פסחים דף כ

נשאלין עליה, אפילו בכלי המונח על גבי קרקע — כדבר שיש בו דעת לישאל.

its owners will have no choice but to consult a Sage about it to determine whether or not it is ritually pure, as even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, which is certainly not capable of providing an answer if asked, its legal status is like that of an item that has knowledge to be asked. The fact that the knife is an inanimate object is not reason enough to rule it ritually pure. It was therefore necessary to say that the knife is ritually pure because the Temple courtyard is a public domain. If it was a private domain, the knife would be deemed impure.

״והבשר טמא״. האי בשר דאיתכשר במאי?

It was taught that if an impure needle were found in an animal, the meat is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: With what liquid was this meat rendered susceptible to impurity? A food can become impure only if it were rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid; how, then, could the sacrificial meat become impure immediately after the animal was slaughtered?

אי נימא דאיתכשר בדם, והא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: מנין לדם קדשים שאינו מכשיר — שנאמר: ״לא תאכלנו על הארץ תשפכנו כמים״,

If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by the blood that flowed when it was slaughtered, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived with regard to blood of consecrated offerings that it does not render produce susceptible to impurity? As it is stated: “You shall surely not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:16). The Sages derived from this verse: Blood that is poured like water, i.e., blood from a non-sacred domesticated animal that is poured out when it is slaughtered and not received in a vessel like sacrificial blood, assumes the legal status of water and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. Blood that is not poured out like water, but is received in a vessel to be sprinkled on the altar, does not render food susceptible to impurity.

דם שנשפך כמים — מכשיר, ושאינו נשפך כמים — אינו מכשיר.

ואלא דאיתכשר במשקי בית מטבחיא. והא אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא: משקי בית מטבחיא לא דיין שהן דכן, אלא שאין מכשירין!

Rather, say that this meat was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the other liquids of the slaughterhouse, e.g., the water that was kept near the altar for washing the offerings. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse: Not only are they ritually pure, as noted in the testimony of Yosei ben Yo’ezer, but they do not even render meat susceptible to impurity?

ואלא דאיתכשר בחיבת הקודש. אימור דמהניא ליה חיבת הקודש לאיפסולי גופיה, למימנא ביה ראשון ושני נמי?!

Rather, say that the meat is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the esteem for sacred objects. According to this principle, certain items that cannot become impure by Torah law become susceptible to impurity by rabbinic law due to their extreme sanctity. The Gemara rejects that possibility: Say that the esteem for sacred objects is effective to disqualify the meat itself despite the fact that it was not rendered susceptible to receive impurity, but does it also transmit impurity to the extent that one counts first- and second-degree impurity from contact with that meat? Can impurity based on the esteem for sacred objects be transmitted to other objects like standard impurity?

תיפשוט דבעי ריש לקיש: צריד של מנחות מונין בו ראשון ושני או לא!

If so, resolve from here that which Reish Lakish raised as a dilemma: With regard to a mass from meal-offerings, does one count first- and second-degree impurity from contact with it or not? Due to the esteem for sacred objects, the offering itself can become impure without having been rendered susceptible through contact with liquid; however, the dilemma is whether or not it transmits impurity to other objects.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: כגון שהיתה פרה של זבחי שלמים, והעבירה בנהר ושחטה, ועדיין משקה טופח עליה.

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the dilemma with regard to the status of ritual impurity due to esteem for sacred objects has not in fact been resolved. In the case of meat, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is referring to a case where the meat was from a cow brought as a peace-offering sacrifice, whose hide and meat belong to its owner, and the owner led it through the river to clean it, and he slaughtered it while liquid was still moist upon it. While the animal was being flayed, water fell on the meat, rendering it susceptible to impurity.

נמצאת בפרש — הכל טהור. וניהדר פרש וניטמיה לבשר! אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: בפרש עבה. רב אשי אמר: אפילו תימא בפרש רכה, משום דהוי משקה סרוח.

