Pesachim 20a, b

Perek II begins with tomorrow's daf.  Today's daf includes new conversation and a review - something that I have not seen before.

We begin with the notion of uncertainty.  Apparently all cases of uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity are decided upon based on the halachot of the sota.  A sota is a woman accused of having sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband.1   According to Steinsaltz, the halachot regarding whether or not a sota is ritually pure are Torah-based.  Thus we are told to be stringent in cases where we are uncertain of ritual purity - we are always stringent in halachot based directly on Torah law. Interestingly, Sota also provides us with precident to be lenient in cases of impurity, for the act would have happened in a private domain where no one else was present, leading to less certainty.  In addition, a sota can answer the question "did you commit adultery?", unlike an inanimate object (in the latter case there is uncertainty by definition).  

We are reminded that food is susceptible to ritual impurity only by liquid, and the liquid itself should not be terribly thick.  The rabbis tell us about "the esteem for sacred objects", chibat hakodesh, where sanctified objects are more susceptible to ritual impurity.  Thus they can become impure at the third- (terumah) and fourth- (consecrated items) degree impurity.  Daf a ends with a debate regarding the degree of impurity in vessel that is in an oven that also contains the carcass of a creeping animal.  The rabbis share the lovely image of the oven as if filled with creeping animal carcasses, rendering either the oven itself or the vessel impure at the first-degree.

Daf b repeats many of the conversations between daf 14a and today's daf, Pesachim 20.  It took me a few paragraphs to figure out what was going on.  Haven't I read this before? Did I read this daf already?  On one hand, it was good to know that I've been paying attention.  On the other hand, the repeated arguments were just as difficult to follow.  I had thought that anything recorded in the Talmud had to be novel, however.  Why this repetition - why at this point in the masechet, in the larger scheme of the Talmud?  

At the very end of daf b, there is a statement that I've rarely - if ever - seen.  Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yossi says: Ani achriah, "I will decide (on this matter)".  I had hoped that "the matter" would be the larger question about purity and impurity; about whether or not we can burn terumah of second-degree impurity together with terumah with first-degree impurity.  Alas, he wished to decide on the matter of wine that is ritually impure.  And peeking on to daf 21a, I notice that his opinion is discounted immediately.  So there is no deciding after all.

Amazing that I crave the decisions, the decisive and directive halachot, when I do not believe that there is one answer to most problems.  It must be human nature (to some degree) to crave certainty: rules, laws, decisions.  But those decisions are limitations.  Relying on the inflexible ideal; the right and the wrong, is our downfall, I believe.  But I want to skip the conversation and move on to the 'answer', too.  Hopefully this process of daf yomi will help me with my tenacity; my ability to stay with and enjoy the process even when I have found no true answers.


1Masechet Sota will go into great detail about this process, no doubt.