Pesachim 33

ואמר רב אישתבש כהני מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרב רב משקי בית מטבחיא תני אבל משקי בי מדבחיא מטמא

Whereon Rab said: The priests erred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kodesh is here translated unclean, from its root idea of 'separation', 'keeping at a distance from', and Haggai was examining the priests in the knowledge of the laws of uncleanness. The exact point of his question is disputed infra, but according to Rab it was this: the unclean flesh was a sherez ('creeping thing') . which bears a principal degree of uncleanness; this sherez, (being held in the skirt of the garment is now designated by the term 'skirt', the mention of which would otherwise be pointless) touched the bread, the bread touched the pottage, the pottage touched the wine, and the wine touched the oil or any other foodstuff and the question was whether this last would be unclean, i.e. , whether there is a 'fourth' degree in the case of holy food, to which this refers. So Rashi. R. Tam: the sherez touched the skirt, which became a first, the skirt touched the bread or the pottage, which became a second, then one of these touched wine or oil, which became a third, and the wine or oil touched some other eatable. Actually there is a fourth degree and since the priests replied in the negative. they erred (v. p. 62, n. 2) . Thus we see that wine and oil are unclean, though they are the liquids of the Temple, which contradicts Rab. Now, if the uncleanness of liquids is Rabbinical, it has been stated that the Rabbinical decree did not apply to the Temple. And even if Haggai was examining them on points of Rabbinical law, this still contradicts Rab, who states that they are literally clean. The previous answer that Rabbinical uncleanness only is discussed here, while this does not agree with R. Joseph b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah, is impossible in the present instance, for he obviously cannot disagree with Scripture.');">¹</span> - Is this view [propounded] against any but Rab?

גופא רב אמר אישתבש כהני ושמואל אמר לא אישתבש כהני

Rab learned, 'the liquids of the slaughter-house'; but the liquids of the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Aramaic, 'slaughter-house' and 'altar' differ in one letter only.');">²</span> can be defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blood and water are the liquids of the slaughter-house, but wine and oil are liquids of the altar.');">³</span>

רב אמר אישתבש כהני רביעי בקדש בעא מינייהו ואמרו ליה טהור

[To turn to] the main text: 'Rab said: The priests erred; but Samuel maintained, The priests did not err'.' Rab said, The priests erred'; he asked them about a fourth degree in respect of holy foodstuffs, and they answered him that it was clean.'

ושמואל אמר לא אישתבש כהני חמישי בקדש בעא מינייהו ואמרו ליה טהור

But Samuel maintained, The priests did not err'; he asked them about a fifth degree in respect of holy foodstuffs, and they answered him, It is clean. As for Rab, it is well: hence four are written, 'bread, pottage, wine, and oil'; but according to Samuel, whence does he know five? - Is it then written, 'and his skirt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sherez which was in his skirt.');">⁴</span>

בשלמא לרב היינו דכתיב ארבעה (חגי ב, יב) לחם ונזיד ויין ושמן אלא לשמואל חמשה מנא ליה

touch [the bread]'? Surely it is written, and touch with [that] [by] his skirt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So literally.');">⁵</span>

מי כתיב ונגע כנפו (חגי ב, יב) ונגע בכנפו כתיב במה שנגע בכנפו

[meaning that it touched] that which was touched by his skirt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sherez in the skirt touched something which in turn touched the bread, which is therefore a second degree; hence the oil would be a fifth (v. Rashi) .');">⁶</span> Come and hear: Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?

תא שמע (חגי ב, יג) ויאמר חגי אם יגע טמא נפש בכל אלה היטמא ויענו הכהנים ויאמרו יטמא בשלמא לשמואל מדהכא לא אישתבש התם נמי לא אישתבש אלא לרב מאי שנא הכא דאישתבש ומאי שנא התם דלא אישתבש

And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. II, 13,');">⁷</span> As for Samuel, it is well: since they did not err here, they did not err there [either]; but according to Rab, why did they err here yet did not err there? - Said R'Nahman in Rabbah B'Abbuha's name: They were well-versed in the uncleanness of a corpse, but not well-versed in the uncleanness of a sherez.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thinking that where the originating uncleanness is a sherez, it does not go beyond the third degree.');">⁸</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה בקיאין הן בטומאת מת ואין בקיאין הן בטומאת שרץ

Rabina said: There it was a fourth degree; here it was a third.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They were quite unaware that there is a fourth degree, but his second question related to the third degree, Rabina translating thus: If the uncleanness of a dead body touch etc. Since a corpse is a super principal (father of fathers) of uncleanness, the oil would be a third, and of this they knew.');">⁹</span> Come and hear: Then answered Haggai and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord: and so is every work of their hands: and that which they offer there is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14.');">¹⁰</span>

רבינא אמר התם רביעי הכא שלישי

As for Rab, it is well: hence 'unclean' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their ignorance their work would be as unclean.');">¹¹</span> But according to Samuel, why was it unclean? - He indeed wondered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that they know the laws so well, can their work be unclean?');">¹²</span>

ת"ש (חגי ב, יד) ויען חגי ויאמר כן העם הזה וכן הגוי הזה לפני נאם ה' וגו' בשלמא לרב היינו דכתיב טמא אלא לשמואל אמאי טמא

But it is written, and so is every work of their hands?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a positive statement.');">¹³</span> - Said Mar Zutra, others state, R'Ashi: Because they perverted their actions the Writ stigmatizes them as though they offered up [sacrifices] in uncleanness.

איתמוהי קא מתמה והא וכן כל מעשה ידיהם כתיב אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי מתוך שקלקלו את מעשיהם מעלה עליהם הכתוב כאילו הקריבו בטומאה

[To turn to] the main text: 'Rab learned, The liquids of the slaughter-house;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the testimony of R. Joseph b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah.');">¹⁴</span> while Levi learned: The liquids of the altar'.

גופא רב תני משקי בית מטבחיא ולוי תנא משקי בי מדבחיא

Now according to Levi, it is well if he holds as Samuel, who said, They are clean [only] in so far that they cannot defile other [objects]. but nevertheless they are unclean in themselves: then it is possible where they all touched the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: in the first question Haggai asked about successive stages of defilement, and they answered that the oil is clean, since it touched the wine, which as a liquid of the altar can be defiled (i.e.. made unfit) but cannot contaminate. But in the second question each touched the first mentioned, viz., 'one that is unclean by a dead body', and they rightly answered that they are unclean.');">¹⁵</span>

ללוי הניחא אי סבירא ליה כשמואל דאמר דכן מלטמא טומאת אחרים אבל טומאת עצמן יש להן משכחת לה דנגעי כולהו בראשון

But if he holds as Rab, who maintained [that] they are literally unclean, how is it conceivable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the wine and the oil should be unclean. One cannot raise the objection against Rab himself, since he reads, the liquids of the slaughter-house, i.e., blood and water, but not wine and oil.');">¹⁶</span> - You are compelled [to say that] he holds as Samuel.

אלא אי סבר לי' כרב דאמר דכן ממש היכי משכחת לה על כרחך כשמואל סבירא ליה

And according to Samuel, it is well if he holds as Rab who learned, 'The liquids of the slaughter-house', but the liquids of the altar can even defile others: [hence] it is only a fourth degree which cannot make a fifth, but a third can make a fourth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for that reason Haggai put his question as to whether the wine, a fourth, could render the oil unfit as a fifth degree of uncleanness, and they rightly gave a negative reply.');">¹⁷</span> But if he holds as Levi who learned, 'The liquids of the altar', why particularly [ask about] a fourth, which cannot make a fifth; they cannot even make a second or a third?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine and oil, whatever their uncleanness, cannot defile others.');">¹⁸</span>

ולשמואל הניחא אי סבר לה כרב דתני משקי בית מטבחיא אבל משקי בי מדבחיא אחריני נמי מיטמאו רביעי הוא דלא עביד חמישי הא שלישי עביד רביעי

- You are compelled [to say that] he holds as Rab. It was taught in accordance with Rab; it was taught in accordance with Levi.

אלא אי סבר ליה כלוי דתני משקי בי מדבחיא מאי איריא רביעי דלא עביד חמישי אפילו שני ושלישי נמי לא עבדי על כרחיך כרב סבירא ליה

It was taught in accordance with Rab: Blood, wine, oil and water, the liquids of the altar, which were defiled within<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Temple Court.');">¹⁹</span> and carried without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through this act they are henceforth unfit for the altar.');">²⁰</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב תניא כוותיה דלוי תניא כוותיה דלוי הדם והיין והשמן והמים משקי בי מדבחיא שנטמאו בפנים והוציאן לחוץ טהורין נטמאו בחוץ והכניסן בפנים טמאין

are clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that they cannot defile others, because when they became unclean in the first place they were true 'liquids of the altar', and as such could not contaminate others.');">²¹</span> If they were defiled without<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before they were ever taken within, so that they were not yet 'liquids of the altar', and they contracted a degree of defilement which contaminates others.');">²²</span>

איני והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי משקי בי מדבחיא לא אמרו דכן אלא במקומן מאי לאו למעוטי נטמאו בפנים והוציאן לחוץ לא למעוטי נטמאו בחוץ והכניסן בפנים

and [then] brought within, they are unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they retain the power to contaminate. - Thus this Baraitha speaks of liquids of the altar.');">²³</span> But that is not so?

והא במקומן קאמר הכי קאמר לא אמרו דכן אלא שנטמאו במקומן

for R'Joshua B'Levi said: 'They did not rule that the liquids of the altar are clean save in their place': is that not to exclude [the case where] they were defiled within and carried without! - No: it is to exclude [where] they were defiled without and [then] taken within. But he states, 'in their place'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is within.');">²⁴</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב הדם והמים משקי בית מטבחיא שנטמאו בין בכלים בין בקרקע טהורין

- This is what he states: They did not rule [that these liquids] are clean save when they were defiled in their place [sc. within]. It was taught as Rab: Blood and water, the liquids of the slaughter-house, which were defiled, whether in vessels or in the ground, are clean;