פסחים 16:1 — Soncino English Talmud

Doubtful [cases of uncleanness with] fluids, in respect of becoming unclean themselves, are unclean; in respect of defiling others, they are clean; this is R. Meir's view, and thus did R. Eleazar too rule as his words. R. Judah said: It is unclean in respect of everything. R. Jose and R. Simeon maintain: In respect of eatables, they are unclean; in respect of utensils they are clean. But does R. Eleazar hold that liquid is at all susceptible to uncleanness, surely it was taught: R. Eleazar said: Liquids have no uncleanness at all [by Scriptural law]; the proof is that Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah testified that the stag-locust is clean [fit for food], and that the fluids in the [Temple] slaughter-house are clean. Now, there is no difficulty according to Samuel's interpretation that they are clean [only] in so far that they cannot defile other [objects], but that nevertheless they are unclean in themselves, then it is well; but according to Rab who maintained that they are literally clean, what can be said? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: [He refers] to one [ruling only]. But he states: as his words’, implying that they are many; moreover, he teaches, ‘and thus [etc.]’? That is [indeed] a difficulty. The [above] text [states]: ‘Rab said, They are literally clean: while Samuel maintained, They are clean [only] insofar that they cannot defile other [objects], but nevertheless they are unclean in themselves’. ‘Rab said: They are literally clean’. He holds that the uncleanness of liquids is Rabbinical, and when did the Rabbis decree thus? [only] in respect of liquids in general, but there was no decree in respect of the liquids of the slaughter-house. ‘While Samuel maintained, They are clean [only] in so far that they cannot defile other [objects], but nevertheless they are unclean in themselves’. He holds that the uncleanness of liquids themselves is Scriptural, [but] in respect of defiling others, Rabbinical; and when did the Rabbis decree? In respect of liquids in general, but in respect of the liquids of the slaughter-house there was no decree; again, when did the Rabbis refrain from decreeing [concerning the liquids of the slaughter-house]? In respect to the defiling of other [objects], but they possess uncleanness in themselves. R. Huna b. Hanina said to his son: When you come before R. Papa, point out a contradiction to him: Did then Samuel say, ‘They are clean in so far that they cannot defile other [objects], but nevertheless they are unclean in themselves’, — read here, and the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten? Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi: Let it be compared to the fourth degree in the case of sacred [food]. To this R. Ashi demurred: A fourth degree in the case of sacred [food] is not designated unclean, [whereas] this is designated unclean? — This is a difficulty. Come and hear: And all drink that may be drunk in any vessel shall be unclean? — What does ‘it shall be unclean’ mean? It makes [solid foodstuffs] fit [to become unclean]. [You say]. ‘It makes [solids] fit’; this you know from the beginning of the verse: All food which may be eaten [that on which water cometh, shall be unclean]? — one refers to detached [liquid], and the other to attached [liquid], and both are necessary: for if we were informed of detached, that is because he [the owner of the eatables] assigned importance to them; but as for attached, I would say that it is not so. And if we were informed of attached, [that may be] because it [the liquid] stands in its place it has value; but as for detached, I would say that it is not so. Thus they are necessary. Come and hear: Nevertheless a fountain or a pit wherein is a gathering of water shall be clean? — What does ‘shall be clean’ mean? From his [or, its] uncleanness. But can detached [liquid] make [eatables] fit [to become unclean]; surely R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: The liquids of the [Temple] slaughter-house, not enough that they are clean, but they cannot [even] make [eatables] fit [to become unclean]? Interpret this as referring to the blood, for R. Hiyya b. Abin said in R. Johanan's name: How do we know that the blood of sacrifices does not make [anything] fit [to become 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 makes fit;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:E.g. . if an unclean person. whose touch defiles liquids, puts his hand into a vessel, and it is not known whether he actually touched the liquid there or not.
^ᵇnote:E.g., if unclean liquid fell near food and it is unknown whether it actually touched it or not.
