Parallel
פסחים 19:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
accepts R. Jose's argument. Surely then in the whole of the Talmud this view would have found expression somewhere! Then let him say, There is no uncleanness of the hands or of utensils in the Temple? — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, — others state, R. Jose son of R. Hanina: Hands were taught before the enactment concerning utensils. Raba asked: Surely both were enacted on that self-same day, for we learned: [The following render terumah unfit . . .] a Book, the hands, a tebul yom, and eatables or utensils which were defiled by a liquid? No, said Raba: Leave the uncleanness of the knife, for even in the case of hullin it would not be unclean. [For] what did this knife touch [that it should be unclean]: shall we say that it touched the flesh, — Surely food cannot defile utensils; and if it touched the needle, — surely one utensil cannot defile another utensil. What is the condition of this needle? Shall we say that it is a doubtful needle? Surely it was stated, R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina, — one said, They did not decree [uncleanness] for doubtful saliva in Jerusalem; while the other said: They did not decree [uncleanness] for doubtful utensils in Jerusalem? Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: E.g., if one lost a needle [unclean through] a person defiled by the dead, and he recognized it in Temple, and this is all to the good, as sacrifices are thereby saved from defilement. the flesh. R. Jose son of R. Abin said: E.g.. if the cow was muzzled and came from without Jerusalem. The [above] text [states]: ‘R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina, — one said: They did not decree [uncleanness] for doubtful saliva in Jerusalem; while the other said: They did not decree [uncleanness] for doubtful utensils in Jerusalem.’ [But] we have learned [about] saliva, [and] we have learned [about] utensils? We have learned [about] saliva, for we learned: All saliva found in Jerusalem is clean, save that of the upper market! — It is necessary only [to state] that [this is so] even though a zab was known [to have passed there]. ‘We have learned [about] utensils,’ for we learned: ‘All utensils which are found in Jerusalem on the way of the descent to the ritual bath-house are unclean’, hence those [found] elsewhere are clean! — Then according to your reasoning, consider the second clause: — [those found] on the way of the ascent [from the bath] are clean’, hence those [found] anywhere else are unclean? Rather, the first clause is exact, whereas the second is not exact, and it is to exclude the narrow paths. Now according to Rab who said, ‘E.g..if one lost a needle [unclean through] a person defiled by the dead, and he recognized it in the flesh? — [But] surely since a Master said, The [verse] ‘one slain by the sword’ [teaches that] the sword is as the slain, let it defile human beings and utensils too? — Said R. Ashi: This proves that the Temple Court ranks as public ground; so that it is a doubt of uncleanness in public ground, and every doubt of uncleanness in public ground, the doubt is clean. But in private ground, its doubt is clean? Consider: this needle is an object which has no understanding to be questioned, and everything which has no understanding to be questioned, both in public and in private ground, its doubt is clean? — Because it is a doubt of uncleanness which arises through a person, and R. Johanan said: A doubt of uncleanness which arises through a person,
—