Sifra 4.0.16

Shemini, Section 7

1) (Vayikra 11:33) ("And every earthen vessel where there shall fall of them into its midst") This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion a natron vessel? From "and … earthen vessel." Whence would I (think to) include (earthen) tents (for tumah that I need a verse to exclude them)? I would reason thus: If (with) wooden vessels, where flat ones are tamei, tents are clean, then (with) earthen vessels, where flat ones are clean, how much more so should tents be clean! — No, if wooden tents are clean, it is because their atmosphere is clean. Should earthen tents, then, be clean, whose atmosphere is not clean? It must, therefore, be written ("earthen) vessel," to exclude (earthenware) tents (from tumah). Whence do I include (for tumah) earthen shards? From "and every earthen vessel."

2) From here they ruled: The fine and small earthen vessels, they, (or if they were broken), their bottoms, or their sides, (if they) can rest without support — then the (minimum) requisite amount (for their being considered vessels vis-à-vis acquiring tumah) is (their being able to hold) enough (oil) to anoint (the small finger of a one-day-old) infant. (This is the criterion for vessels which can hold) up to a log. (The amount increases progressively for larger vessels:) (If they could originally hold) from a log until a sa'ah, (the minimum amount is) a revi'ith; from a sa'ah until two sa'ah, a half-log; from two sa'ah until three and until five sa'ah, a log. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: I do not assign measurements to them, but: the fine and small earthen vessels, they, (or if they were broken), their bottoms, or their sides, (if they) can rest without support — then the (minimum) requisite amount is enough to anoint an infant. (This is the criterion) up to small pots. From small pots until Lyddan jugs, a revi'ith; from Lyddan until Bethlemite, a half-log; from Bethlemite until large jugs — this cannot be recollected. R. Nechemiah and R. Eliezer b. Yaakov say: The (minimum) requisite amount for large jugs is two logs. Galilean jars and very small jugs — the amount for their bottoms is any amount, and they do not have sides.

3) "upon which there falls of them": There are of them (sheratzim) which confer tumah, and there are of them which do not confer tumah. If a rooster swallowed a sheretz and fell into the atmosphere of an oven, (the oven is) clean, (swallowed tumah not conferring tumah); and if it died (before it could assimilate the sheretz), the oven is tamei.

4) (Vayikra 11:33): "into its midst": (An earthenware vessel) that has a "midst" acquires tumah; one that does not have a midst, does not." This excludes (from acquiring tumah) an earthen bed, or chair, or bench, or table, or menorah, (which are not made for receiving objects). This testimony was given by Chizkiah avi Akash before R. Gamliel in Yavneh in the name of R. Gamliel in the name of R. Gamliel the elder: Whatever has no "midst" in earthenware has no back (for purposes of acquiring tumah).

5) "its midst": We are hereby taught that it (an earthen vessel) acquires tumah, through its atmosphere (e.g., by a sheretz hanging in its atmosphere, even if it does not touch it). It acquires tumah through its midst (e.g., if liquid that is tamei touches its midst); but it does not acquire tumah through its back. (We need the verse for this, for otherwise we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori (that it should become tamei through its back) viz.: If vessels that require rinsing (to rid them of their tumah, i.e., vessels of wood and metal), which do not acquire tumah through their atmosphere, do acquire tumah through their back, then earthenware vessels, that do acquire tumah through their atmosphere, how much more so should they acquire tumah through their back! It is, therefore, written "its midst." It acquires tumah through its midst, and not through its back.

6) (But) it (now) follows a fortiori that a vessel that requires rinsing should acquire tumah through its atmosphere!, viz.: If an earthen vessel that does not acquire tumah through its back, does so through its atmosphere, then a vessel that requires rinsing, that does acquire tumah through its back, how much more so should it do so through its atmosphere! It is, therefore, written "an earthen vessel … into its midst," and not a vessel that requires rinsing, into its midst.

7) (Vayikra 11:33): "into its midst": when it falls into its midst, and not when it falls into the midst of its midst. How so? A jug is in an (earthen) stove, its mouth above the stove; a sheretz is in the jug. The stove is clean (and not tamei). Which (state) is more potent? That of conferring tumah or that of acquiring tumah? That of conferring is more potent than that of acquiring. For it (an earthen vessel that is tamei) confers tumah from its back (i.e., upon objects that touch its back), but does not acquire tumah from its back (but only from something tamei in its midst). Now if in a place where tumah is conferred from its back, it is not conferred from the midst of its midst, then, in a place where tumah is not acquired from its back, how much more so is it not acquired from the midst of its midst! (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) (For perhaps we would say that) the (state of) acquiring tumah is more potent than that of conferring tumah. For it (food in the oven) acquires tumah from a yeast container (in its midst which contains a sheretz), but it (a sheretz in the oven) does not confer tumah upon the yeast (in the container). So that it (the oven), too, should acquire tumah from what is in the midst of its midst even though it does not confer tumah (via a sheretz within it) upon (food that is found in) the midst of its midst! It must, therefore, be written "into its midst" — When it (the sheretz) falls into its midst it is tamei, but not when it falls into the midst of its midst.

8) (Vayikra 11:33): "all that is in its midst shall become tamei," and not what is in the midst of its midst. How so? A jug is in an (earthen) stove, its mouth above the stove. A sheretz is in the stove. The food and drink in the jug are clean. Which (state) is more potent? That of conferring tumah or that of acquiring tumah? That of acquiring is more potent than that of conferring. For it (food in the oven) acquires tumah from a yeast container (in its midst which contains a sheretz), but it (a sheretz in the oven) does not confer tumah upon the yeast (in the container). Now if in a place where it acquires tumah from the yeast container, it does not acquire tumah from what is in the midst of its midst, then, in a place where it does not confer tumah upon the yeast, how much more so should it not confer tumah upon what is in the midst of its midst! (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) (For perhaps we would say that) the (state of) conferring tumah is more potent than that of acquiring tumah. For it (an earthen vessel that is tamei) confers tumah from its back (i.e., upon objects that touch its back), but does not acquire tumah from its back (but only from something tamei in its midst). So that it, too, should confer tumah upon what is in the midst of its midst, even though it does not acquire tumah from the midst of its midst! It must, therefore, be written "all that is in its midst shall become tamei," and not what is in the midst of its midst.

9) I might think that even if it (the jug) were pierced (the food within it does not become tamei); it is, therefore, written "all that is in its midst (including what is in a pierced jug) shall become tamei. How large must the hole be (to render the jug susceptible of tumah)? In (vessels) designated for liquids, (large enough) to admit liquids, and in those designated for foods, (large enough) to release olives.

10) From here they ruled: A defective kevereth (a large round vessel) stuffed with straw, hanging in the atmosphere of an oven — If the sheretz were in it, the oven is tamei; if the sheretz were in the oven, the food and drink in it are tamei. R. Eliezer says: It (the kevereth) shields (against tumah). R. Eliezer said: If it shields against the acute (tumah of) a dead body, how much more so should it shield against the lesser tumah of earthen vessels! They responded: If it shields against the acute (tumah of) a dead body, it is because a partition avails to shield in such instances. Shall it do so in the instance of the lesser tumah of earthen vessels, where a partition does not avail to shield!

11) R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: I said to R. Eliezer: If tents (analogous to the straw-stuffed kevereth) shield against tents in instances of acute, dead-body tumah, where tents avail (to create such) partitions, shall they shield against tents in instances of the lesser earthen vessel tumah, where such partitions do not avail! R. Yossi said: I said to R. Yochanan b. Nuri: I would be surprised if R. Eliezer accepted that answer from you, for it is (now) being deliberated. But this is the answer: If tents shield against tents in instances of acute, dead-body tumah — for (it is a halachah to Moses from Sinai in respect to dead-body uncleanliness) that if one makes (a partition of) a tefach by a tefach, one tefach high, (the vessels therein) are clean — should tents shield against tents in instances of the lesser, sheretz tumah, where if one makes (a partition of) a tefach by a tefach, one tefach high (the vessels therein) are tamei! He responded: This, too, can be (similarly) contested.

12) "all that is in its midst shall become tamei": R. Akiva says: It is not written "tamei" ("it is tamei"), but "yetamei" — it confers tumah, to make others tamei — to teach that the loaf (in the earthen stove), of second degree tumah, confers third-degree tumah (upon terumah, and even upon chullin [non-consecrated food]). How so? The oven is of first-degree tumah; the loaf, of second degree; and what touches the loaf, of third degree. R. Yehoshua said: "Who will clear the dust from between your eyes, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai, who was wont to say: A future generation is destined to cleanse the third-degree loaf, for which (tumah) there is no verse in the Torah! — when Akiva, your disciple, has adduced a verse from the Torah (to the effect that) it is tamei! For it is written 'All that is in its midst yetamei.'"

13) (Vayikra 11:33): "It shall you break." I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it. Behold, it is written in respect to a zav (one with a genital discharge) (Vayikra 15:12): "And an earthen vessel which a zav touches shall be broken, and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water." Just as (the rinsing of) wooden vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah), so, (the breaking of) earthen vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah.) I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it (an earthen vessel that has become tamei); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:33) "It shall you break," and you shall not break (as a mitzvah) the earthen vessel of a zav. Now we can derive this a fortiori (without a verse), viz.: If (a vessel) that touches a zav, an acute (state of tumah does not require breaking (as a mitzvah) then (a vessel) that touches a sheretz, a lesser state, how much more so should it not be broken! If so, what is the intent of "It shall you break"? We are hereby taught that its only cleansing is its breaking, (but if one wishes to retain it in its state of tumah, he may do so). Variantly: It shall you break to cleanse it but you do not "break" food and drink to cleanse it.