Commentary for Pesachim 36:17

שלישי מן התורה דכתיב (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע

it is unclean, but it cannot create a similar uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it cannot make something like itself unclean, which is the actual reading supra 14a.');">⁹</span> - One treats of liquids unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which come'.');">¹⁰</span> through a sherez, and the other treats of liquids unclean through a utensil; and [both] are necessary. For if we were informed [this] of liquid which is unclean through a utensil, [I would say,] that is because it is not stringent; but in the case of liquid unclean through a shere which is stringent, I might argue that it creates uncleanness similar to its own. Then let us be told [this] about liquid defiled by a sherez, and how much the more liquid unclean through a utensil? - That which may be inferred a minori, Scripture takes the trouble of writing it [explicitly]. Rabina said to R'Ashi: But Raba said, R'Jose does not agree with R'Akiba, nor does R'Akiba agree with R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra. Thus R. Jose holds that liquid can defile other liquid, and he must interpret Lev. XI, 33 accordingly. Now the eatable or liquid is a second (v. p. 81, n. 5) , and on this interpretation it makes a third: thus there is a 'third' in the case of hullin.');">¹¹</span> - Said he to him: R'Jose stated it in accordance with the opinion of R'Akiba his teacher, but he himself does not hold thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the interpretation of yitma, 'it shall be unclean,' as yetamme, 'it shall defile'. Since R. Jose himself rejects this exegesis, there is nothing to teach that a second renders a third in the case of hullin.');">¹²</span> R'Ashi said to R'Kahana: As for R'Jose not agreeing with R'Akiba, that is well, for it was taught: R'Jo said: How do we know that a fourth degree in the case of sacred food is unfit? Now this follows a minori: if he who lacks atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one who after performing tebillah (q.v. Glos) must bring an offering before he may partake of the flesh of sacrifices; viz., a zab and a zabah (v. Glos.) . a woman after confinement and a leper.');">¹³</span> though permitted to partake of terumah, is unfit in respect of sacred food, then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These facts are learned in Yeb. ');">¹⁴</span> a third, which is unfit in the case of terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if something unclean in the second degree touches terumah it renders it unfit, the terumah now being called a third; v. Sot. 29a.');">¹⁵</span> is it not logical that it makes a fourth in sacred food! And we learn a third in the case of sacred food from Scripture, and a fourth a minori.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is added in order to answer the possible objection that what is deduced a minori cannot be more stringent than its premise, and since sacred food is thus deduced from terumah, it cannot go beyond a third, just as in the case of terumah. Hence it is pointed out that a third in the case of sacred food does not require an argument a minori, for that follows directly from Scripture; hence the deduction a minori must refer to a fourth, as otherwise it teaches nothing, and it is stated in B.K. ');">¹⁶</span> 'A third from Scripture', for i is written, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing

Explore commentary for Pesachim 36:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.