Pesachim — Daf 19b

ונימא שאין טומאת ידים וכלים במקדש אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא ר' יוסי בר' חנינא ידים קודם גזירת כלים נשנו

אמר רבא והא תרוייהו בו ביום גזרו דתנן הספר והידים והטבול יום והאוכלין והכלים שנטמאו במשקין

אלא אמר רבא הנח לטומאת סכין דאפי' בחולין נמי לא מטמא האי סכין דנגע במאי אילימא דנגע בבשר הא אין אוכל מטמא כלי ואלא דנגע במחט והא אין כלי מטמא כלי

האי מחט מאי עבידתיה אי נימא ספק מחט והא איתמר ר' אלעזר ור' יוסי בר' חנינא חד אמר לא גזרו על ספק הרוקין שבירושלים וחד אמר לא גזרו על ספק הכלים שבירושלים

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כגון שאבדה לו מחט טמא מת והכירה בבשר ר' יוסי ברבי אבין אמר כגון שהיתה פרה חסומה ובאה מחוץ לירושלים:

גופא ר' אלעזר ור' יוסי בר' חנינא חד אמר לא גזרו על ספק הרוקין שבירושלים וחד אמר לא גזרו על ספק הכלים שבירושלים רוקין תנינא כלים תנינא

רוקין תנינא דתנן כל הרוקין הנמצאין בירושלים טהורין חוץ משל שוק העליון לא צריכא אף על גב דאיתחזק זב

כלים תנינא דתנן כל הכלים הנמצאים בירושלים דרך ירידה לבית הטבילה טמאין הא דעלמא טהורין

ולטעמיך אימא סיפא דרך עליה טהורין הא דעלמא טמאין

אלא רישא דוקא וסיפא לאו דוקא ולאפוקי גזייתא

ולרב דאמר כגון שאבדה לו מחט טמא מת והכירה בבשר כיון דאמר מר בחלל חרב חרב הרי הוא כחלל אדם וכלים נמי ליטמא

אמר רב אשי זאת אומרת עזרה רשות הרבים היא והוה ליה ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים וכל ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים ספיקו טהור

הא ברשות היחיד ספיקו טמא הוא מכדי האי מחט דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל הוא וכל דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל בין ברה"ר בין ברה"י ספיקו טהור

משום דהוי ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם ואמר רבי יוחנן ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם

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?1 — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, — others state, R. Jose son of R. Hanina: Hands were taught before the enactment concerning utensils.2 Raba asked: Surely both were enacted on that self-same day, for we learned: [The following render terumah unfit . . .] a Book,3 the hands,4 a tebul yom, and eatables or utensils which were defiled by a liquid?5 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. 6 What is the condition of this needle?7 Shall we say that it is a doubtful needle?8 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;9 while the other said: They did not decree [uncleanness] for doubtful utensils in Jerusalem?10 Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: E.g., if one lost a needle [unclean through] a person defiled by the dead,11 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.12 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?13 We have learned [about] saliva, for we learned: All saliva found in Jerusalem is clean, save that of the upper market!14 — It is necessary only [to state] that [this is so] even though a zab was known [to have passed there].15 ‘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’,16 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?17 Rather, the first clause is exact, whereas the second is not exact,18 and it is to exclude the narrow paths.19 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,20 let it defile human beings and utensils too?21 — Said R. Ashi: This proves that the Temple Court ranks as public ground; so that it is a doubt of uncleanness22 in public ground, and every doubt of uncleanness in public ground, the doubt is clean. But in private ground,23 its doubt is clean?24 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?25 — Because it is a doubt of uncleanness which arises through a person,26 and R. Johanan said: A doubt of uncleanness which arises through a person, the Temple it would be unclean by Rabbinical enactment, v. infra. existence at all. Shab. 13b. enacted only that a liquid defiles utensils. law is a ‘father’ of uncleanness and defiles human beings and utensils. metal in such a case has the same degree of uncleanness as that which defiles it; v. supra 14b top. V. however, infra. it enters Jerusalem. ritual bath and dropped on the way. V. Shek. VIII, 2. R. Jose b. R. Hanina, without which we might have assumed the reverse. found there were declared unclean, since they were certainly unclean in the first place, and our only doubt is whether they were lost on the way to the baths or on the way from the baths. But utensils found in the rest of Jerusalem, where it is not known whether they have been unclean at all, are clean.