Sotah 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Let it be derived:

let us derive the kal va-chomer

from one who immersed during the day due to contact with a creeping creature,

a person or vessel that came into contact with a creeping creature and immersed, so that even while impure it was only a rishon le-tuma.

But the kal va-chomer can still be refuted:

What is distinctive about one who immersed during the day due to contact with a creeping creature, since

there

is within its category an av ha-tuma,

as a person and vessels can become an av ha-tuma, for example, if they came into contact with a corpse. This is not so with food, which can never become an av ha-tuma, even if it came into contact with a corpse?

And we answer:

An earthenware vessel proves otherwise,

as it too can never become an av ha-tuma, and nevertheless it disqualifies teruma when it is a rishon le-tuma [the status of one who immersed during the day is not applicable to an earthenware vessel, which cannot attain purity in a ritual bath, but only through breaking]. From here it follows that the matter does not depend on the possibility of becoming an av ha-tuma. If so, it is logically established that a loaf that is a sheni should also disqualify teruma.

And we refute:

What is distinctive about an earthenware vessel, since it conveys impurity through its airspace,

even when the impurity did not touch the vessel itself but was suspended in the airspace inside it, the vessel becomes impure [and likewise pure items suspended in the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel become impure]. This is not so with a loaf that is a sheni, which conveys impurity only through contact?

And we answer:

One who immersed during the day

in the case of other vessels, which do not convey impurity through their airspace,

proves otherwise,

as it disqualifies teruma, and the same applies to a loaf that is a sheni.

And the matter returns.

Neither the distinctive feature of this one is like the distinctive feature of that one, nor the distinctive feature of that one is like the distinctive feature of this one.

That is to say, since the stringency applicable to one who immersed during the day does not apply to an earthenware vessel, and the stringency applicable to an earthenware vessel does not apply to one who immersed during the day, the reason for the disqualification of teruma cannot be attributed to either of these two stringencies.

The common denominator between them is that they are permitted with ordinary non-sacred food [

Rashi’s version reads

that they convey impurity.

One who immersed during the day is called “impure,” as it is stated: “And the sun shall set, and he shall be pure,” which indicates that until then he is impure; and with regard to an earthenware vessel it is written: “An oven and a stove shall be smashed; they are impure for you”],

and they disqualify teruma.

All the more so, a loaf that is a sheni,

which is more stringent than one who immersed during the day,

which is disqualified

even

with ordinary non-sacred food, should disqualify teruma.

And

if it were

another generation,

which renders a shlishi pure with regard to teruma,

it would refute this: What is distinctive about the common denominator between them, since each contains a stringent aspect?

Each of them has a particular stringency: one who immersed during the day has within its category an av ha-tuma, and an earthenware vessel conveys impurity through its airspace. This is not so with a loaf that is a sheni, which has no stringent aspect whatsoever.

And

if it were

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: He does not refute on the basis of a stringent aspect!

He holds that this is not a valid refutation, since they do not share a common stringency. Therefore, he derives from the common denominator that a loaf that is a sheni disqualifies teruma.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived that a fourth degree of impurity with regard to sacred offerings is disqualified?

And

a

kal va-chomer

is.

If one who lacks atonement,

who is permitted with regard to teruma,

although he

is disqualified with regard to sacred offerings,

and renders sacred offerings impure through contact with them,

a third degree

of impurity

that

is

disqualified with regard to teruma,

as we said above by means of a kal va-chomer,

does it not follow that it should create a fourth degree with regard to sacred offerings

and disqualify them?

However, there would be room to say here: “The measure applicable to what is derived through the inference is only that of the subject from which it is derived.” Since it was derived from a third degree with regard to teruma, sacred offerings should not be more stringent than teruma, and only a third degree should apply to them, as with teruma.

But one cannot say “the measure applicable to what is derived through the inference is only that of the subject from which it is derived” here, because if we say so, the kal va-chomer would be entirely nullified. For there is no need to derive that a third degree disqualifies sacred offerings through a kal va-chomer from one who lacks atonement, since from the same kal va-chomer by which we derived a third degree with regard to teruma, we can also derive it with regard to sacred offerings.

And not only that, but

we have derived a third degree with regard to sacred offerings from the Torah,

as the matter is even explicitly stated in the Torah, as follows. Whenever a kal va-chomer would be entirely undermined, we do not apply the principle that the derived case is limited to the status of the source; rather, we derive from it even more than the source.

Accordingly, it necessarily follows that a

fourth

degree with regard to sacred offerings is disqualified

by a kal va-chomer.

And as for what we said,

“A third degree with regard to sacred offerings is derived from the Torah—from where do we know this?”

As it is written

with regard to the flesh of peace offerings:

“And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten.”

And since it is written, “any impure thing,”

might we not be dealing

also with sacred flesh

that came into contact with a second degree

of impurity and thereby became a third degree?

For even the second degree is called “impure,” as it is stated with regard to a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature: “Everything that is inside it shall become impure.” The vessel is a first degree, and whatever is inside it becomes a second degree of impurity, and it is called “impure.”

And the Merciful One said,

“shall not be eaten”!

It is therefore explicit that sacred flesh that is a third degree is disqualified from being eaten.

And a

fourth

degree with regard to sacred offerings is disqualified

by a kal va-chomer, as we said

above.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The reasoning of Rabbi,

the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, who was a wise man and the great scholar of his generation,

I do not know what it is!

For

this kal va-chomer, through which he derives that a fourth degree disqualifies sacred offerings,

has its

refutation

alongside it!

For

food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day,

which was touched by one who immersed during the day,

proves that it is disqualified with regard to teruma.

If this food is teruma, it becomes disqualified,

and

nevertheless it

does not create a fourth degree with regard to sacred offerings,

and does not disqualify sacred offerings, as will be explained below.

But according to Rabbi Yosei’s kal va-chomer, we should have to say that it disqualifies sacred offerings:

For if one who lacks atonement, who is permitted with regard to teruma, disqualifies sacred offerings, then food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day, which is disqualified with regard to teruma, should certainly disqualify sacred offerings.

This is therefore proof with which to refute the kal va-chomer.

Something that became impure with a degree of impurity that enables it also to render others impure is called “impure.” If its degree of impurity is such that it itself is impure but cannot render others impure, it is called “disqualified.”

For it was taught in a beraita that the Sages hold, with regard to food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day, that it does not disqualify sacred offerings:

Abba Shaul says: One who immersed during the day

is considered

a first degree

first

with regard

to

sacred offerings,

for the Sages imposed an additional stringency with regard to sacred offerings and assigned one who immersed during the day the status of a first degree of impurity with regard to them [although with regard to non-sacred food and teruma he has only the status of a second degree]:

To render two impure,

for if he touched sacred offerings, he makes them a second degree, and those sacred offerings, when they touch other sacred offerings, make them a third degree. These two are considered “impure,” as they are capable of rendering others impure.

And to disqualify one,

for the third degree, when it touches sacred offerings, makes them a fourth degree. Only the latter itself is disqualified, but it does not have the power to disqualify others through contact.

Rabbi Meir says:

One who immersed during the day has only the status of a second degree, even with regard to sacred offerings, and

renders one impure,

the sacred offering that he touched, making it a third degree.

And disqualifies one,

for that third degree, if it touches another sacred offering, disqualifies it and makes it a fourth degree.

And the Sages say:

One who immersed during the day does not have the full status of a second degree; rather, he has only the power to disqualify both teruma and sacred offerings. Therefore:

Just as

he

disqualifies food and drink of teruma,

so that they themselves become prohibited to eat and have no power to render others impure,

so

he

disqualifies food and drink of sacred offerings,

rendering them prohibited to eat בלבד, but not rendering others impure.

It follows that the Sages hold that food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day does not disqualify other sacred offerings.

Rav Pappa challenged this: From where do you know that Rabbi Yosei holds like the Sages,

so that Rabbi Yohanan’s objection from food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day can be raised against him?

Perhaps he holds like Abba Shaul, who said: To render two impure and to disqualify one!

There is no refutation of his kal va-chomer, since food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day indeed disqualifies sacred offerings through contact, by means of Rabbi Yosei’s kal va-chomer from one who lacks atonement [this is a Torah law, and according to Abba Shaul the Sages imposed an additional stringency with regard to sacred offerings: food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day, if it is sacred offering, also renders another sacred offering impure and does not merely disqualify it. The same would apply if Rabbi Yosei held like Rabbi Meir, since in any event it creates a fourth degree; but Rav Pappa presents a stronger challenge, that Rabbi Yosei could even hold like Abba Shaul. Rashi]. And we answer:

If it could enter your mind

that Rabbi Yosei

holds like Abba Shaul,

then

let him bring it,

let him bring and derive

a fourth degree with regard to sacred offerings,

which is disqualified through a kal va-chomer

from food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day.

And if food that comes into contact with one who immersed during the day—since one who immersed during the day himself is permitted with ordinary non-sacred food,

as he does not disqualify non-sacred food, and nevertheless

you said

that food deriving its status from him

creates a fourth degree with regard to sacred offerings,

by a kal va-chomer from one who lacks atonement.