We learned in a mishna cited above: If the needle was found in the secretions of the animal’s stomach, everything, meat, knife, and hands, is pure. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let these secretions, which are liquid, return and transmit impurity to the meat itself. Like any other liquid, the secretions assume first-degree ritual impurity by rabbinic decree. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is referring to thick, solid secretions, which are not liquid. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to soft secretions, it does not transfer impurity because it is an offensive liquid, which does not transmit impurity.

תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת: שרץ מטמא את המשקין, ומשקין מטמאין את הכלי, וכלי מטמא את האוכלין, והאוכלין מטמאין את המשקין. ולמדנו שלש טומאות בשרץ. הני ארבעה הן!

The tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet. Based on the verses, it is possible to create the following scenario: The carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity to liquids, the liquids transmit impurity to a vessel, the vessel transmits impurity to foods, and the foods transmit impurity to liquids. And we have thereby learned that there are three successive levels of impurity with regard to a dead creeping animal. The Gemara notes: These are four levels, not three. The Gemara answers: Cut the liquids of the first clause, so that the baraita reads: The carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity to a vessel and the vessel to foods, etc.

גוז משקין דרישא.

אדרבה, גוז משקין דסיפא! לא אשכחן תנא דאמר ״משקין מטמאין כלי״ אלא רבי יהודה, והדר ביה. וסימניך: נזייתא.

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, cut the liquids of the latter clause, which states that foods transmit impurity to liquids. The Gemara explains: The only tanna that we find who said that liquids transmit impurity to a vessel is Rabbi Yehuda. And even he retracted this statement. And your mnemonic to remember the order of the transfer of impurity in this baraita is a brewing vat, as the order is similar to the production of beer. First one brings the vessel, then one places barley, the food, in it, and then the water. That is the order of the transmission of impurity in the baraita.

תנן התם: שרץ שנמצא בתנור — הפת שבתוכו שניה, מפני שהתנור תחלה.

We learned in a mishna there: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an oven, the bread inside it is impure with second-degree ritual impurity. This is due to the fact that the oven is impure with first-degree impurity and transmits impurity to the bread.

אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא: וניחזי להאי תנור כמאן דמלי טומאה דמי, ותיהוי האי פת ראשונה!

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let us view that oven as one filled with impurity, as an earthenware vessel is rendered impure by a creeping animal in the airspace of the oven even without making contact with it. And consequently this bread should be impure with the first-degree of impurity. The oven should be considered as if it were filled with carcasses of creeping animals and the bread should assume first-degree impurity status as though it became impure directly from a creeping animal.

אמר ליה: לא סלקא דעתך, דתניא: יכול יהו כל הכלים מטמאין מאויר כלי חרס —

He said to him: This suggestion cannot enter your mind, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that all the vessels found in an earthenware oven become impure from the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel.

תלמוד לומר: ״כל אשר בתוכו יטמא״, וסמיך ליה: ״מכל האכל״. אוכל מטמא מאויר כלי חרס, ואין כל הכלים מטמאין מאויר כלי חרס.

Therefore, the verse states with regard to creeping animals: “And every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure, and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33). And juxtaposed to it is the verse: “From all food in it which may be eaten, upon which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). This indicates that food is rendered impure by the airspace of an earthenware vessel, but not all vessels are rendered impure by the airspace of an earthenware vessel. This baraita proves that the earthenware vessel itself is not considered to be filled with carcasses of creeping animals, and therefore it does not render everything inside it impure with first-degree impurity. Were the earthenware vessel indeed considered as if it were filled with impurity, vessels inside it would also assume first-degree ritual impurity.

רב חסדא רמי פיסחא אפיסחא ומשני: מי אמר רבי יהושע שתיהן כאחת?

Rav Ḥisda raised a contradiction between one statement with regard to Passover and another statement with regard to Passover, and he resolved this contradiction himself. The Gemara elaborates: Did Rabbi Yehoshua actually say that both of them may be burned as one, teruma whose purity is uncertain, and definitely impure teruma, on Passover eve?

ורמינהו, אמר רבי יוסי: אין הנדון דומה לראיה, כשהעידו רבותינו — על מה העידו? אם על הבשר שנטמא בולד הטומאה ששורפין אותו עם הבשר שנטמא באב הטומאה —

And he raised a contradiction from the Tosefta, as Rabbi Yosei said: The inferred conclusion of burning pure and impure leaven together is not similar to the case from which you cited proof. When Rabbi Meir said that the Sages, Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest and Rabbi Akiva, testified, about what did they testify? If you assert that Rabbi Meir said with regard to meat that became ritually impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity, that one may burn it together with meat that became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity, that is a case where both this meat is impure and that meat is impure, albeit not at the same level of impurity.

זה טמא וזה טמא.

אם על השמן שנפסל בטבול יום, שמדליקין אותו בנר שנטמא בטמא מת — זה פסול וזה טמא. אף אנו מודים בתרומה שנטמאת בולד הטומאה

Rabbi Yosei continues: If you say that Rabbi Meir is referring to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, with regard to oil that was disqualified by one who immersed himself during that day, that one may kindle it in a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, that is a case where this substance is disqualified and that object is impure. We also concede with regard to teruma that became impure from a secondary source of impurity, that one may burn it with teruma that became ritually impure from a primary source of impurity, even though the first teruma will assume a greater degree of impurity. However, how will we burn teruma in abeyance, i.e., teruma whose impure status is uncertain, together with ritually impure teruma? Perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and render it ritually pure.

ששורפין אותה עם התרומה שנטמאת באב הטומאה, אבל היאך נשרוף אפילו תלויה עם הטמאה, שמא יבא אליהו ויטהרם.

ומשני: הא רבי שמעון, ואליבא דרבי יהושע. הא רבי יוסי, ואליבא דרבי יהושע.

And Rav Ḥisda himself resolved the contradiction: This statement that was taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one burns teruma in abeyance together with ritually impure teruma, is the ruling of Rabbi Shimon and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, whereas that statement, that one may not burn them together, is the ruling of Rabbi Yosei and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

דתניא: ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת, מבערין את הכל מלפני השבת, ושורפין תרומות טמאות תלויות וטהורות, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי אומר: טהורה בפני עצמה, ותלויה בפני עצמה,

The Gemara cites the source of this tannaitic dispute with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: If the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, one may not remove the leaven on Passover eve in the usual manner, and therefore one removes everything before Shabbat, and he burns all teruma together, impure teruma, teruma in abeyance, and pure teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One burns pure teruma by itself, teruma in abeyance by itself, and impure teruma by itself.

וטמאה בפני עצמה.

אמר רבי שמעון: לא נחלקו רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע על הטהורה ועל הטמאה שאין שורפין, על התלויה ועל הטהורה ששורפין. על מה נחלקו — על התלויה ועל הטמאה,

Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about ritually pure teruma and about impure teruma. They agree that one may not burn them together. And neither did they disagree about teruma in abeyance and about pure teruma. They agree that one may burn them together. Since the teruma is not definitely impure, he does not appear to be directly impurifying the teruma. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagree with regard to burning teruma in abeyance and impure teruma together, as Rabbi Eliezer says: This teruma should be burned by itself and that teruma by itself. Since this case involves teruma that is definitely impure, if the teruma in abeyance is actually pure, by burning them together he will have rendered it impure. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may burn both of them as one.

שרבי אליעזר אומר: תישרף זו בעצמה וזו בעצמה. ורבי יהושע אומר: שתיהן כאחת.

והא מתניתין רבי יוסי היא! הכי קאמר רבי יוסי לרבי מאיר: אפילו רבי שמעון ואליבא דרבי יהושע, דמיקל, כי מיקל בתלויה וטמאה, אבל בטהורה וטמאה — לא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? How can Rabbi Yosei’s statement be attributed to Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to Rabbi Meir: Even according to Rabbi Shimon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who is lenient, where he rules leniently it is only with regard to burning teruma in abeyance and impure teruma together. However, with regard to ritually pure teruma and impure teruma together, no, even he does not permit burning them together.

רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא רמי תרומה אפיסחא, ומשני: מי אמר רבי יהושע שתיהן כאחת?

Similarly, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raised a contradiction between the previous statement with regard to teruma and a halakha of Passover, and he resolved it himself. The Gemara clarifies: Did Rabbi Yehoshua actually say that both teruma in abeyance and impure teruma may be burned together?

ורמינהו: חבית של תרומה שנולד בה ספק טומאה, רבי אליעזר אומר: אם היתה מונחת במקום התורפה — יניחנה במקום המוצנע, ואם היתה מגולה יכסנה. רבי יהושע אומר:

And he raised a contradiction from a mishna: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce with regard to which uncertainty developed about its impurity, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the barrel was resting in a vulnerable place, where it may come into contact with impurity, one should place it in a concealed place, and if it was exposed he should cover it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: If it was placed in a concealed place he may place it in a vulnerable place. And if it was covered he may expose it.

אם היתה מונחת במקום המוצנע — יניחנה במקום התורפה, ואם היתה מכוסה יגלנה.

גרמא — אין, בידים — לא! ומשני: הא רבי שמעון אליבא דרבי יהושע, הא רבי יוסי אליבא דרבי יהושע.

The Gemara infers from this mishna: In any case, passive causation of teruma whose impurity is uncertain to become definitely impure, yes, it is permitted. However, to actively render teruma impure with one’s hands, no, it is prohibited. This ruling contradicts the previous halakha that one may burn teruma in abeyance and impure teruma together. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, resolved this apparent contradiction himself: This statement, that one is permitted to burn teruma in abeyance together with ritually impure teruma, is the ruling of Rabbi Shimon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, whereas that statement, that one may cause this impurity only passively, is the ruling of Rabbi Yosei in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

רבי אלעזר רמי תרומה אתרומה, ומשני: מי אמר רבי יהושע גרמא אין, בידים לא?

Similarly, Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between one halakha with regard to teruma and another halakha with regard to teruma, and resolved the contradiction himself. The Gemara explains: Did Rabbi Yehoshua actually say that passive causation of teruma whose impurity is uncertain to become definitely impure, yes, it is permitted; however, to actively render teruma impure with his hands, no, it is prohibited?

ורמינהו: חבית של תרומה שנשברה בגת העליונה ותחתיה חולין טמאין —

And he raised a contradiction against this from a mishna: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper area in a winepress, where grapes are pressed, and there is impure, non-sacred wine in the lower area of the press, where the wine flows from the upper area, if the teruma wine would flow into the non-sacred wine, the teruma wine would be rendered ritually impure. The result would be significant financial loss, as the legal status of all the wine in the lower press would be that of impure teruma, which is prohibited even for priests to drink.

מודה רבי אליעזר (לרבי) יהושע שאם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה — יציל, ואם לאו — רבי אליעזר אומר: תרד ותטמא, ואל יטמאנה ביד.

Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke and keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, by receiving the teruma wine in a vessel before it becomes impure, he should rescue it. And if one cannot receive the wine in a pure vessel, as only impure vessels are available, so that if he uses them to receive the wine or to seal the upper press he will render the teruma impure, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, but one should not actively render it impure with his hand.

רבי יהושע אומר: יטמאנה ביד!

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even actively render it impure with his hand, by stopping the pipe connecting between the upper and lower presses with an impure vessel or by receiving the wine in impure vessels. Evidently, Rabbi Yehoshua allows one even to actively impurify pure teruma.

ומשני: שאני התם דאיכא הפסד חולין.

And Rabbi Elazar resolved this contradiction himself: There, with regard to the broken barrel, it is different, as, in that case, there is the potential loss of non-sacred produce, when the teruma wine descends to the lower press. The non-sacred wine will become prohibited due to the mixture with impure teruma.

מתקיף לה רבא: מתניתין נמי איכא הפסד עצים! אמר ליה אביי: להפסד מרובה — חששו, להפסד מועט — לא חששו.

