Pesachim 28
ומאי דוחקיה דרב יהודה לאוקמיה בנר של מתכת נוקמיה בנר של חרס
[which intimates], the sword is as the slain;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In its degree of defilement. For otherwise, why specify how the person was slain? This is then understood as a general law that any metal vessel or utensil which becomes defiled through a corpse, whether at first hand or not, bears the same degree of defilement as that which contaminates it.');"><sup>2</sup></span> hence it is a principal defilement, and he [R'Akiba] thus holds that a third may be raised to a first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the oil, by contact with the lamp, is raised from a third to a first.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני נר שנטמא בטמא מת ניתני שנטמא בשרץ
[We can reply]. For whereas there [in the first clause] it was unclean and is [now] unclean, here it was unfit and is [now] unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 62, n. 2. The flesh, even in a third degree, being sacred, was definitely unclean, since there can be a fourth degree. But the oil of terumah was only unfit, without power to contaminate, whereas now by being raised to a second degree it becomes unclean. Thus this statement goes beyond R. Hanina's. - The reference must be to oil of terumah. For though there was also sacred oil, viz. 'the oil used in meal-offerings, and there a third degree is unclean in that it defiles by contact, nevertheless when unclean it cannot be used for lighting but must be burnt, like all other sacrifices which had been, invalidated for any reason, so that by burning it together with the derivative of uncleanness and rendering it thereby second, he does not increase the power of defilement.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אלא איזהו דבר שחלוקה טומאתו בין טומאת מת לשרץ הוי אומר זה מתכת
- Said Raba, Our Mishnah presents a difficulty to him: Why does it particularly state, A LAMP WHICH HAD BEEN MADE UNCLEAN BY THAT WHICH WAS UNCLEAN THROUGH A CORPSE? Let it state, which had been defiled by a sherez!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a creeping thing'. This too is a principal defilement, just like a man defiled by a corpse. Rashi omits 'by a sherez', the question being, what need is there for the Mishnah to define at all the source of principal defilement from which the lamp became contaminated.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אמר רבא ש"מ קסבר ר"ע טומאת משקין לטמא אחרים דאורייתא דאי ס"ד דרבנן מכדי האי נר מאי קא מהניא להאי שמן אי לאיפסולי גופי' הא פסיל וקאי
Now what thing is there whose uncleanness is differentiated between the uncleanness of a corpse and [that of] a sherez? Say, that is metal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule that a metal vessel bears the same degree of defilement as that which contaminated it applies only to corpse defilement.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ממאי דילמא לטמא אחרים מדרבנן אי מדרבנן מאי איריא באב הטומאה אפילו בראשון ושני נמי תחלה הוי
Raba said: This proves that R'Akiba holds, The uncleanness of liquids in respect of defiling others is Scriptural; for if you should think that it is Rabbinical [only], then consider: how does this lamp affect the oil? If by rendering that itself unfit, surely it is already unfit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And what does it matter whether it is of the third degree or of the first? Hence we must assume that it can now contaminate even by Scriptural law, which it could not do before.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
דתנן כל הפוסל את התרומה מטמא משקין להיות תחלה חוץ מטבול יום
Whence [does this follow]: perhaps [it affected it by enabling it] to defile others by Rabbinical law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which power it previously lacked.');"><sup>8</sup></span> - If by Rabbinical law [only], why particularly [state when it was defiled] by a principal uncleanness?
אלא ש"מ דאורייתא היא:
Even if [it was defiled] by a first or second degree it is stil a first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'beginning' - another designation for a first degree.');"><sup>9</sup></span> For we learned: Whatever renders terumah unfit defiles liquids, making them a first, except a tebul yom?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'What renders terumah unfit' is anything which is unclean in the second degree. By Rabbinical law this in turn defiles liquids and actually inflicts a higher degree of uncleanness than that borne by itself, rendering them unclean in the first degree. Thus if R. Akiba were treating of Rabbinically enhanced contamination, it would be unnecessary to speak of the lamp, which bears a principal degree of uncleanness, but of anything which bears even a second degree of uncleanness.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
נימא קסבר רבי מאיר מתניתין באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דרבנן דמדאורייתא טהור מעליא
Again, if from the words of R'Akiba, - are they then alike? There it is unfit and unclean, whereas here it is clean and unclean? Must we [then] say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Meir derives his law from the preceding statements.');"><sup>11</sup></span> that R'Meir holds [that] our Mishnah treats of a principal uncleanness according to Scripture and a derivative uncleanness by Rabbinical law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. if a utensil was defiled by a liquid and in its turn defiled flesh. The second defilement is only Rabbinical, for by Scriptural law liquid cannot defile a utensil.');"><sup>12</sup></span> which by Scriptural law is completely clean;