Pesachim 18a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Judah says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

were nullified

the water

in its intestines

from the status of the water of the purification offering, since they are no longer fit for sprinkling, and their name is no longer upon them. Therefore, they do not convey impurity.

And if it enters your mind

that specifically

from

the impurity of liquids to convey impurity to

vessels is what he retracted,

Rabbi Judah,

but with regard to

the impurity of liquids to convey impurity to

foods

he did not retract,

and he holds the view of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon,

that it is from the Torah, this is difficult:

Why were

the water

in its intestines completely nullified

with regard to the status of impurity?

Granted that

they no longer have

severe impurity,

like a primary source of impurity, and

do not convey impurity

to a person or vessels, but

lesser impurity

of a first degree of impurity should still apply to them. And foods

at least should become impure.

For even if now they are no longer considered “the water of the purification offering,” they still have the status of water. And previously they were the water of the purification offering. The ordinary water became impure through their touching themselves when they were “the water of the purification offering,” for there is no greater touching than this. And when the status of the water of the purification offering was removed from them, they are like liquids that touched the water of the purification offering. And they should convey impurity to the flesh.

Rather, infer from this that liquids do not convey impurity to foods by Torah law. And Rabbi Judah retracted completely from the impurity of liquids to convey impurity to others.

And although, at least by rabbinic decree, they do convey impurity, the Sages decreed only with regard to ordinary liquids. But here they did not decree, because it is an uncommon matter that the cow should drink the water of the purification offering.

And we reject this: In fact, Rabbi Judah did not retract with regard to the impurity of liquids to convey impurity to foods. Rather, he holds that it is from the Torah.

And

what

also is meant by “they were nullified in its intestines”? —

They were nullified

from severe impurity.

For the status of a primary source of impurity of the water of the purification offering no longer applies to them, to convey impurity to a person or vessels.

But lesser impurity

of a first degree of impurity does apply to them, and

they convey impurity

to foods.

And we ask: Since Rabbi Judah says this,

by inference, the first Tanna

disagrees and

holds that severe impurity also

applies to the water in its intestines, and

it conveys impurity

even to a person and vessels.

But it is impossible to say this. For

it

teaches, “Its flesh is impure.”

It teaches.

This implies that even according to the first Tanna they are only a first degree of impurity, and they convey impurity only to flesh. But they do not convey impurity to vessels or a person. By inference, Rabbi Judah holds that they do not possess even lesser impurity.

And we answer:

The entire

Mishna

is Rabbi Judah

and not the first Tanna.

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

A cow that drank the water of the purification offering: its flesh is impure.

When are these words said,

with regard to

lesser impurity,

where the water conveys impurity specifically to the flesh, since its impurity is only like that of liquids that touched the water of the purification offering.

But

with regard to

severe impurity

of a primary source of impurity,

it does not

convey impurity, because

Rabbi Judah says: “They were nullified

the water

in its intestines

from the status of the water of the purification offering, and their law is only that of a first degree of impurity, which conveys impurity only to foods and liquids, but not to a person or vessels.”

Rav Ashi said: In fact, they were nullified

the water

in its intestines completely

from the status of impurity. And they do not convey impurity even to the flesh.

And as for the difficulty for you that they should at least have the status of a first degree of impurity through touching themselves, this is not difficult.

Because it had become

the water in its intestines

putrid liquid,

which does not receive impurity and does not convey impurity. As it is taught in the Sifra: “And any liquid that will be drunk in any vessel” — this excludes putrid liquid.

We learned above:

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

Doubtful impurity of liquids,

to

render

foods

impure — they are impure by doubt. But

to

render

impure

vessels —

pure

by doubt, because liquids convey impurity to foods by Torah law, but they convey impurity to vessels only by rabbinic law.

Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Resh Lakish: Rabbi Yosei

stated it according to the method of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher. For Rabbi Akiva expounded

what is written concerning food that fell into a vessel that became impure through a sheretz:

“Y

i

t

m

a,” the meaning is

“It will render

y

o

u

t

h

ers impure.” And Rabbi Yosei likewise expounded this concerning liquids.

For we learned: On that day

when Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed president,

Rabbi Akiva expounded:

It is written concerning sheratzim:

“And every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls

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

It does not say

“impure,” but

“shall become impure.”

And we expound:

It shall render others impure.

And although the vessel that became impure through a sheretz is a first degree of impurity, and the food inside it is only a second degree,

it teaches concerning a loaf that is a second degree that it makes

another liquid through its contact

a third degree

of impurity, even

with ordinary non-sacred food.

And we explain:

And

Rabbi Yosei, who followed his method,

here,

with regard to liquids,

how did he expound?

From that which is written:

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

and it is not written “impure,” we expound:

It shall become impure

to render

other foods impure with

the impurity of foods.

You say

to interpret the verse concerning liquids, “It shall become impure” —

to render

other foods impure with

the impurity of foods,

or perhaps it is 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

is meant by “It was not so”?

Rav Pappa said:

It is impossible to interpret the verse in this manner, because

we have not found impurity

[an impure object]

that makes

impurity

like itself,

as we will expound below from “it shall become impure”: it does not make something like itself impure. For food does not convey impurity to food, and liquid does not convey impurity to liquid. Rather, food conveys impurity only to liquid, and liquid conveys impurity only to food.

Ravina said: From the body of the verse itself also

this is proven, for

you cannot say, “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

end

of the verse [concerning the impurity of liquids] means

to render impure with the impurity of liquids,

then

“it shall become impure”

that

is written in the

beginning

of the verse [concerning the impurity of foods]

also

means

to render impure with the impurity of liquids.

And 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 foods?

Let us combine them and write them

together. And let it write as follows:

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

Two

“it shall become impure” —

why do I need them?

Rather,

infer from this:

“It shall become impure”

that

is written in the

beginning

concerning impure foods means

to render

others impure with

the impurity of liquids.

And

“it shall become impure”

that

is written in the

end

concerning impure liquids means

to render

others impure with

the impurity of foods.

And we inquire further:

And say: “It shall become impure”

shall become impure

to render

even

the

vessels impure. And why does Rabbi Yosei say that the impurity of liquids to render vessels impure is not from the Torah, and that its doubt is pure?

And we answer: It is impossible to say this. For

what,

and

when

is it not a kal va-chomer

that they do not convey impurity to vessels?!

And if a vessel, which conveys impurity

to the

liquid, does not convey impurity to another vessel,

as will be expounded below,

liquids that come because of a vessel [since the verse speaks of liquids that became impure through a vessel that became impure through a sheretz],

[since the verse is speaking about liquids that became impure through a vessel that became impure by contact with a creeping creature]—

is it not logically derived that they should not convey impurity to vessels?!

And it is impossible that the liquid should be more stringent than the vessel that rendered it impure.

And we inquire further:

And say: when they do not convey impurity

to the vessels, the liquids are

liquids that come because of a vessel,

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

But liquids that come because of a sheretz [which became impure through the sheretz itself and are therefore first-degree impurity],

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

is it indeed the case that they

are more stringent than vessels that became impure through a sheretz, and

they convey impurity

even to

vessels?