Rava strongly objects to this claim: In the mishna too there is a loss of wood, as one requires additional wood to kindle a second fire and burn the impure teruma separately. Abaye said to him: With regard to this and similar issues, the Sages were concerned about a great loss. However, they were not concerned about the minimal loss of several pieces of wood.

ומנא תימרא דלהפסד מרובה חששו, ולהפסד מועט לא חששו, דתניא: חבית של שמן תרומה שנשברה בגת העליונה, ובתחתונה חולין טמאין — מודה רבי אליעזר

And from where do you say that the Sages were concerned about a great loss and they were not concerned about a minimal loss? As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma oil that broke in the upper area of the olive press, and in the lower area of the press there is impure, non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if one can rescue even a quarter-log of the oil in a state of purity from the barrel, he should rescue it. And if one cannot receive the oil in a pure vessel, the teruma oil should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, but one should not actively render it impure with his hand.

לרבי יהושע שאם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה — יציל, ואם לאו — תרד ותטמא ואל יטמאנה ביד.

מאי שנא שמן, דראוי להדליק? יין נמי ראוי לזילוף!

The Gemara answers: What is different about oil that, as opposed to wine, everyone agrees may not be actively rendered impure? If you say the reason is that even if the teruma falls into the lower press and is intermingled with impure teruma, it is still suitable for lighting and not entirely lost, if so, wine is also fit for sprinkling in one’s house to provide a pleasant fragrance. Impure teruma wine could be used for that purpose.

וכי תימא זילוף לאו מילתא היא, והאמר שמואל משום רבי חייא: שותין מלוג בסלע, ומזלפין מלוג בשתים! בחדש.

And lest you say that sprinkling wine is not a significant matter, and would be tantamount to destroying the teruma, didn’t Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: One drinks from wine valued at a log for a sela, and one sprinkles from wine valued at a log for two sela. Apparently, sprinkling is a more significant use than drinking. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to new wine still in the press, which does not have a strong fragrance and cannot be used for sprinkling.

והא ראוי לישנו! אתי ביה לידי תקלה. שמן נמי, אתי ביה לידי תקלה!

The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t the wine fit to be aged, at which point it could be used for sprinkling, and would not be entirely lost. The Gemara answers: One may thereby come to encounter a stumbling block, as he might, with the passage of time, forget that it is ritually impure and come to drink it. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to oil too, one may thereby come to encounter a stumbling block, in the same way.

דרמי ליה בכלי מאוס. יין נמי, רמי ליה בכלי מאוס! לזילוף קא בעי ליה, בכלי מאוס רמי ליה?!

The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers: Ritually impure teruma oil is permitted because he places it in a repulsive vessel, so that people will be disinclined to consume it and will use it only for lighting. The Gemara suggests: With regard to wine, too, he can place it in a repulsive vessel. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: That is not possible. Is it reasonable that one who wants the wine for sprinkling will place it in a repulsive vessel? One sprinkles wine to add a pleasant odor, which would not be the case if the wine has been left in a disgusting vessel.

ותקלה עצמה, תנאי היא. דתניא: חבית של יין של תרומה שנטמאת, בית שמאי אומרים: תשפך חבל, ובית הלל אומרים: תעשה זילוף.

The Gemara comments: And concern for a stumbling block by keeping prohibited items is itself subject to a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that became ritually impure, Beit Shammai say: It should be poured out all at once, and Beit Hillel say: One should wait until it ages, at which stage it may be used for spraying.

אמר רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי, אני אכריע: בשדה — תשפך חבל, בבית — תעשה זילוף. איכא דאמרי: בחדש — תשפך חבל, בישן — תעשה זילוף. אמרו לו:

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I will decide this dispute. If the barrel was in a field, it should be poured out all at once, lest the ritual impurity of the barrel be forgotten by the time it is brought inside the house. However, if the barrel was in the house, where it could be used immediately, it may be used for sprinkling. Some say that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, decided: In the case of new wine, it should be poured out all at once; but in the case of old wine, it should be used for spraying. They said to him: