Sotah

R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The [difference between] a case where there is a rational being to be interrogated and one where there is no rational being to be interrogated is derived from the following texts: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten  — when the thing is certainly unclean it may not be eaten; hence when there is a doubt whether it is unclean or clean it may be eaten. Consider now the continuation: And as for the flesh, all that is clean shall eat [sacrificial] flesh  — [A man who is] certainly clean may eat, but when there is a doubt whether he is unclean or clean he may not eat!  Is not, then, the conclusion to be drawn from this that in one case there is a rational being to be interrogated and not in the other?  The statement of R. Giddal in the name of Rab was necessary, and it was also necessary to derive [the rule of defilement caused by a creeping thing] from the case of the suspected woman; for if [it had only been based on] the teaching of Rab, I would have said that the rule was the same whether [the defilement occurred] in a private domain or a public place; therefore it was also necessary to derive it from the case of a suspected woman.  If, further, it [had been derived solely] from the case of the suspected woman, I would have said that the rule  only applied when that which was touched and that which touched it were both rational beings.  So it is necessary [to have Rab's teaching]. ON THAT DAY R. AKIBA EXPOUNDED, AND EVERY EARTHEN VESSEL etc. Since it has no [basis in Scripture according to which it is unclean],  why should it be unclean? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, It has none from the Torah, but it has one as a deduction from a fortiori reasoning: If a tebul yom,  who is allowed with non-holy food,  disqualifies  the heave-offering,  how much more so must a loaf unclean in the second degree, which is disqualified in the case of non-holy food,  render the heave-offering unclean in the third degree! It can, however, be objected, This  applies to a tebul yom because he may be a source of primary defilement.  [But it may be answered,] You can draw [the necessary conclusion]