^ᶜnote:The general principle is this: when a doubt arises in a Scriptural law, we are stringent; in a Rabbinical law, we are lenient. Now liquid can become defiled by Scriptural law (Lev. XI, 34), hence in doubt it is unclean. But there is a controversy as to whether it can defile other objects by Scriptural law. R. Meir holds that it cannot defile either food or utensils; R. Judah that it defiles both; while R. Jose and R. Simeon hold that it defiles food but not utensils.
^ᵈnote:Even in respect of itself.
^ᵉnote:V. Cambridge Bible I Kings XI, 26.
^ᶠnote:On the historic occasion when as a result of a dispute between R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua the former was deposed from the Patriarchate and R. Eliezer b. ‘Azariah appointed in his stead. An examination was then made of scholars’ traditions, and they were declared valid or otherwise; v. ‘Ed., Sonc. ed., Introduction, xi.
^ᵍnote:Heb. ayil, of doubtful meaning.
^ʰnote:Sc. blood and water.
^ⁱnote:Even by Rabbinical law. This postulates that the general uncleanness of liquids is Rabbinical only, and it was therefore not imposed in the Temple, so as not to defile the flesh of sacrifices. — The language of this Mishnah is Aramaic whereas all other laws in the Mishnah are couched in Hebrew. Weiss, Dor, I, 105 sees in this a proof of its extreme antiquity.
^ʲnote:Even in respect of themselves.
^ᵏnote:R. Eleazar agrees with R. Meir that it is clean in respect of other objects, but not that it is unclean in respect of itself.
^ˡnote:Both imply that he fully agrees with R. Meir
^ᵐnote:V. n. 5.
^ⁿnote:I.e., the Rabbis could not free them from the uncleanness which they bear by Scriptural law.
^ᵒnote:Lev. VII, 19. Hence if the liquid is unclean, the sacrificial flesh which touches it may not be eaten.
^ᵖnote:I.e. , sacrifices. V. p. 62, n. 2. Thus there too it is unfit itself through defilement, yet cannot defile other flesh of sacrifices.
^ᵠnote:Lev., XI, 34. This shows that liquids contract defilement.
^ʳnote:For solids cannot be defiled unless moisture has previously been upon them. The words, ‘it shall be unclean’ thus refer to ‘of all the food etc. ‘with which the verse begins.
^ˢnote:If rain falls upon produce it renders it susceptible to defilement only if the owner of the produce desired it to fall upon something. E.g., if he put out a basin so that the rain should wash it, and subsequently produce fell into the water, it is henceforth susceptible. We are informed here that whether the water is detached from the soil, i.e., whether the rain falls into something detached from the soil, e.g., a bath (as denoted by the words ‘in any vessel’), or into something attached, i.e., forming part of the soil, e.g., a pit,and then eatables receive moisture from that rain, they are now ready to be defiled. In the latter case the produce is rendered susceptible only if it comes into contact with the water with the owner's desire; in the former, even against the owner's desire. V. Hul. 16a and Rashi a.l. s.v. rafv ihbgk.
^ᵗnote:By the mere fact that he desired that the water should fall there or by pouring it into the vessel.
^ᵘnote:Lev. XI, 36. This shows that only attached water is clean, but not detached.
^ᵛnote:The verse refers to one who is unclean, and states that if he takes a ritual bath (tebillah) in the water of a fountain or a pit he shall be clean, but not in the water of a bath (technically called ‘drawn water’). But it does not refer to the cleanness of the water itself.
^ʷnote:Rashi: this difficulty refers to water, which can be attached too. But all other liquids are essentially detached.
^ˣnote:This proves that the power of detached liquids in this respect is only Rabbinical; for if it were Scriptural, the Rabbis have no power to make an exception in this case.
^ʸnote:But not the water.
^ᶻnote:Deut. XII, 24.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e. , the blood of non-sacrifices