1its owners will have no choice but to consult a Sage about it to determine whether or not it is ritually pure, as even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, which is certainly not capable of providing an answer if asked, its legal status is like that of an item that has knowledge to be asked. The fact that the knife is an inanimate object is not reason enough to rule it ritually pure. It was therefore necessary to say that the knife is ritually pure because the Temple courtyard is a public domain. If it was a private domain, the knife would be deemed impure.
2It was taught that if an impure needle were found in an animal, the meat is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: With what liquid was this meat rendered susceptible to impurity? A food can become impure only if it were rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid; how, then, could the sacrificial meat become impure immediately after the animal was slaughtered?
3If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by the blood that flowed when it was slaughtered, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived with regard to blood of consecrated offerings that it does not render produce susceptible to impurity? As it is stated: “You shall surely not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:16). The Sages derived from this verse: Blood that is poured like water, i.e., blood from a non-sacred domesticated animal that is poured out when it is slaughtered and not received in a vessel like sacrificial blood, assumes the legal status of water and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. Blood that is not poured out like water, but is received in a vessel to be sprinkled on the altar, does not render food susceptible to impurity.
4Rather, say that this meat was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the other liquids of the slaughterhouse, e.g., the water that was kept near the altar for washing the offerings. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse: Not only are they ritually pure, as noted in the testimony of Yosei ben Yo’ezer, but they do not even render meat susceptible to impurity?
5Rather, say that the meat is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the esteem for sacred objects. According to this principle, certain items that cannot become impure by Torah law become susceptible to impurity by rabbinic law due to their extreme sanctity. The Gemara rejects that possibility: Say that the esteem for sacred objects is effective to disqualify the meat itself despite the fact that it was not rendered susceptible to receive impurity, but does it also transmit impurity to the extent that one counts first- and second- degree impurity from contact with that meat? Can impurity based on the esteem for sacred objects be transmitted to other objects like standard impurity?
6If so, resolve from here that which Reish Lakish raised as a dilemma: With regard to a mass from meal-offerings, does one count first- and second- degree impurity from contact with it or not? Due to the esteem for sacred objects, the offering itself can become impure without having been rendered susceptible through contact with liquid; however, the dilemma is whether or not it transmits impurity to other objects.
7The Gemara responds: Perhaps the dilemma with regard to the status of ritual impurity due to esteem for sacred objects has not in fact been resolved. In the case of meat, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is referring to a case where the meat was from a cow brought as a peace-offering sacrifice, whose hide and meat belong to its owner, and the owner led it through the river to clean it, and he slaughtered it while liquid was still moist upon it. While the animal was being flayed, water fell on the meat, rendering it susceptible to impurity.
8We learned in a mishna cited above: If the needle was found in the secretions of the animal’s stomach, everything, meat, knife, and hands, is pure. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let these secretions, which are liquid, return and transmit impurity to the meat itself. Like any other liquid, the secretions assume first-degree ritual impurity by rabbinic decree. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is referring to thick, solid secretions, which are not liquid. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to soft secretions, it does not transfer impurity because it is an offensive liquid, which does not transmit impurity.
9The tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet. Based on the verses, it is possible to create the following scenario: The carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity to liquids, the liquids transmit impurity to a vessel, the vessel transmits impurity to foods, and the foods transmit impurity to liquids. And we have thereby learned that there are three successive levels of impurity with regard to a dead creeping animal. The Gemara notes: These are four levels, not three. The Gemara answers: Cut the liquids of the first clause, so that the baraita reads: The carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity to a vessel and the vessel to foods, etc.
10The Gemara asks: On the contrary, cut the liquids of the latter clause, which states that foods transmit impurity to liquids. The Gemara explains: The only tanna that we find who said that liquids transmit impurity to a vessel is Rabbi Yehuda. And even he retracted this statement. And your mnemonic to remember the order of the transfer of impurity in this baraita is a brewing vat, as the order is similar to the production of beer. First one brings the vessel, then one places barley, the food, in it, and then the water. That is the order of the transmission of impurity in the baraita .
11We learned in a mishna there: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an oven, the bread inside it is impure with second- degree ritual impurity. This is due to the fact that the oven is impure with first- degree impurity and transmits impurity to the bread.
12Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let us view that oven as one filled with impurity, as an earthenware vessel is rendered impure by a creeping animal in the airspace of the oven even without making contact with it. And consequently this bread should be impure with the first- degree of impurity. The oven should be considered as if it were filled with carcasses of creeping animals and the bread should assume first-degree impurity status as though it became impure directly from a creeping animal.
13He said to him: This suggestion cannot enter your mind, as it was taught in a baraita : I might have thought that all the vessels found in an earthenware oven become impure from the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel.