מפת הסוגיא — חולין כ״דSugya map — Chullin 24

גמרא: תנו רבנן (כפי שהמשנה למדה) — פרה אדומה: בשחיטה כשרה, בעריפה (שבירת המפרקת) פסולה; עגלה ערופה: בעריפה כשרה, בשחיטה פסולה. נמצא שמה שכשר בפרה פסול בעגלה, ומה שכשר בעגלה פסול בפרה.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

מקשה הגמרא: ותוכשר הפרה אף בעריפה מקל וחומר — ומה עגלה שלא הוכשרה כלל בשחיטה הוכשרה בעריפה, פרה שכבר הוכשרה בשחיטה — אינו דין שתוכשר אף בעריפה?

The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?

משיבה הגמרא: אמר הכתוב בפרה ׳ושחט אֹתה׳ ונאמרה בה לשון ׳חוקה׳ — ללמד: בשחיטה כן, בעריפה לא; ואין למדים בה קל וחומר.

The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the red heifer: “And he shall slaughter it” (Numbers 19:3), and it mentions the term statute: “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2), indicating that with slaughter, yes, the red heifer is rendered fit; with breaking the neck, the red heifer is not rendered fit.

מקשה הגמרא: וכי כל מקום שכתובה בו ׳חוקה׳ אין דורשים בו קל וחומר? והרי ביום הכיפורים כתובה ׳חוקה׳, ובכל זאת שנינו: ׳ועשהו חטאת׳ — הגורל עושה את השעיר חטאת, ואין הקדשה בפה (קביעת שם) עושה חטאת.

The Gemara asks: And is it so that anywhere that statute is written with regard to a certain matter, we do not learn an a fortiori inference? But what about Yom Kippur, with regard to which statute is written: “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you” (Leviticus 16:34), and nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: “And Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin offering” (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin offering does not render it a sin offering.

הברייתא מבארת מדוע נצרך הכתוב: שהיה אפשר ללמוד להפך בקל וחומר — ומה במקום שאין הגורל מקדֵש (כשתי ציפורי יולדת) ההקדשה בפה מקדשת, מקום שהגורל מקדש (ביום הכיפורים) אינו דין שתקדש אף ההקדשה בפה? לכן נאמר ׳ועשהו חטאת׳: הגורל עושה חטאת, ולא ההקדשה בפה.

The baraita continues: A verse is necessary to teach this halakha, as one might have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If in a case where the lottery does not sanctify the animal with a specific designation, such as in the case of two birds brought by a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless a verbal designation of that offering sanctifies it, in a case where the lottery sanctifies the animal on Yom Kippur, isn’t it logical that a verbal designation as a sin offering sanctifies it? Therefore, the verse states: “And render it a sin offering;” the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of a sin offering does not render the goat a sin offering.

מדייקת הגמרא: הטעם שאין למדים את הקל וחומר הוא רק משום שכתב הכתוב ׳ועשהו חטאת׳ — הא לולא זה היינו דורשים קל וחומר, אף שכתובה ׳חוקה׳! (ושוב קשה על פרה.)

The Gemara infers: The reason that the a fortiori inference is not learned is that the Merciful One writes: “And he shall offer it for a sin offering.” But otherwise we would learn an a fortiori inference, despite the fact that statute is written with regard to the Yom Kippur service.

מתרצת הגמרא: באמת אף במקום ׳חוקה׳ דורשים קל וחומר, אלא שבעגלה הערופה מיעט הכתוב — ׳זאת׳ נעשית בעריפה, ואין אחרת (הפרה) נעשית בעריפה. ומיעוט זה הוא שמונע את הקל וחומר על הפרה.

The Gemara explains: Actually, one may learn an a fortiori inference even in a case where statute is written. Nevertheless, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, the Merciful One restricts the use of breaking the neck: “And all the Elders of that city…shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck is broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun “whose” it is derived: This heifer is killed by breaking the neck, but no other, i.e., the red heifer, is killed by breaking the neck.

מקשה הגמרא לצד השני: ותוכשר העגלה אף בשחיטה מקל וחומר — ומה פרה שלא הוכשרה בעריפה כשרה בשחיטה, עגלה שכשרה בעריפה אינו דין שתוכשר בשחיטה? משיבה: אמר הכתוב ׳וערפו את העגלה׳ — בעריפה כן, בשחיטה לא.

