Commentary page

Pesachim 17b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Pesachim 17b

Pesachim 17b. The full printed text of this folio side — 15 numbered segments, about 326 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

(רַבָּן) שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּכֵלִים טְמֵאִין, בְּקַרְקַע טְהוֹרִין.

Rabban Shimon says: If the liquids were in vessels, they are ritually impure; however, if they were in the ground, they are ritually pure, as explained below.

Segment 2

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — מַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אֵין טוּמְאָה לְמַשְׁקִין כׇּל עִיקָּר, תֵּדַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵעִיד (יוֹסֵף) בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה עַל מַשְׁקֵי בֵּית מַטְבְּחַיָּא דְּכַן.

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that in general the ritual impurity of liquids is by Torah law, the purity of the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which the Sages learned through tradition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But with regard to that which Rabbi Eliezer said: There is no impurity for liquids at all by Torah law, know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified about liquids in the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they were ritually pure. This statement indicates that liquids become impure only by rabbinic decree, a decree that is not in effect in the Temple.

Segment 3

וְאִי הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ — מִי גָּמְרִינַן מִינַּהּ?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, continued: And if they learned the ritual purity of liquids of the slaughterhouse as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai through tradition, do we derive other halakhot from it? There is a principle that one cannot derive halakhic principles from halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer cite this halakha as a proof for his opinion?

Segment 4

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: לְכֵלִים טְהוֹרִין, לָאוֹכָלִין טְמֵאִין.

Furthermore, Ravina said to Rav Ashi, also in rejection of Rav Pappa’s statement: Isn’t it Rabbi Shimon, who said that in general the ritual impurity of liquids is by Torah law? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: With regard to vessels that came into contact with impure liquid, the vessels are pure, as by Torah law liquids do not transmit impurity to vessels. However, with regard to foods that came into contact with impure liquid, the foods are impure, as by Torah law liquids transmit impurity to foods.

Segment 5

וְהָכָא קָאָמַר (רַבָּן) שִׁמְעוֹן: בְּכֵלִים טְמֵאִין, בְּקַרְקַע טְהוֹרִין. וְאִי הִלְכְתָא הִיא, מָה לִי בְּכֵלִים מָה לִי בְּקַרְקַע? קַשְׁיָא.

Ravina continues: And yet here, with regard to the liquids in the Temple, Rabban Shimon said: Liquids in vessels are ritually impure, and liquids in the ground are pure. And if you say that the purity of the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, what difference is there to me if the liquids are in vessels and what difference is there to me if the liquids are in the ground? If there is an accepted halakhic tradition that ritual impurity does not apply to these liquids, there should be no difference whether the liquid is in vessels or in the ground. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult according to Rav Pappa’s opinion.

Segment 6

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּקַרְקַע טְהוֹרִין — לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַיִם, אֲבָל דָּם — לֹא.

Rav Pappa said: That which you said, that the liquids in the Temple are ritually pure when in the ground, the Sages taught this halakha only with regard to water, but with regard to blood, no, it does not apply. According to Rabbi Shimon, blood can become impure even in the ground.

Segment 7

וּמַיִם נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּהָוֵי רְבִיעִית, דְּחָזֵי לְהַטְבִּיל בֵּיהּ מְחָטִין וְצִינּוֹרוֹת. אֲבָל לָא הָוֵי רְבִיעִית — טְמֵאִין.

And even with regard to water, we said that it is ritually pure only when it is a quarter- log , which is a suitable measure in which to immerse needles and hooks. By Torah law, a quarter- log of water collected in one place can serve as a ritual bath in which one can immerse objects that can be completely immersed in that amount of water. Because it has the status of a ritual bath, it too does not become ritually impure. Although the Sages decreed that one should not immerse vessels in a quarter-log of water, the water is pure by Torah law. Therefore, the Sages did not extend their decree to this measure of water inside the Temple. However, if the water is less than a quarter- log , it is ritually impure even in the ground, as that water cannot be used as a ritual bath.

Segment 8

אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לַכֹּל טָמֵא. לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת כֵּלִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?

