Parallel
פסחים 20
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
we inquire about it, even in the case of a utensil lying on the ground, just as though it were an object which has the understanding to be questioned. ‘While the flesh is unclean’ — By what was this flesh made fit? Shall we say that it was made fit by the blood? — surely R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: How do we know that the blood of sacrifices does not make [anything] fit [to be defiled]? Because it is said, thou shalt pour it out [sc. the blood] upon the earth as water: blood which is poured out as water renders fit; blood which is not poured out as water does not render fit. Again, if it was made fit by the liquids of the slaughter-house, — surely R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: The liquids of the [Temple] slaughterhouse, not enough that they are clean, but they cannot even make [eatables] fit? Again, if it was made fit through the prizing of sacred objects. — say that the prizing of sacred objects is efficacious in rendering that itself unfit, is it also [sufficient] that first and second degree should be counted therein? [In that case] you may solve what Resh Lakish asked: The dry portion of meal-offerings, do we count first and second degrees therein or not? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: E.g..if it was an animal for a peace-offering and it was led through a river and then slaughtered, and the water is still dripping upon it. ‘If found in the excrements, it is all clean.’ But let the excrements defile the flesh in their turn? Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: It refers to thick [solid] excrements. R. Ashi said: You may even say that it refers to loose [fluidlike] excrements, [its non-defilement being] because it is a noisome liquid. A tanna recited before R. Shesheth: A sherez defiles liquids, and the liquids defile a utensil, and the utensil defiles eatables, and the eatables defile liquids, and [thus] we learn three [stages of] uncleanness in the case of a sherez. But there are four? — Delete liquids in the first clause, on the contrary, delete liquids in the last clause? — We find no other Tanna who maintains [that] liquids defile utensils save R. Judah, and he retracted. And your sign [for remembering the order] is the brewing process. We learned elsewhere: If a creeping thing is found in an oven, the bread therein is a second, because the oven is a first. R. Adda b. Ahabah said to Raba: Let us regard this oven as though it were fined with uncleanness, and let the bread be a first? — Said he to him, You cannot think so,for it was taught: You might think that all utensils become unclean through the air space of an [unclean] earthen vessel:
—
therefore it is stated, whatsoever is it, it shall be unclean, and in proximity thereto, all food therein which ‘may be eaten: food becomes unclean through the air space of an [unclean] earthen vessel, but no utensils become unclean through the air space of an [unclean] earthen vessel. R. Hisda opposed two teachings of Passover, and reconciled [them]. Did R. Joshua say, Both of them [may be burnt] together? But the following contradicts it: R. Jose said [to R. Meir]: The conclusion is not similar to the premise. For when our Masters testified, concerning what did they testify? If concerning flesh which was defiled through a derivative uncleanness, that we burn it together with flesh which was defiled through a father of uncleanness, [then] this is unclean and that is unclean. If concerning oil which was rendered unfit by a tebul yom, that it is lit in a lamp which was defiled by one unclean through a corpse, — one is unfit and the other is unclean. So too do we admit in the case of terumah which was defiled through a derivative uncleanness, that we may burn it together with terumah which was defiled through a ‘father’ of uncleanness. But how can we burn even that which is doubtful together with that which is unclean: perhaps Elijah will come and declare it clean! And he answered: one agrees with R. Simeon, and in accordance with R. Joshua, while the other agrees with R. Jose, and in accordance with R. Joshua. For it was taught: If the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, everything [sc. leaven] must be removed before the Sabbath, and terumoth, unclean, doubtful, and clean are burnt [together]: this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: The clean [terumah must be burnt] separately, the actually touches it, it defiles; hence one should regard the sherez as though completely filling it. doubtful [terumah] separately, and the unclean separately. Said R. Simeon: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning clean and unclean, that they must not be burnt [together], and concerning doubtful [terumah] and clean [terumah] that they may be burnt [together]. Concerning what did they differ? Concerning doubtful [terumah] and unclean [terumah], R. Eliezer maintaining: This must be burnt separately, and this separately; while R. Joshua ruled: Both of then, [may be burnt] together. But our Mishnah is according to R. Jose? — R. Jose says thus to R. Meir: Even R. Simeon, who in stating R. Joshua's opinion is lenient, is lenient only in respect of doubtful [terumah] and unclean [terumah]. but not in the case of clean and unclean. R. Jose son of R. Hanina opposed terumah to Passover, and reconciled them. Did then R. Joshua say. Both together: But the following contradicts it: A cask of terumah wherein a doubt of uncleanness is born, R. Eliezer said: If lying in an exposed place, it must be laid in a hidden place; and if it was uncovered, it must be covered. R. Joshua said: If it is lying in a hidden place, one may lay it in an exposed place, and if it is covered, it may be uncovered. Thus only an indirect action [is permitted], but not [defiling] with [one's own] hands? — And he answered: one agrees with R. Simeon and according to R. Joshua's view, while the other agrees with R. Jose and according to R. Joshua's view. R. Eleazar opposed two teachings of terumah and reconciled them. Did R. Joshua say, only an indirect action [is permitted], but not with [one's own] hands? But the following contradicts it: If a cask of [wine of clean] terumah is broken in the upper vat, while [in] the lower there is unclean hullin: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if a rebi'ith thereof can be saved in purity, one must save it. But if not, — R. Eliezer ruled: Let it descend and be defiled, yet let him not defile it with [his own] hands; R. Joshua said: He may even defile it with his own hands? — And he answer ed: There it is different, because there is the loss of hullin. To this Raba demurred: In our Mishnah too there is the loss of wood? — Said Abaye to him: They cared about a substantial loss, but not about a slight loss. And whence do you know that they cared about a substantial loss but not about a slight one? Because it was taught: If a cask of oil of [clean] terumah was broken in the upper vat, while in the lower is unclean hullin: R. Eliezer concedes to R. Joshua that if a rebi'ith thereof can be saved in purity, one must save it. But if not, let it descend and be defiled, yet let him not defile it with [his own] hands. Why is oil different: because it is fit for lighting? Then wine too is fit for sprinkling? And should you answer, sprinkling is of no account, — surely, Samuel said in R. Hiyya's name: You drink [wine] at a sela’ per log, whereas you sprinkle [with wine] at two sela's per log? — It refers to new [wine]. But it is fit for ageing? — one will come to a stumbling-block through it. Then oil too, one will come to a stumbling-block through it? — He pours it into a dirty vessel. Wine too can be poured into a dirty vessel? — Seeing that it is required for sprinkling, will he pour it into a dirty vessel! Now a stumbling-block itself is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: A cask of wine of terumah which was defiled, — Beth Shammai maintain: It must be poured out all at once; while Beth Hillel rule: It may be used for sprinkling. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said: I will make a compromise. [If it is] in the field, it must be poured out all at once; in the house, it can be used for sprinkling. Others state: In the case of new [wine], it must be poured out all at once; in the case of old, it can be used for sprinkling. Said they to him:
—