Mishna there: A creeping creature found in an oven

makes the oven impure, and

the bread inside it

becomes

second-degree

only.

Because

the creeping creature does not touch the bread; rather, it makes

the oven impure first

and makes it a first-degree source of impurity, and the oven makes the bread impure and makes it second-degree impurity.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava:

But we have established that an earthenware vessel becomes impure through its airspace. If a dead creeping creature is found in its interior, the vessel becomes impure because of it even if the creature did not touch the vessel. It is therefore evident that when 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 impurity

as though it touched the creeping creature itself and became impure through it.

He said to him

Rava:

It does not enter your mind

to say this.

For

behold,

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 a dead creeping creature is inside it?