Pesachim 18b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: But are

the liquids that come on account of a sheretz—where

are they written in this verse?

And

if

does it not follow from a kal va-chomer?

For their impurity is only by means of a kal va-chomer.

And just as liquids that come on account of a vessel

that became impure through a sheretz

render impure, liquids that come on account of the sheretz

itself

all the more so

should they render impure?! And since we derive them through a kal va-chomer from liquids that come on account of a vessel,

the result of the inference can have only the status of the subject of the inference.

Just as liquids that come on account of a vessel do not render vessels impure, so too these liquids that come on account of a sheretz do not render vessels impure.

And we return to explain the words of Rabbi Akiva:

“It shall become impure” at the beginning

which is written concerning impure foods,

how did he expound

it, Rabbi Akiva, that they render liquids impure? From what is written:

“Of every food that may be eaten, upon which water comes, it shall become impure.”

That is,

it shall become impure so as to render the liquids impure.

You say

to explain, “it shall become impure”

to render the liquids impure, or is it only to render the vessel impure?

You have said,

is it not a

kal va-chomer

that foods do not render vessels impure?

And just as a liquid that renders food impure does not render a vessel impure

as we derived above by a kal va-chomer,

food that does not render food impure

for impurity does not produce its like,

is it not a law that it does not

render a vessel impure

Then how do I fulfill

“it shall become impure”

which is written concerning them?

To render the liquids impure,

because

they are liable to receive impurity!

For liquids readily receive impurity. And they do not require preparation as foods do.

And we wonder:

why specifically

do they render the liquids impure

because

they are

liable to receive impurity?

Let it emerge

from this, from what is written “it shall become impure,”

because there is no

place to establish it in

anything else,

but only for the impurity of liquids! For they do not render vessels impure by a kal va-chomer. And they do not render other foods impure either, for impurity does not produce its like.

And we answer:

This is what it says: But if you should say

to explain that “it shall become impure” means to render vessels impure, and you would say that we cannot derive foods by a kal va-chomer from liquids, which do not render vessels impure, because

food is more stringent

than liquids, since

it

it

renders liquids impure, whereas liquids do not render liquids impure,

therefore

let the foods render impure

the food

the vessel—this cannot be said.

it is impossible to say this.

For that law

itself

that foods render liquids impure is not a stringency in the foods that render them impure. Rather,

it is a stringency of the liquids

that become impure,

because

the liquids

are liable to receive

easily

impurity, and therefore they become impure even through foods.

and therefore they become impure even through contact with food.

And what is their liability

greater than that of foods?

That

they

receive impurity without preparation

by another thing! Foods, by contrast, receive impurity only through the preparation of liquids.

And we wonder about what Ravina said above, that from the fact that

“it shall become impure”

is written twice, once for foods alone and once for liquids alone, we learn

that impurity does not

impurity

produce its like.

Rather, food renders only liquid impure, and liquid renders only food impure.

And this is difficult: Is this law

derived from here?

But surely it is

derived from there,

as it is written:

“And when water is put upon seed, and one of their carcasses falls upon it, it is impure”

[the seed]. And we expound:

It is impure,

but

it does not produce impurity

upon

its like!

That is, it does not render another food impure, but only liquid.

And we answer: both verses are necessary.

One

verse [“it is impure”]

concerns liquids that come on account of a sheretz,

which do not render another liquid impure.

And one

verse [“it shall become impure,” “it shall become impure”] is stated

concerning liquids that come on account of a vessel

that became impure through a sheretz, which do not render another liquid impure.

And both are necessary

for both of them.

For if it had informed us concerning liquids that come on account of a vessel,

we might have said that specifically they do not render liquids impure

because they are not stringent,

for they are only second-degree [of impurity].

But concerning liquids that come on account of a sheretz, which are stringent,

they are, for they are first-degree [of impurity],

I would say that it produces impurity of its like,

and they render even other liquids impure.

