Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 17 continues to analyze the status of liquids in the Temple. Rav holds the position that liquids in the Temple’s slaughtering house do not become tamei (later on today’s daf clarifies that he only means blood and water). Shmuel holds the position that liquids can become tamei but cannot transmit this contamination.
The Gemara tests to see whether Rav is consistent in this position by citing his analysis of a two question test that the prophet Haggai gave to the priests. 70 years after the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians in the year 516 BCE, a remnant of the Judahites including Haggai returned home to rebuild what we refer to as the Second Temple. Because these priests had never offered up sacrifices before, Haggai had to ascertain whether they were conversant with the laws of tumah and teharah. Consequently, he gives them a two question test beginning at the very bottom of yesterday’s daf and continues on today’s. To understand the test we have to review the definitions I provided a couple days ago.\
Av HaTumah (אב הטומאה) is a dead animal who died by some other means than ritual slaughter, one of the dead of the eight creeping crawlers the Torah identifies (Lev. 11:29-30) zav, zavah, niddah, metszora), and a woman after child birth (all these people have some kind of discharge) A human corpse is an avi avot hatumah (אבי אבות הטומאה) and a person and an article touching the human corpse is also considered an av hatumah.
When somebody or article touches an av hatumah, he or it becomes a rishon (first degree) letumah (ראשון לטומאה). This level of tumah is also known as vlad hatumah (ולד הטומאה). The rishon letumah can create a sheni (second degree) letumah (שני לטומאה) also known as vlad vald hatumah (ולד ולד הטומאה). In certain circumstances the transmission can become a shelishi (third degree) letumah ( שלישי לטומאה) and a revii (fourth degree) letumah (רביעי לטומאה).
When tumah can no longer be transmitted to anything else, the Gemara calls that ritually unready object pasul (פסול).
Now first question of the test.
“The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear that which was said to the prophet Haggai: “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: Ask now the priests with regard to the Torah, saying: If a person bears hallowed flesh in the corner of his garment, and with his garment he touches bread, or stew, or wine, or oil, or any food, shall it be sacred? And the priests answered and said: No” (Haggai 2:11–12). This question is asked with regard to the flesh of a creeping animal and whether or not the substances that come into contact with it become impure.
“Apropos Rav’s statement with regard to Haggai’s exchange with the priests, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav said: The priests erred, as they should have said the oil is rendered impure. And Shmuel said: The priests did not err. The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that the priests erred, as Haggai raised the dilemma before them whether or not consecrated items become impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity. The question in the verse pertains to the following case: One is carrying a dead creeping animal in the corner of his garment and bread comes into contact with it, conferring upon the bread first-degree ritual impurity status; and stew comes in contact with the bread, conferring upon the stew second-degree ritual impurity status; and wine comes in contact with the stew, conferring upon the wine third-degree ritual impurity status; and oil comes into contact with the wine. The question is: In that case, does the wine confer upon the oil fourth-degree ritual impurity? And when the priests said to him that it is pure, they erred. In fact, the oil is disqualified with fourth-degree ritual impurity, because it is a consecrated item.
“And Shmuel said: The priests did not err, as Haggai raised the dilemma before them whether or not consecrated items become impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity. According to Shmuel’s explanation, the case is as follows: The corner of the garment comes into contact with a dead creeping animal, conferring upon the garment first-degree ritual impurity status; bread comes into contact with the garment, conferring upon the bread second-degree ritual impurity status; stew comes in contact with the bread, conferring upon the stew third-degree ritual impurity status; and wine comes in contact with the stew, conferring upon the wine fourth-degree ritual impurity status; and oil comes into contact with the wine. In that case, does the wine confer upon the oil fifth-degree ritual impurity? And the priests correctly said to him that the oil is pure.
“The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, that is the reason that it is four items that are written in the dilemma raised in the verse: Bread, stew, wine, and oil, as the dilemma pertains to fourth-degree ritual impurity. However, according to Shmuel, from where does he learn that the dilemma involves five items?
“The Gemara explains Shmuel’s opinion. Is it written in the verse: And its corner touched the bread, indicating that the primary source of impurity that was in the corner of the garment touched the bread? It is actually written in the verse: “And it touched the corner of his garment,” meaning the bread came into contact with that which touched the primary source of ritual impurity that was in the corner of his garment. The bread came into contact with the corner of the garment, not with the primary source of impurity itself. Accordingly, the garment assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the bread second-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the stew third-degree ritual impurity status, which confers upon the wine fourth-degree ritual impurity status. Since the wine cannot confer fifth-degree ritual impurity status upon the oil, the oil remains pure.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Now the second question of the test.
“The Gemara cites proof from the subsequent verse. Come and hear: “And Haggai said: If one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse touches any of these, shall he be impure? And the priests answered and said: He shall be impure” (Haggai 2:13). Granted, according to Shmuel, from the fact that here, with regard to a dead creeping animal, the priests did not err, as Shmuel maintains that the dilemma was with regard to fifth-degree ritual impurity, there too they did not err. However, according to Rav, what is different here, concerning the impurity of a creeping animal, such that the priests erred, and what is different there, with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, such that they did not err?
“…Ravina said that the distinction between the cases is different. There, the first dilemma addressed fourth-degree ritual impurity, whereas here, the dilemma addressed third-degree ritual impurity. Haggai’s second dilemma does not begin with contact with an item that came into contact with a corpse; rather, it begins with contact with the corpse itself. Since a corpse is the ultimate primary source of impurity, the fourth item is impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The priests knew that halakha.”
According to Shmuel the priests got 100% on the test by answering both questions correctly. Rav said they got lucky and by answering one out of two questions, 50%, correct because they didn’t know that tumah can be transmitted one more level from a shlishi to a reve’ii when it comes to sacrificial meat.
I wonder whether it was a pass fail test.
No comments:
Post a Comment