Sotah 29b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

let it come,

let us learn the kal va-chomer

from a one who immersed that day because of a creeping creature,

a person or a vessel that touched a creeping creature and immersed, who even in their impurity were only a first degree of impurity.

And still the kal va-chomer may be refuted:

What is distinctive about one who immersed that day because of a creeping creature, for

there is

in its kind a primary source of impurity,

for a person and vessels have the possibility of becoming a primary source of impurity, for example, if they touched a corpse. Whereas food is not ever made a primary source of impurity, even if it touched a corpse?

And we answer:

An earthenware vessel proves it,

for it too is never made a primary source of impurity, and nevertheless it disqualifies teruma when it is a first degree of impurity [one who immersed that day is not applicable to an earthenware vessel, which has no purification in a ritual bath, but only through breaking], and from here it follows that the matter does not depend on the possibility of its being a primary source of impurity; if so, it is logical that a second-degree loaf should also disqualify teruma.

And we refute:

What is distinctive about an earthenware vessel, for it imparts impurity through its airspace,

even if the impurity did not touch the vessel itself, but was suspended in the airspace within the vessel, the vessel becomes impure [and likewise pure items that were suspended in the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel become impure], whereas a second-degree loaf does not impart impurity except through touching?

And we answer:

One who immersed that day

with regard to other vessels, which do not impart impurity through their airspace,

proves it,

for he disqualifies teruma, and the same law applies to a second-degree loaf.

And the law returns.

This one is not seen as this one, and this one is not seen as this one.

That is to say: Since the stringency that applies to one who immersed that day does not apply to an earthenware vessel, and the stringency that applies to an earthenware vessel does not apply to one who immersed that day, it follows that the reason for the disqualification of teruma cannot be attributed to either of these two stringencies.

The common aspect between them is that they are permitted with ordinary food [

Rashi’s version is

that they impart impurity. One who immersed that day is called “impure,” as it is stated, “and the sun comes, and he becomes pure,” implying that until then he is impure; and concerning an earthenware vessel it is written, “an oven and a stove shall be broken; they are impure for you”],

,]

and they disqualify teruma.

All the more so, a second-degree loaf,

which is more stringent than one who immersed that day,

which is disqualified

even

with ordinary food, and disqualifies teruma.

And

if

another generation,

which purifies the third degree with teruma,

would refute: What is distinctive about the common aspect between them, for they possess a stringent aspect,

each of them has a particular stringency: one who immersed that day has in its kind a primary source of impurity, and an earthenware vessel imparts impurity through its airspace, whereas a second-degree loaf has no stringent aspect whatsoever.

And

if

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

He holds that this is not a refutation, since they do not have a shared stringency; therefore he derives from the common aspect that a second-degree loaf disqualifies teruma.

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

And the law is

a kal va-chomer

itself.

Just as one lacking atonement,

an impure person who immersed and whose sun has already set, except that he has not yet brought his offerings, such as a man or woman with a flux, a woman who has given birth, or a leper,

who is permitted with teruma,

and even though so, he is

disqualified with sacred things,

he disqualifies sacred things through his contact.

A third degree

of impurity

that

he is

disqualified with teruma,

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

is it not logical that it should make a fourth degree with sacred things,

and disqualify it?

Rather, there was room to say in this case, “It is sufficient for what emerges from the law to be like the subject of the law”; since it was derived from a third degree with teruma, sacred things should not be more stringent than it, and only a third degree should apply to them, as with teruma.

But here one cannot say “it is sufficient,” because if so, the kal va-chomer would be entirely nullified, since to disqualify a third degree with sacred things there is no need to derive it by a kal va-chomer from one lacking atonement; for from that same kal va-chomer by which we derived a third degree with teruma, it is also possible to derive it with regard to sacred things.

And not only that, but

we derived a third degree with sacred things from the Torah,

for the matter is even explicit in the Torah, as follows; and wherever a kal va-chomer is refuted, we do not say “it is sufficient,” and we derive from it even more than the subject of the law.

If so, necessarily the

fourth

with sacred things is disqualified

by a kal va-chomer.

And this that we said,

a third degree with sacred things is from the Torah—from where do we know it?

For it is written

concerning 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,”

are we not also dealing

with sacred flesh

that touched a second degree

of impurity and became a third degree?

And even the second degree is called “impure,” as it is stated concerning a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature, “everything that is inside it shall become impure”; the vessel is a first degree, and what 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 explicitly established that sacred flesh that is a third degree is disqualified from eating.

And a

fourth

with sacred things is disqualified

by a kal va-chomer, as we said

above.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The reasoning of the great master,

the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, who was a sage and the great one of the generation,

I do not know what it is!

For

this kal va-chomer from which he derives the disqualification of a fourth degree with sacred things,

its

refutation

is alongside it!

For

food that comes because of one who immersed that day,

which one who immersed that day touched,

proves that it is disqualified with teruma

if this food is teruma, it is disqualified,

and

nevertheless it

does not make a fourth degree with sacred things,

it does not disqualify sacred things, as follows.

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

For just as one lacking atonement, who is permitted with teruma, disqualifies sacred things, is it not logical that food that comes because of one who immersed that day, which is disqualified with teruma, should disqualify sacred things?

And this is proof with which to refute the kal va-chomer.

An object that became impure with such a degree of impurity that it also imparts impurity to others is called “impure.” And if the degree of impurity is only that it itself became impure but does not impart impurity to others, it is called “disqualified.”

For it was taught in a beraita,

the Sages hold concerning food that comes because of one who immersed that day that it does not disqualify other sacred things:

Abba Shaul says: One who immersed that day

is considered

a first degree

first

with regard to

the

sacred things,

for the Sages imposed a stringency and made an “elevation” with sacred things, so that one who immersed that day would have the status of a first degree of impurity with regard to them [although with regard to ordinary food and teruma he has only the status of a second degree]:

To impart impurity to two,

for if he touches sacred things, he makes them a second degree, and those sacred things that touch other sacred things make them a third degree; and these two have the status of “impure,” possessing the power to impart impurity to others.

And to disqualify one,

and the third, which touches sacred things, makes them a fourth degree; only that one itself is disqualified, but it does not have the power to disqualify others through its contact.

Rabbi Meir says:

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

imparts impurity to one,

the sacred thing that he touched, and it becomes a third degree.

And disqualifies one,

that third degree: if it touches another sacred thing, it disqualifies it and makes it a fourth degree.

And the Sages say:

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

just as

he

disqualifies those who eat teruma and the liquids of teruma,

so that they themselves become forbidden to eat, but they do not have the power to impart impurity to others,

so

he

disqualifies those who eat sacred things and the liquids of sacred things,

making them forbidden only to eat, but not imparting impurity to others.

It follows that the opinion of the Sages is that food that comes because of one who immersed that day does not disqualify another sacred thing.

Rav Pappa challenged him: From where is it that Rabbi Yosei holds like the Sages,

so that Rabbi Yohanan’s question from food that comes because of one who immersed that day should be raised against him?

Perhaps he holds like Abba Shaul, who says: To impart impurity to two and to disqualify one!

And there is no refutation at all against his kal va-chomer, because food that comes because of one who immersed that day indeed disqualifies sacred things through its contact by Rabbi Yosei’s kal va-chomer from one lacking atonement [this is by Torah law, and according to Abba Shaul the Sages added an elevation with sacred things, so that food that comes because of one who immersed that day, if it is sacred food, also imparts impurity to another sacred thing and does not merely disqualify it. The same would apply if he held like Rabbi Meir, for in any event it makes a fourth degree; but Rav Pappa raises a stronger challenge, that he could hold even 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 sacred things

that it is disqualified by a kal va-chomer

from food that comes because of one who immersed that day.

And if food that comes because of one who immersed that day—for one who immersed that day himself is permitted with ordinary food,

for he does not disqualify ordinary food, and nevertheless

you said

that the food that comes through his power

makes a fourth degree with sacred things,

by a kal va-chomer from one lacking atonement.