Pesachim 16bפסחים ט״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
16bט״ז ב

דם שאינו נשפך כמים אינו מכשיר מתקיף לה רב שמואל בר אמי הרי דם התמצית דנשפך כמים ואינו מכשיר

Conversely, blood that is not poured out like water but is received in a vessel to be sprinkled on the altar does not render produce susceptible to contract impurity. Rav Shmuel bar Ami strongly objects to this: There is the blood squeezed from an animal after slaughter once the initial spurt of blood has concluded, which is poured like water, as it is unfit for sprinkling upon the altar. And nevertheless, this blood does not render produce susceptible to impurity.

אמר ליה רבי זירא הנח לדם התמצית דאפילו בחולין נמי לא מכשיר

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Leave aside the blood squeezed after the initial spurt, which is an exceptional case, as even from non-sacred animals it does not render produce susceptible to ritual impurity either. With regard to the halakha that blood renders produce susceptible to ritual impurity, the legal status of blood squeezed after the initial spurt is not that of blood at all.

קבלה מיניה רב שמואל בר אמי דאמר רחמנא רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש דם שהנפש יוצאה בו קרוי דם דם שאין הנפש יוצאה בו אינו קרוי דם

The Gemara comments: Rav Shmuel bar Ami accepted this statement from Rabbi Zeira and cited a verse that supports it. As the Merciful One states: “Only be strong not to eat the blood; for the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23). This verse indicates: Blood with regard to which the soul leaves the body when it is spilled is called blood; however, blood with regard to which the soul does not leave the body when it is spilled, but which is squeezed out afterward, is not called blood.

תא שמע דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה מדרבנן ודלא כרבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה

The Gemara cites an additional proof that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law. Come and hear: With regard to blood that became ritually impure, and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, the following distinction applies: If he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, blood becomes ritually impure by Torah law, even if it does not transmit impurity to other items. The Gemara rejects this contention: This impurity is by rabbinic law, and this ruling is not in accordance with Rav’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida, as he maintains that sacrificial blood does not become impure at all.

תא שמע על מה הציץ מרצה על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון בין ביחיד בין בצבור

The Gemara cites a proof from another mishna. Come and hear: For what does the frontplate of the High Priest atone and thereby allow the blood of the offering to be sprinkled? It atones for the blood, and for the meat, and for the fat that became impure, whether one caused it to become impure unwittingly or intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond his control or willfully, and whether it is the offering of an individual or that of a community. Apparently, the blood of an offering can become impure.

מדרבנן ודלא (כיוסף) בן יועזר איש צרידה

The Gemara rejects this proof: The mishna is referring to blood that is impure by rabbinic law, and here too, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida, who says that consecrated blood does not become impure at all.

תא שמע ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים

The Gemara cites an additional proof: Come and hear another verse written about the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the consecrated objects, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God” (Exodus 28:38).

וכי איזה עון הוא נושא אם עון פיגול הרי כבר נאמר לא ירצה אם עון נותר הרי כבר נאמר לא יחשב

And the Sages expounded: Which sin does it bear? If you say it atones for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat the offering after the permitted time, it is already stated: “And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 19:7). If you say it atones for notar, i.e., meat of an offering left after the time that one was permitted to eat it, it is already stated: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it” (Leviticus 7:18).

הא אינו נושא אלא עון טומאה שהותרה מכללה בציבור מאי לאו טומאת דם אמר רב פפא לא טומאת קמצים

Evidently, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity in the offering of an individual, as in some circumstances, impurity was exempted from its general prohibition on behalf of the community. It was permitted to sacrifice communal offerings in the Temple in a state of impurity. What, does this not apply to impure blood as well? Apparently, blood can also become impure. Rav Pappa said: No, the reference is not to impure blood but to the impurity of handfuls of flour separated by the priest from a meal-offering. The handful of flour renders the meal-offering permitted to be eaten by the priests, parallel to the blood of an animal offering.

תא שמע הן ישא איש בשר קדש בכנף בגדו ונגע בכנפו אל הלחם ואל הנזיד ואל היין ואל שמן ואל כל מאכל היקדש ויענו הכהנים ויאמרו לא (יקדש)

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.