The Gemara challenges: And let it be derived that the heifer whose neck is broken is rendered fit with slaughter by means of an a fortiori inference: If a red heifer, which is not rendered fit with breaking the neck, is rendered fit with slaughter, then with regard to a heifer whose neck is broken, which is rendered fit with breaking the neck, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter? The Gemara responds that the verse states: “And shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). The doubled reference to breaking the neck in the two verses indicates that by breaking the neck, yes, the heifer may be killed; by slaughter, the heifer may not be killed.

משנה: יש דבר שכשר בכוהנים ופסול בלוויים, ויש דבר שכשר בלוויים ופסול בכוהנים.

MISHNA: There is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is also an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

גמרא: תנו רבנן בביאור המשנה — כוהנים: מומים פוסלים בהם, אך השנים (גיל) אינם פוסלים (כשרים לעבודה כל ימי חייהם משהגדילו). לוויים: מומים אינם פוסלים בהם, אך השנים פוסלים (כשרים רק מגיל שלושים עד חמישים). נמצא כשר בכוהנים פסול בלוויים, וכשר בלוויים פסול בכוהנים.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: Priests are rendered unfit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:16–23), but remain fit with the passage of years, as from the moment that they reach majority they are fit for service for the rest of their lives. Levites remain fit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah but are unfit with the passage of years, as they are fit for service only between the ages of thirty and fifty (see Numbers 4:47). It is found that there is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

מניין דברים אלו? דתנו רבנן: ׳זאת אשר ללוויים׳ — מה תלמוד לומר? לפי שנאמר ׳ומבן חמישים שנה ישוב׳, למדנו שהשנים פוסלות בלוויים. יכול אף מומים יפסלו בהם בקל וחומר (ומה כוהנים שאין שנים פוסלות בהם מומים פוסלים — לוויים שהשנים פוסלות אינו דין שיפסלו בהם מומים)? תלמוד לומר ׳זאת ללוויים׳ — זאת (השנים) ללוויים, ואין אחרת (מומים) פוסלת בלוויים.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: “This is that which pertains to the Levites” (Numbers 8:24); why must the verse state this? Since it is stated: “And from the age of fifty years he shall return from the service” (Numbers 8:25), we learned with regard to the Levites that the passage of years disqualifies them. One might have thought that blemishes disqualify them too. And ostensibly, it could be learned through logical inference: If priests, with regard to whom the passage of years does not disqualify them, blemishes disqualify them, then in the case of Levites, with regard to whom the passage of years disqualifies them, isn’t it logical that blemishes disqualify them? Therefore, the verse states: “This is that which pertains to the Levites,” from which it is derived: “This,” the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains to the Levites, and there is no other disqualification that pertains to the Levites.

יכול יהיו אף הכוהנים נפסלים בשנים? והלוא דין הוא בקל וחומר — ומה לוויים שאין מומים פוסלים בהם שנים פוסלות, כוהנים שמומים פוסלים בהם אינו דין שיפסלו בהם שנים? תלמוד לומר ׳אשר ללוויים׳ — ולא אשר לכוהנים.

One might have thought that priests would be disqualified with the passage of years. And ostensibly, could this not be derived through the following a fortiori inference: If Levites, with regard to whom blemishes do not disqualify them, the passage of years disqualifies them, then in the case of priests, with regard to whom blemishes disqualify them, isn’t it logical that the passage of years disqualifies them? Therefore, the verse states: “Which pertains to the Levites,” and not which pertains to the priests.

יכול אף בשילֹה ובבית עולמים (המקדש הקבוע) יפסלו הלוויים בשנים? תלמוד לומר ׳לעבֹד עבֹדת עבודה ועבֹדת משא׳ — לא אמרתי פסול שנים אלא בזמן שהעבודה בכתף (נשיאת המשכן), ולא בעבודת השיר במקדש קבוע.

One might have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years even in Shiloh, the permanent place of the Tabernacle, and in the eternal Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “To perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens” (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: I stated the disqualification of the passage of years only at a time when there is Levite service involving carrying the Tabernacle on their shoulders.

כתוב אחד אומר ׳מבן חמש ועשרים שנה׳, וכתוב אחר אומר ׳מבן שלושים׳ — ואי אפשר לקיים את שניהם כפשוטם. הא כיצד? בן עשרים וחמש בא ללמוד (ללמֵד את הלכות העבודה), ובן שלושים בא לעבוד בפועל.

The baraita notes that one verse states: “From twenty-five years old and upward” (Numbers 8:24), and one verse states: “From thirty years old and upward” (Numbers 4:47). It is impossible to say thirty, as twenty-five is already stated, and it is impossible to say twenty-five, as thirty is already stated. How can these verses be reconciled? Twenty-five years old is the time for apprenticeship and thirty for service.

