Parallel
פסחים 18:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Are they not [rather] inferred a minori: if liquids which are unclean through a utensil defile, how much the more liquids which are unclean through a sherez! [Then] it is sufficient that that which is deduced by [this] argument shall be as its premise. How does he interpret ‘shall be unclean’ of the first part? — ‘All food therein which may be eaten, that on which water cometh [yitma] shall be unclean’: ‘it shall defile [yetamme]’ in respect of defiling liquids. You say, to defile liquids; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather to defile utensils? You can answer, it follows, a minori: if a liquid, which defiles an eatable, cannot defile a utensil; then an eatable, which cannot defile an eatable, surely cannot defile a utensil! Hence how do I interpret. ‘shall be unclean’? That it defiles liquids, which are ready to contract uncleanness. Why particularly apply it to liquids, because they are ready to contract uncleanness? Deduce it from the fact that there is nothing else [left]? — This is what he means: And should you argue, an eatable is more stringent [than liquid], since it defiles liquids. [and therefore] let it defile utensils [too]; [hence we are told that] that is a [greater] stringency of liquids, because liquids are ready to contract uncleanness. And what is their readiness? Because they contract uncleanness without being made fit. ‘[It] shall be unclean,’ [teaching] that it cannot render something similar to itself [unclean]! — But is it deduced from here? Surely it is deduced from elsewhere, [viz.,] But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall thereon, it is unclean unto you: it is unclean, but it cannot create a similar uncleanness? — One treats of liquids unclean through a sherez, and the other treats of liquids unclean through a utensil; and [both] are necessary. For if we were informed [this] of liquid which is unclean through a utensil, [I would say,] that is because it is not stringent; but in the case of liquid unclean through a sherez, which is stringent, I might argue that it creates uncleanness similar to its own. Then let us be told [this] about liquid defiled by a sherez, and how much the more liquid unclean through a utensil? — That which may be inferred a minori, Scripture takes the trouble of writing it [explicitly]. Rabina said to R. Ashi: But Raba said, R. Jose does not agree with R. Akiba, nor does R. Akiba agree with R. Jose? — Said he to him: R. Jose stated it in accordance with the opinion of R. Akiba his teacher, but he himself does not hold thus. R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: As for R. Jose not agreeing with R. Akiba, that is well, for it was taught: R. Jose said: How do we know that a fourth degree in the case of sacred food is unfit? Now this follows a minori: if he who lacks atonement, though permitted to partake of terumah, is unfit in respect of sacred food, then a third, which is unfit in the case of terumah, is it not logical that it makes a fourth in sacred food! And we learn a third in the case of sacred food from Scripture, and a fourth a minori. ‘A third from Scripture’, for it is written, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing
—