Pesachim 34

(רבן) שמעון אומר בכלים טמאין בקרקע טהורין

R'Simeon said: In vessels, they are unclean; in the ground, they are clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">¹</span> R'Papa said: Even on the view that the uncleanness of liquids is Biblical, [the non-defilement of] the liquids of the slaughterhouse is a traditional law.

א"ר פפא אפילו למ"ד טומאת משקין דאורייתא משקי בית מטבחיא הלכתא גמירי לה א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא ואלא הא דאמר ר"א אין טומאה למשקין כל עיקר תדע שהרי העיד (יוסף) בן יועזר איש צרידה על משקי בית מטבחיא דכן

Said R'Huna the son of R'Nathan to R'Papa: Then when R'Eliezer said, 'Liquids have no uncleanness at all; the proof is that Jose B'Jo'ezer of Zeredah testified tha the fluids in the [Temple] slaughter-house are clean,' - but if it is a traditional law, can we learn from this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely this does not afford proof, if these liquids stand entirely in a separate category.');">²</span> Rabina said to R'Ashi: But surely R'Simeon maintained [that] the uncleanness of liquids is Biblical, for i was taught.

ואי הלכתא גמירי לה מי גמרינן מינה

R'Jose and R'Simeon maintain: In respect of utensils they are clean; in respect of eatables they are unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 16a.');">³</span> yet here R'Simeon rules: In vessels, they are unclean; in the ground, they are clean.

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי והא ר"ש דאמר טומאת משקין דאורייתא דתניא ר' יוסי ור' שמעון אומרים לכלים טהורין לאוכלין טמאין

But if it traditional law, what is the difference whether they are in vessels or in the ground? - This is a difficulty. R'Papa said: As to what you say,'In the ground, they are clean', this was taught only of water, but not of blood.

והכא קאמר (רבן) שמעון בכלים טמאין בקרקע טהורין ואי הלכתא היא מה לי בכלים מה לי בקרקע קשיא

And even of water too we said this only when there is a rebi'ith, so that needles and hooks can be bathed therein;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they are unclean, the rebi'ith of water in the ground serving as a ritual bath, as it can do by Biblical law, through the Rabbis enacted that forty se'ahs is the minimum capacity. Still, since by Biblical law it constitutes a mikweh itself, the water cannot be defiled. A rebi'ith is the minimum which may constitute a mikweh.');">⁴</span> but if less than a rebi'ith.

אמר רב פפא הא דאמרת בקרקע טהורין לא שנו אלא מים אבל דם לא

it is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence according to R. Simeon, R. Joseph b. Jo'ezer's testimony was only in respect of water, not blood.');">⁵</span> The Master said: R'Judah said: It is unclean in respect of everything.'

ומים נמי לא אמרן אלא דהוי רביעית דחזי להטביל ביה מחטין וצינורות אבל לא הוי רביעית טמאין:

Shall we say [that] R'Judah holds [that] the uncleanness of liquids, in respect of defiling utensils, is Biblical?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 70. n. 11.');">⁶</span> Surely we learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So cur. edd., the reference being to the Mishnah in Kel. XXV, I. But the reading there is different, and R. Samson of Sens quotes the present passage as a Baraitha. R. Han. too introduces it by the phrase 'it was taught'.');">⁷</span>

אמר מר רבי יהודה אומר לכל טמא למימרא דסבר רבי יהודה טומאת משקין לטמא טומאת כלים דאוריית'

In the case of all utensils which, have an outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'back'.');">⁸</span> and an inside, e.g.

והתנן כל הכלים שיש להן אחורים ותוך כגון הכרים והכסתות והשקין והמרצופין נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו נטמא גבו לא נטמא תוכו

cushions, feather-beds, sacks and packing bags, if the inside is defiled, the outside is defiled [too]; if the outside is defiled, the inside is not defiled. R'Ju said: When is that said?

א"ר יהודה במה דברים אמורים שנטמאו מחמת משקין אבל נטמאו מחמת שרץ נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו נטמא גבו נטמא תוכו

Where they are defiled by a liquid; but if they are defiled by a sherez, if the inside defiled the outside is defiled, [and] if the outside is defiled the inside is defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Utensils which have a back (outside) and an inside' are those which can be used on both sides. A cushion, feather-bed, etc. had a definite side for use, nevertheless they could be turned inside out and used; similarly, sacks and packing bags could be turned inside out and used, and they are therefore treated like other vessels which require only rinsing in order to become clean (v. Hul. 25a) so that if the inner side is defiled the whole is unclean, but not the reverse. Thus the first Tanna. R. Judah, however, draws a distinction between liquids and a sherez as the contaminating object; in the first case this law holds good, because liquid defiles by Rabbinical law only, and therefore the extent of its defilement was lessened, so that it might be known that it does not defile by Biblical law. Hence, if it touches terumah the terumah must not be burnt, as it would be if it were unclean by Scriptural law. But if a sherez, which defiles by Biblical law, contaminates them, they are altogether unclean, no matter where they are touched.');">⁹</span> Now if you think that the uncleanness of liquids in respect of defiling utensils is Biblical, what is the difference whether it was defile through liquids or through a sherez? - Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: R'Judah retracted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the view that it is unclean in respect of everything.');">¹⁰</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך טומאת משקין לטמא כלים דאורייתא מה לי נטמא מחמת משקין מה לי נטמא מחמת שרץ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חזר בו ר' יהודה

Rabina said: In truth he did not retract: one refers to liquids which are unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which come'.');">¹¹</span> through the hands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a Rabbinical enactment a person's hands are generally considered unclean in the second degree; further, they defile liquids and render them unclean in the first degree. It is between such liquids and a sherez that R. Judah draws a distinction.');">¹²</span>

רבינא אמר לעולם לא הדר הא במשקין הבאין מחמת ידים הא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ

the other to liquids which are unclean through a sherez. If so, instead of stating, 'When is that, when they are defiled by liquids.'

אי הכי אדתני במה דברים אמורים שנטמאו מחמת משקין ליפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים במשקין הבאין מחמת ידים אבל במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו נטמא גבו נטמא תוכו אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא חזר בו רבי יהודה

let him draw a distinction in that itself: [thus:] when is it said? In the case of liquids unclean through the hands; but in the case of liquids defiled by a sherez, if the inside is defiled the outside is defiled, [and] if outside is defiled the inside is defiled.

איבעיא להו מכלים הוא דהדר ביה אבל באוכלין כרבי יוסי ורבי שמעון סבירא ליה או דילמא לגמרי הדר ביה כרבי מאיר

Hence it is clear as we first answered: R'Judah retracted. The scholars asked: Did he retract [only] from [his ruling on] utensils, but in [the matter of] eatables he holds as R'Jose and R'Simeon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That liquids contaminate them, Biblically.');">¹³</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תא שמע פרה ששתתה מי חטאת בשרה טמא רבי יהודה אומר

or perhaps he completely retracted, in accordance with R'Meir['s views]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That liquids do not contaminate them even Rabbinically.');">¹⁴</span> - Said R'Nahman B'Isaac, Come and hear: If a cow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether sanctified or not.');">¹⁵</span> drinks the water of lustration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XIX, 9 (it is there translated: water of separation) .');">¹⁶</span> its flesh i unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is slaughtered while the water is yet within it, for the water of purification defiles human beings and vessels, v. ibid. 21.');">¹⁷</span> R'Judah said: