Pesachim 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehuda says:

the waters

were nullified

in its intestines

with regard to the status of mei ḥattat, since they are not fit for sprinkling and they no longer bear that designation. Therefore, they do not impart impurity.

And if it enters your mind

that only

from

the impurity of liquids to impart impurity to

vessels is what Rabbi Yehuda retracted,

but with regard to

the

impurity of liquids to impart impurity to

food,

he did not retract,

and he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon,

that it is of Torah origin, there is a difficulty:

Why were

the waters

completely nullified in its intestines

with regard to impurity?

Granted that

they no longer have

severe impurity,

the status of a primary source of impurity, and

do not impart impurity to

a person or vessels, but

lesser impurity,

the status of first-degree impurity, should still apply to them. And

at least food should become impure.

For even if they are no longer now considered mei ḥattat, they still bear the designation of water. Previously, they were mei ḥattat, and the ordinary water became impure through touching itself when it was still mei ḥattat, for there is no greater contact than this. And once the designation of mei ḥattat has been removed from them, they are like liquids that touched mei ḥattat. And they should be capable of imparting impurity to meat.

Rather, learn from this that liquids do not impart impurity to food by Torah law, and Rabbi Yehuda retracted completely with regard to the impurity of liquids imparting impurity to other things.

And although by rabbinic decree they do impart impurity, the Sages decreed this only with regard to ordinary liquids. Here, however, they did not issue such a decree, because it is an uncommon matter for a cow to drink mei ḥattat.

And we reject this: In fact, Rabbi Yehuda did not retract with regard to the impurity of liquids imparting impurity to food. Rather, he holds that it is of Torah origin.

And

what

does “they were nullified in its intestines”

also mean? —

They were nullified with regard to severe impurity.

For they no longer have the status of a primary source of impurity as mei ḥattat, to impart impurity to a person or vessels.

But lesser impurity

the status of first-degree impurity, does apply to them, and

they impart impurity to

food.

And we raise a difficulty: Since Rabbi Yehuda says this,

by inference, the first tanna

disagrees and

maintains that even severe impurity

still applies to the water in its intestines, and

it imparts impurity to

even a person and vessels.

But this cannot be said, for

after all,

“its flesh is impure”

is what it teaches.

This implies that even according to the first tanna, the water has only the status of first-degree impurity and imparts impurity only to flesh; it does not impart impurity to vessels or a person. By inference, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it does not possess even lesser impurity.

And we answer:

The entire

Mishna is

Rabbi Yehuda’s

view.

And it is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

If a cow drank mei ḥattat, its flesh is impure.

When are these words stated?

With regard to

lesser impurity,

where the water imparts impurity specifically to the flesh, because its impurity is only like that of liquids that touched mei ḥattat.

But

with regard to

severe impurity,

that of a primary source of impurity,

it does not

impart impurity, because

Rabbi Yehuda says: The waters were nullified

that were

in its intestines,

with regard to the status of mei ḥattat. Their status is only that of first-degree impurity, which imparts impurity only to food and liquids, but not to a person or vessels.

Rav Ashi said: In fact, they were nullified

the waters

completely in its intestines

with regard to impurity. They do not even impart impurity to the flesh.

And if you ask: Let it at least have the status of first-degree impurity through its touching itself. This is not difficult.

Because

the water in its intestines

was putrid liquid,

which neither contracts impurity nor imparts impurity. As it is taught in the Torat Kohanim: “And any liquid that may be drunk in any vessel” — this excludes putrid liquid.

We learned above:

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

Uncertain impurity of liquids,

to

impart impurity to

food —

it is impure

by uncertainty. But

to

impart impurity to

vessels —

they are pure

by uncertainty, since liquids impart impurity to food by Torah law, but they impart impurity to vessels only by rabbinic law.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Yosei

stated his view in accordance with the approach of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva. For Rabbi Akiva expounded

the verse concerning food that fell into a vessel that became impure through a creeping animal:

“it

”

be

”

comes

to mean

“it

”

be

comes

impure” — others. And Rabbi Yosei likewise expounded this concerning liquids.