מכאן (מחמש שנות הלימוד) לתלמיד שלא ראה סימן יפה (הצלחה) במשנתו בתוך חמש שנים — שוב אינו רואה ולא יצליח. רבי יוסי אומר: שלוש שנים, שנאמר בדניאל וחבריו ׳ולגדלם שנים שלוש וללמדם ספר ולשון כשדים׳.

From here it is derived that a student who did not see a positive indication in his studies after five years will no longer see a productive result from those studies. Rabbi Yosei says that the period is three years, as it is stated with regard to Daniel and his cohort who instructed the king of Babylonia: “And they should be raised three years” (Daniel 1:5), “and he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1:4).

ומיישבת הגמרא את המחלוקת: לדעה הראשונה — אין ללמוד מדניאל, ששונה לשון כשדים שהיא קלה (ונלמדת מהר); ולרבי יוסי — שונות הלכות העבודה שהן קשות (וצריכות זמן רב יותר).

The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna explain the verses in Daniel? The Gemara answers: He holds that the verses in Daniel cannot be cited as a source for this principle because the language of the Chaldeans is different, as it is easy and can be learned in a shorter period. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei, explain the verses with regard to the Levites? The Gemara answers: He holds that the halakhot of Temple service are different, as they are difficult and require a longer period of study.

תנו רבנן: כוהן — משיביא שתי שערות (סימני בגרות) ועד שיזקין כשר לעבודה, ומומים פוסלים בו. בן לוי — מבן שלושים עד בן חמישים כשר לעבודה, והשנים פוסלות בו. במה דברים אמורים? באוהל מועד שבמדבר; אבל בשילֹה ובבית עולמים אין הלוויים נפסלים אלא בקול (שנתקלקל קולם לשיר). אמר רבי יוסי: מהו הכתוב לכך?

The Sages taught in a baraita: A priest, from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs until he ages, is fit for Temple service, and blemishes disqualify him. A Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty is fit for Temple service, and the passage of years disqualifies him. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. But with regard to Shiloh and in the eternal Temple, Levites are disqualified only due to a change in voice that renders them unable to recite the songs in the Temple with their brethren. Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse from which this is derived?

׳ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשֹררים להשמיע קול אחד׳ — ללמד שהלוויים צריכים לשיר בקול אחד, ומי שנתקלקל קולו פסול.

“It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard” (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service.

׳עד שיזקין׳ — עד מתי? אמר רבי אִלעא אמר רבי חנינא: עד שירתת (עד שיתחילו ידיו ורגליו לרעוד).

The baraita teaches that the priest is eligible for service until he ages. The Gemara asks: Until when, i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble.

שנינו במשנה (מקואות) — בעל קרי שטבל ולא הטיל מים (לא השתין) קודם הטבילה, כשישתין יהיה טמא (שמא יצא עוד מן הזרע עם מי הרגליים). רבי יוסי אומר: בחולה ובזקן — טמא, אך בילד ובבריא — טהור (שאצלם יצא הכול בתחילה).

We learned in a mishna there (Mikvaot 8:4): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission who then immersed in a ritual bath and did not urinate before immersing, when he urinates he is ritually impure, because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of an ill person and an elderly person, he is ritually impure; in the case of a young person and a healthy person, he is ritually pure, as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset.

׳ילד׳ — עד כמה (איזה גיל)? אמר רבי אִלעא אמר רבי חנינא: כל שיכול לעמוד על רגלו אחת ולחלוץ נעלו ולנעלהּ. ואמרו על רבי חנינא שהיה בן שמונים והיה עומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ ונועל נעלו. אמר רבי חנינא: חמין ושמן שסכַתני אמי בילדותי הם שעמדו לי בזקנותי.

Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who is able to stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe is considered young. They said about Rabbi Ḥanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age.

תנו רבנן: נתמלא זקנו — ראוי להיעשות שליח ציבור, לרדת לפני התיבה ולשאת כפיו. ומאימתי כשר לעבודה (במקדש)? משיביא שתי שערות. רבי (יהודה הנשיא) אומר: אומר אני עד שיהא בן עשרים.

The Sages taught: If one’s beard is fully grown, he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community for various matters, and to descend before the ark as a prayer leader, and to lift his hands for the Priestly Benediction. From when is a priest fit for Temple service? It is from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he is not fit for Temple service until he is twenty years of age.

אמר רב חסדא: מה טעמו של רבי? דכתיב ׳ויעמידו את הלוויים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה לנצח על מלאכת בית ה׳׳. ולדעה האחרת — ׳לנצח׳ (פיקוח) שונה, וצריך מבוגר יותר.

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: “And appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest.

מקשה הגמרא: והרי פסוק זה (בעזרא) בלוויים כתוב, לא בכוהנים! ומתרצים כדברי רבי יהושע בן לוי: בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו הכוהנים ׳לוויים׳, וזה אחד מהם — ׳והכוהנים הלוויים בני צדוק׳.

The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isn’t that verse written with regard to Levites? The Gemara answers: It is understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses.

תנו רבנן: ׳איש מזרעך לדֹרֹתם׳ — מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר: קטן פסול לעבודה ואפילו תם (בלא מום), שאינו ׳איש׳. ומאימתי כשר? משיביא שתי שערות; אבל אחיו הכוהנים אין מניחים אותו לעבוד עד שיהא בן עשרים.

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Any man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God” (Leviticus 21:17); from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor priest is unfit for Temple service, even if he is unblemished, as he is not a man. From when is he fit for service? From the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty years of age.

איכא דאמרי (יש שאומרים): ברייתא זו כרבי, ואין לו פסול קטן אף מדרבנן (ואחיו רק אין מניחים אותו לכתחילה). ואיכא דאמרי: רבי סובר שיש פסול מדרבנן, וברייתא זו כרבנן — לכתחילה לא יעבוד, אבל בדיעבד עבודתו כשרה.

There are those who say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he is of the opinion that there is no disqualification for one between puberty and twenty years of age even by rabbinic law. The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service ab initio. And there are those who say: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that there is disqualification by rabbinic law in that case, and this statement in the baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, and they hold that it is ab initio that one may not perform the service, but after the fact, his service is valid.

משנה: דבר שטהור בכלי חרס — טמא בכל שאר הכלים; ודבר שטהור בכל שאר הכלים — טמא בכלי חרס.

MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other types of vessels; that which is ritually pure in all the other types of vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

גמרא: תנו רבנן בביאור המשנה — אוויר כלי חרס (טומאה בתוך חללו בלא נגיעה) מטמא, וגבו (צדו החיצון) טהור. כל שאר הכלים — אווירם טהור, וגבם (במגע מבחוץ) טמא. נמצא טהור בכלי חרס טמא בכל הכלים, וטהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרס.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of an earthenware vessel the vessel is ritually impure, and if it fell on its outer side, the vessel is ritually pure. If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of all the other types of vessels, the vessels are ritually pure, and if it fell on their outer side, they are ritually impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other vessels, and that which is ritually pure in all the other vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

מניין דברים אלו? דתנו רבנן: נאמר ׳תוֹכוֹ׳ — שכלי החרס נטמא במה שנמצא בתוך חללו אף על פי שלא נגע בדפנותיו.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls, whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell “in it [tokho],” and even in a case where the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.

מניין דברים אלו? דתנו רבנן: נאמר ׳תוֹכוֹ׳ — שכלי החרס נטמא במה שנמצא בתוך חללו אף על פי שלא נגע בדפנותיו.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls, whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell “in it [tokho],” and even in a case where the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.

אתה אומר אף על פי שלא נגע, או שמא רק אם נגע? רבי יונתן בן אבטולמוס אומר: נאמר ׳תוכו׳ לעניין שהכלי מטַמא את האוכל שבתוכו, ונאמר ׳תוכו׳ לעניין שהכלי עצמו מיטַמא — מה ׳תוכו׳ שלטַמא אף בלא נגיעה, אף ׳תוכו׳ שלהיטַמא אף בלא נגיעה (גזירה שווה).

The baraita continues: Do you say that it is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, or perhaps it is impure only if it did come into contact with the vessel? Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: Tokho is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,” and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: “Into which [tokho] any of them falls”; just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, the food is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with it.

ושם (שהכלי מטַמא את האוכל שבחללו בלא נגיעה) מניין לנו? אמר רבי יונתן: התורה העידה על כלי חרס

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, from where do we derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel

שהוא מטמא את כל שבתוכו, ואפילו מלא חרדל (שרוב הגרגרים אינם נוגעים בדפנות) — וכולם נטמאים.

that it renders impure everything within it, and this is the halakha even if it is full of mustard seeds, in which case most of the seeds do not come in contact with the sides of the vessel, and nevertheless all the mustard seeds become impure.

אמר לו רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא: ויהא כלי חרס מיטמא אף מגבו (מאחוריו) בקל וחומר — ומה כל הכלים שאינם מיטמאים מאווירם מיטמאים מגבם, כלי חרס שמיטמא מאווירו אינו דין שיטמא מגבו?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let it be derived that an earthenware vessel becomes impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side by means of an a fortiori inference: If all the other types of vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, then with regard to an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, isn’t it logical that it will become ritually impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side?

משיבה הגמרא: אמר הכתוב ׳וכֹל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו׳ — איזהו כלי שטומאתו תלויה בפתחו? הוי אומר כלי חרס: כשאין צמיד פתיל על פיו טמא, הא יש צמיד פתיל על פיו — טהור (ומכאן שאינו מיטמא מגבו, אלא דרך פתחו בלבד).

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), indicating that its impurity is dependent upon the mouth of the vessel. Which is the vessel whose impurity hastily takes effect just after the impure item enters into its mouth? You must say that is an earthenware vessel. And it is when there is no sealed cover on it that the vessel becomes impure. But when there is a sealed cover on it, the vessel is pure, as the earthenware vessel does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side.

מקשה הגמרא לצד השני: ויהיו כל הכלים מיטמאים אף מאווירם בקל וחומר — ומה כלי חרס שאינו מיטמא מגבו מיטמא מאווירו, כל הכלים שמיטמאים מגבם אינו דין שמיטמאים מאווירם?

The Gemara suggests: And let it be derived that all the other vessels become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, then with regard to all the other vessels, which become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, isn’t it logical that they will become ritually impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace?

משיבה הגמרא: אמר הכתוב ׳תוֹכוֹ׳ — תוכו של זה (כלי חרס דווקא) מטמא, ולא תוכו של אחר (שאר הכלים).

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states with regard to the carcasses of creeping animals: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls” (Leviticus 11:33), from which it is inferred: Tokho, i.e., the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho, the airspace, of any other kind of vessel.

מקשה הגמרא: והרי ׳תוכו׳ זה כבר דרשוהו לעיל (לגזירה שווה, שהכלי נטמא בלא נגיעה)! כיצד תדרשוהו שוב למעט שאר הכלים?

The Gemara objects: How can the halakha be derived from the term tokho in that verse? But didn’t the Sages interpret these instances of tokho that appear in that verse and derive: Just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity, the food is impure even though it did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even though the impure item did not come into contact with it.

מתרצת הגמרא: ארבע פעמים ׳תוכו׳ כתובים (היה אפשר לכתוב ׳תוך׳, וריבה הכתוב) — ׳תוכו׳ ׳תוך׳, ׳תוכו׳ ׳תוך׳.

The Gemara explains: Four instances of the term tokho from which halakhot can be derived are written: “Tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written; those are two instances. Then, later in that verse, once again “tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written.

אחד לגופו (שמטמא את האוכל שבחללו), ואחד לגזירה שווה (שהכלי נטמא בלא נגיעה), ואחד ל׳תוכו של זה ולא תוכו של אחר׳, ואחד ל׳תוכו ולא תוך תוכו׳ — שכלי טהור (כלי שטף) המונח בתוך כלי החרס, מה שבחללו אינו נטמא.

One instance is to teach the halakha itself, that the vessel renders the food in its airspace ritually impure, and one instance is to teach the verbal analogy from which it is derived that the vessel becomes impure without contact with the impure item; and one source is to teach that tokho, the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho of any other kind of vessel; and one source is to teach tokho, food in the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel becomes impure, but not tokh tokho, not food that is in the airspace of a vessel that is within an earthenware vessel, and even if that inner vessel is one of the other types of vessel purified through rinsing in the water of a ritual bath.

מקשה הגמרא: ולא יהיו כל הכלים מיטמאים מגבם כלל, אלא רק מתוכם ובנגיעה, בקל וחומר — ומה כלי חרס שמיטמא מאווירו אינו מיטמא מגבו, כל הכלים שאין מיטמאים מאווירם אינו דין שאין מיטמאים מגבם?

The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that all the other vessels do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer sides, but rather from the presence of an impure item inside them and with contact with their inner sides by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, then with regard to all the other vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, isn’t it logical that they do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side?

משיבה הגמרא: אמר הכתוב ׳וכֹל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא׳ — ׳הוא׳ (כלי חרס) הוא שכשאין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא, ויש צמיד פתיל — טהור; הא כל שאר הכלים מיטמאים בין שיש צמיד פתיל עליהם ובין שאין (אף מגבם).

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), from which it is derived: This earthenware vessel (see Leviticus 11:33) is the one that when there is not a sealed cover upon it, it is impure, but when there is a sealed cover upon it, it is pure. But with regard to all the other vessels, whether there is a sealed cover upon them or whether there is not a sealed cover upon them, they become impure.