The Master said in the baraita cited above, with regard to uncertainty about contact with impure liquids, that Rabbi Yehuda says: They are impure in all cases. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the impurity of liquids in terms of their capability to transmit impurity to vessels is by Torah law?

Segment 9

וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֲחוֹרַיִם וָתוֹךְ, כְּגוֹן הַכָּרִים וְהַכְּסָתוֹת וְהַשַּׂקִּין וְהַמַּרְצוּפִין, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ — לֹא נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ.

But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to all vessels that have an exterior that can be used and an interior that serves as a receptacle, such as cushions, blankets, sacks, and leather grain sacks, if the interior of one of these vessels became ritually impure, its exterior is impure as well. However, if its exterior became impure, its interior is not impure, because the primary use of these vessels is as a receptacle.

Segment 10

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ מֵחֲמַת מַשְׁקִין, אֲבָל נִטְמְאוּ מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ — נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ.

Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the vessels became impure due to contact with impure liquids. However, if they became impure due to contact with a creeping animal, then if the interior became impure the exterior is impure, and likewise, if the exterior became impure the interior is also impure.

Segment 11

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין לְטַמֵּא כֵּלִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מָה לִי נִטְמָא מֵחֲמַת מַשְׁקִין, מָה לִי נִטְמָא מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara explains the difficulty posed by Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in this mishna: And if it enters your mind that the ritual impurity of liquids with regard to their capacity to transmit impurity to vessels is by Torah law, what difference is there to me if the vessel is rendered impure due to liquids, and what difference is there to me if the vessel is rendered impure due to a creeping animal? Rather, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the impurity of liquids is by rabbinic law, and the Sages distinguished between the impurity of the exterior and interior of a vessel to distinguish between impurity by Torah law and impurity by rabbinic law and prevent the burning of teruma that is impure with impurity by rabbinic law. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous statement in the baraita and accepted the ruling that the impurity of liquids is only by rabbinic decree.

Segment 12

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא הָדַר, הָא — בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת יָדַיִם. הָא — בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ.

Ravina said: Actually, it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda did not retract his previous statement, as this case, where he distinguishes between impurity on the interior and the exterior of vessels, was stated with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with impure hands that did not undergo ritual washing. Unwashed hands are impure by rabbinic decree, and therefore the impurity of such liquid is likewise rabbinic. Conversely, that case, where the impurity of liquids is by Torah law, was stated with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal. As that impurity is by Torah law, no distinction is made between the interior and exterior of vessels.

Segment 13

אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי ״בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ מֵחֲמַת מַשְׁקִין״, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת יָדַיִם. אֲבָל בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ — נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, instead of teaching: In what case is this statement said? In a case where the vessels were rendered impure due to contact with liquids, as opposed to the other case in which the vessels became impure due to contact with creeping animals, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where these vessels became impure by contact with liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with impure hands. However, in a case where these vessels became impure by contact with liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, if the interior became impure, the exterior is impure, and if the exterior became impure, the interior is likewise impure. Rather, the Gemara rejects Ravina’s explanation and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his previous ruling.

Segment 14

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִכֵּלִים הוּא דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ, אֲבָל בָּאוֹכָלִין כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. אוֹ דִילְמָא: לִגְמָרֵי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Was it only from his ruling with regard to liquids that transmitted ritual impurity to vessels by Torah law that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion, but with regard to foods he still holds in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, that liquids transmit impurity to foods by Torah law? Or perhaps he completely retracted his previous opinion, and Rabbi Yehuda in fact holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that there is no Torah basis for the impurity of liquids.

Segment 15

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה שֶׁשָּׁתְתָה מֵי חַטָּאת — בְּשָׂרָהּ טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna: With regard to a cow that drank purification waters in which the ashes of the red heifer were mixed and which were to be sprinkled on one who was ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and the cow was slaughtered before it digested the water, its flesh is impure due to contact with this water. Pure items that come in contact with the purification waters become impure, as derived from a verse. Rabbi Yehuda says:

Pesachim 17b

Pesachim 17b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text