Parallel
פסחים 18
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It [the water] is nullified in its bowels. Now if you think that he retracted [only] from [his ruling on] utensils, yet in [respect to] eatables he holds as R. Jose and R. Simeon, why is it completely nullified in its bowels: granted that it cannot defile [with] the graver uncleanness, yet it can at least defile [with] the lighter uncleanness? — What does, ‘it is nullified in its bowels’ mean? It is indeed nullified from [imposing] grave uncleanness, but it does defile [with] light uncleanness. Hence it follows that the first Tanna holds that it is unclean even with the graver uncleanness; but surely he states, ‘Its flesh is unclean?’ The whole is R. Judah. but the text is defective, and it was thus taught: If a cow drinks the water of lustration, its flesh is unclean. When is that said? In respect of light uncleanness, but not in respect of grave uncleanness, for R. Judah maintained: It is nullified in its bowels. R. Ashi said: In truth it is completely nullified in its bowels, because it is [now] noisome liquid. ‘R. Jose and R. Simeon maintained: In respect of eatables they are unclean; in respect of utensils they are clean.’ Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in Resh Lakish's name: R. Jose stated this in accordance with the opinion of R. Akiba his teacher, who interprets yitma [it shall be unclean] as yetamme [it shall defile] — For we learned: on that very day R. Akiba lectured: And every earthen vessel, wherein any of them [sc. creeping things] falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean [yitma]: it does not state tame [unclean] but yitma. [intimating that] it defiles [yetamme] others, [thus] teaching that a loaf of the second degree produces a third in the case of hullin. And how does he interpret [it] here? — And all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel [yitma] shall be unclean: it ‘shall defile’ [yetamme] in respect of defiling eatables — You say. ‘In respect of defiling eatables’: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather in respect of defiling liquids? — You can answer, It was not thus. What does ‘it was not thus’ mean? — Said R. Papa: We do not find that uncleanness renders that which is similar to itself [unclean]. Rabina said: From the verse itself too you cannot say ‘it shall defile’ is in respect of defiling liquids. For if you should think that ‘it shall be unclean’ of the second part [of the verse] is in respect of defiling liquids, [while] ‘it shall be unclean’ of the first part is also in respect of defiling liquids, then let it [the Torah] combine them and write them [together]. All food therein which may be eaten, that on which water cometh, and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean: what is the purpose of ‘shall be unclean’ twice? Hence ‘shall be unclean’ of the first part is in respect of defiling liquids. [while] ‘shall be unclean’ of the second part is in respect of defiling eatables. Yet perhaps it is in respect of defiling vessels? — Does it [the reverse] not follow a minori: if a utensil, which defiles liquids, cannot defile [another] utensil, then how much the more should liquids which are unclean through a utensil not defile utensils! Yet perhaps, they do not defile [utensils] [when they are] liquids unclean through a utensil; but liquids which are unclean through a sherez, do indeed defile [utensils]? — Are then liquids which are unclean through a sherez, written [in Scripture]?
—
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
—