Sotah 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

And by the same token,

since we learned the law of a creeping creature only from the case of a sota, we return and reason that only when the sota is impure by uncertain status are the ritually pure items also impure by uncertain status.

Just as

in the case of a

sota,

the matter concerns

a private domain,

which is a place suitable for seclusion,

so too a creeping creature,

only in

a private domain

is its uncertain status deemed impure; but if uncertainty concerning ritual impurity arose in the public domain, it is pure.

And just as a sota

is

a matter with awareness to be questioned,

as it is possible to ask the woman whether she became impure or not,

so too a creeping creature

specifically

a matter with awareness to be questioned: The case under discussion concerns a person who is uncertain whether he touched a creeping creature, or ritually pure items with which a person was occupied at the time the uncertainty arose, when it is uncertain whether they touched a creeping creature. It is possible to ask the person whether he touched it or not, and if he says that he does not know, they are impure by uncertain status.

And from here they said: A matter with awareness to be questioned

and it is standing

in a private domain—its uncertain status is impure.

But if it is

in the public domain, its uncertain status is pure.

And one that has no awareness to be questioned,

such as a dead creeping creature that was passed near ritually pure items, and it is uncertain whether it touched them or not, so that it is impossible to ask the items whether they touched it or not,

whether in the private domain or in the public domain, its uncertain status is pure.

And we raised a difficulty:

And as for Rabbi Yishmael,

who said to Rabbi Akiva in the beraita that no verse is necessary to disqualify a sota who secluded herself from marrying a kohen, since we know this by means of a kal va-chomer, the following difficulty arises:

Rabbi Akiva said, “Teruma,”

as he derives from “and she became impure” that she is disqualified from teruma, and he did not speak at all about the status of marriage to a kohen,

and he responds to him,

Rabbi Yishmael:

“Marriage to a kohen!?”

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

For Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive the prohibition regarding marriage to a kohen

that she is forbidden to marry a kohen?

It is impossible to say that he in fact permits her to marry a kohen, since there is a kal va-chomer from teruma, which is forbidden.

Nor can one say that he truly prohibits her on the basis of the kal va-chomer—that is, that this is Rabbi Yishmael’s position.

And if you would say

that Rabbi Akiva holds:

Marriage to a kohen does not require a verse

to prohibit it,

to prohibit her,