For we learned:

On that very day

when Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed Nasi,

Rabbi Akiva expounded:

It is written concerning creeping animals:

“And any earthenware vessel into which any of them may fall

whatever is inside it shall become impure, and it you shall break.”

It does not say

“it is impure,” but

“it shall become impure.”

And we expound:

It shall render others impure.

And although the vessel that became impure through a creeping animal is first-degree impurity, while the food inside it is only second-degree impurity,

it teaches concerning a loaf of second-degree impurity that it causes

another liquid through its contact to become

third-degree

impurity, even

with regard to non-sacred food.

And we explain:

And

Rabbi Yosei, who followed his approach,

here,

with regard to liquids,

how does he expound the verse?

From that which is written:

“And any liquid that may be drunk in any vessel shall become impure,”

and it does not say “is impure,” we expound:

It shall become impure —

to render

other food impure with

the impurity of food.

You may say

that with regard to liquids the verse means, “It shall become impure”

to render

other food impure with

the impurity of food,

or perhaps it means only to render

other liquids impure

with the impurity of liquids!?

You have said: It was not so!

The verse cannot be interpreted in this manner.

And we inquire:

What

does “It was not so” mean?

Rav Pappa said:

The verse cannot be interpreted in this manner, because

we have not found an impurity

[an impure object]

that causes

impurity

like itself, as we will expound below from “it shall become impure”: it does not render another object like itself impure.

For food does not render food impure, and liquid does not render liquid impure. Rather, food renders only liquid impure, and liquid renders only food impure.

Ravina said: The verse itself also

demonstrates this, for

you cannot say that “it shall become impure”

means

to render

others impure with

the impurity of liquids.

For if it enters your mind that

“it shall become impure”

that is

written

in the latter part

of the verse [with regard to the impurity of liquids], meaning

to render impure with the impurity of liquids,

then

“it shall become impure”

that is

written

in the first part

of the verse [with regard to the impurity of food],

also

means

to render impure with the impurity of liquids.

If so, why did the verse separate them and write “it shall become impure” twice, once for the impurity of liquids and once for the impurity of food?

Let us combine them and write them

together, and let it say as follows:

“From all food that may be eaten, upon which water comes, and any liquid that may be drunk in any vessel shall become impure.”

Two

instances of “it shall become impure” —

why do I need them?

Rather,

learn from this:

“It shall become impure”

that is

written

in the first part

with regard to impure food means

to render

others impure with

the impurity of liquids.

And

“it shall become impure”

that is

written

in the latter part

with regard to impure liquids means

to render

others impure with

the impurity of food.

And we inquire further:

Perhaps

“it shall become impure”

to render

even

the

vessels impure. Why, then, does Rabbi Yosei say that the impurity of liquids imparting impurity to vessels is not of Torah origin, and that in a case of uncertainty they are pure?

And we answer: It cannot be said so, for

there is no basis for saying this. After all,

is

it not

a kal va-chomer

that they do not impart impurity to vessels?!

And just as a vessel, which imparts impurity to

the

liquid, does not impart impurity to another vessel

as will be expounded below,

liquids that come from a vessel

— for the verse is speaking of liquids that became impure through a vessel that became impure through a creeping animal —

is it not certainly the case that they should not impart impurity to vessels?!

It cannot be that the liquid is more stringent than the vessel that rendered it impure.

And we inquire further:

Perhaps, when they do not render

the vessels impure, the reference is

to liquids that come from a vessel,

because they are not more stringent than the vessel through which they became impure.

But liquids that come from a creeping animal

[which became impure through the creeping animal itself and are therefore first-degree impurity],

then indeed

they are more stringent than vessels that became impure through a creeping animal, and

they render impure

even

vessels.