And we challenge:

Let it inform us

concerning

liquids that come on account of a sheretz

that they do not render other liquids impure,

and

let us derive from them that

all the more so liquids that come on account of a vessel,

which are more lenient, do not render liquids impure.

And we answer:

A matter that comes through a kal va-chomer, Scripture takes the trouble and writes it!

For this is the way of Scripture: sometimes to state explicitly even something that can be derived through a kal va-chomer. Therefore “it shall become impure” is written superfluously, to teach that liquids that come on account of a vessel do not render liquids impure.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

How did you say that Rabbi Yosei expounds “it shall become impure,” “it shall become impure,” like Rabbi Akiva, and derives from it that the impurity of liquids to render others impure is from the Torah?

But Rava said: Rabbi Yosei did not hold like Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva did not hold like Rabbi Yosei!

For according to Rabbi Akiva we derive from “it shall become impure” that foods or liquids render others impure. And this verse concerns foods and liquids that became impure through a vessel that became impure through a sheretz, which are only second-degree [of impurity]. It follows that they produce a third degree even in non-sacred food. And from Rabbi Yosei’s words below it is established that he disagrees with this and holds that we have not found a second degree producing a third degree in non-sacred food.

Rav Ashi said to him:

What Rabbi Yosei said, that liquids render foods impure by Torah law,

he said in the approach of Rabbi Akiva, his master. And

indeed so,

he himself does not hold

this way. And he does not expound “it shall become impure,” “it shall become impure.”

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Granted,

what Rava said,

“Rabbi Yosei did not hold like Rabbi Akiva,”

is necessarily so.

For

indeed

it was taught: Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it established that the fourth degree in sacred things is disqualified?

From a

law

of kal va-chomer

itself.

For it is established to us: a person immersed that day [who immersed for his impurity but the night has not yet fallen], although he is pure with regard to non-sacred food, nevertheless disqualifies teruma. Its source is a woman after childbirth. After she immersed at the end of her days of impurity, she is like one immersed for a prolonged day until her days of purity are completed. And it is written concerning her, “She shall not touch any sacred thing.” And “sacred” means teruma.

And from this we learned that in teruma, a second degree of impurity produces a third degree of impurity through contact. For it is a kal va-chomer: just as one immersed that day, who is pure with regard to non-sacred food, and nevertheless disqualifies teruma, a second degree of impurity, one who is second-degree impure, even with regard to non-sacred food, all the more so disqualifies teruma.

And one who was impure, immersed, and has already waited until sunset, but is still lacking atonement [because he has not yet brought his offerings], is permitted to eat teruma. But he is disqualified from eating sacred food until he brings his offerings on the following day. The source is the law of a woman after childbirth, concerning whom it is written that after she brings her offerings, “the priest shall atone for her, and she shall be pure.” By inference, until that point she was impure with regard to sacred food.

And from this we learned also concerning the fourth degree in sacred things, that it is disqualified by a kal va-chomer.

And just as one lacking atonement,

who is

permitted with teruma,

and nevertheless is

disqualified with sacred things,

and disqualifies sacred things through contact,

a third

degree of impurity,

that

is

disqualified with

teruma,

is it not a law that it should make

everyone who touches it

a fourth

degree of impurity

with sacred things,

and disqualify it?!

Rather, there was room to say here, “the result of the subject of the inference has the status of the subject of the inference,” and since we derive it from a third degree in teruma, sacred things should not be more stringent than it, and it should produce only a third degree in them, as in teruma.

But “the result of the inference” cannot be said here, because if we say so, the kal va-chomer will be entirely nullified. For to disqualify the third degree in sacred things, no kal va-chomer is needed, since

we learned

that

the third

degree of impurity

in sacred things

is disqualified

from

the explicit

Torah. And wherever a kal va-chomer is entirely undermined, we do not say, “the result of the inference has the status of the subject of the inference.”

If so, necessarily the

fourth

degree in sacred things is disqualified

by a kal va-chomer ,

although it is not explicit in the Torah.