Pesachim 35

בטלו במעיה ואי סלקא דעתך מכלים הוא דהדר ביה אבל באוכלין כר' יוסי ור' שמעון סבירא ליה אמאי בטלו במעיה לגמרי

It [the water] is nullified in its bowels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is no longer fit for its purpose, and ceases to be regarded as water of purification.');">¹</span> Now if you think that he retracted [only] from [his ruling on] utensils, yet in [respect to] eatables he holds as R'Jose and R'Simeon, why is it completely nullified in its bowels: granted that it cannot defile [with] the graver uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it cannot defile human beings and vessels.');">²</span>

נהי דטומאה חמורה לא מטמאו טומאה קלה מיהא ניטמאו

yet it can at least defile [with] the ligh uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., foodstuffs, sc. this flesh. For the water is at least the same as any other liquid and is therefore unclean, for it is regarded as though it touched itself while it was yet the water of purification, and in turn it should defile the flesh.');">³</span> - What does, 'it is nullified in its bowels' mean?

מאי בטלו במעיה נמי בטלו מטומאה חמורה אבל טומאה קלה מטמאו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר טומאה חמורה נמי מטמאו הא בשרה טמא קתני

It is indeed nullified from [imposing] grave uncleanness, but it does defile [with] light uncleanness. Hence it follows that the first Tanna holds that it is unclean even with the graver uncleanness; but surely he states, 'Its flesh is unclean? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he does not maintain that the water defiles even human beings and vessels.');">⁴</span>

כולה ר' יהודה היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני פרה ששתתה מי חטאת בשרה טמא בד"א טומא' קלה אבל טומאה חמורה לא שרבי יהודה אומר בטלו במעיה

The whole is R'Judah. but the text is defective, and it was thus taught: If a cow drinks the water of lustration, its flesh is unclean When is that said?

רב אשי אמר לעולם בטלו במעיה לגמרי משום דהוה ליה משקה סרוח

In respect of light uncleanness, but not in respect of grave uncleanness, for R'Judah maintained: It is nullified in its bowels. R'Ashi said: In truth it is completely nullified in its bowels, beca it is [now] noisome liquid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And undrinkable, whereas only drinkable water defiles. hxuh 'r');">⁵</span>

ר' יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים לאוכלין טמאין לכלים טהורים אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ריש לקיש רבי יוסי בשיטת ר"ע רבו אמרה דדריש יטמא יטמא

R'Jose and R'Simeon maintained: In respect of eatables they are unclean; in respect of utensils they are clean.' Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in Resh Lakish's name: R'Jose stated this in accordance with the opinion of R'Akiba his teacher,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is not his own view, v. Tosaf.supra ');">⁶</span>

דתנן בו ביום דרש ר"ע (ויקרא יא, לג) וכל כלי חרש אשר יפול מהם וגו' אינו אומר טמא אלא יטמא יטמא אחרים לימד על ככר שני שעושה שלישי בחולין

who interprets yitma [it shall be unclean] as yetamme [it shall defile] - For we learned: on that very day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 71. n. 3.');">⁷</span> R'Akiba lectured: And every earthen vessel, wherein any of them [sc. creeping things] falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean [yitma]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI. 33.');">⁸</span>

והכא היכי דריש (ויקרא יא, לד) וכל משק' אשר ישתה בכל כלי יטמא יטמא לטמא טומאת אוכלין אתה אומר לטמא טומאת אוכלין או אינו אלא לטמא טומאת משקין אמרת לא כך היה

it does not state tame [unclean] but yitma. [intimating that] it defiles [yetamme] others, [thus] teaching that a loaf of the second degree produces a third in the case of hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sherez (creeping thing) is a 'father' of uncleanness; hence it renders the vessel a derivative or a 'first' degree, and that in turn makes the food in it a second, and since the verse teaches that it defiles others, without specifying terumah, it follows that this makes a third even in respect of hullin.');">⁹</span>

מאי לא כך היה אמר רב פפא לא מצינו טומאה שעושה כיוצא בה

And how does he interpret [it] here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of liquids.');">¹⁰</span> - And all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel [yitma] shall be unclean:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 34.');">¹¹</span>

רבינא אמר מגופיה דקרא נמי לא מצית אמרת יטמא לטמא טומאת משקין דאי סלקא דעתך יטמא דסיפא לטמא טומאת משקין יטמא דרישא נמי לטמא טומאת משקין ניערבינהו וניכתבינהו (ויקרא יא, לד) מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אשר יבא עליו מים וכל משקה אשר ישתה בכל כלי יטמא

it 'shall defile' [yetamme] in respect of defiling eatables -<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not liquids. Consequently they only mention eatables in their ruling, but not liquids.');">¹²</span> You say.'

תרי יטמא למה לי אלא יטמא דרישא לטמא טומאת משקין יטמא דסיפא לטמא טומאת אוכלין

In respect of defiling eatables': yet perhaps it is not so, but rather in respect of defiling liquids? - You ca answer, It was not thus. What does 'it was not thus' mean? - Said R'Papa: We do not find that uncleanness renders that which is similar to itself [unclean].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. Hence an unclean liquid can defile an eatable, but not another liquid.');">¹³</span>

ואימא לטמא את הכלים ולאו ק"ו הוא ומה כלי שמטמא משקה אין מטמא כלי משקין הבאין מחמת כלי אינו דין שלא יטמאו את הכלים

Rabina said: From the verse itself too you cannot say 'it shall defile' is in respect of defiling liquids. For if you should think that 'it shall be unclean' of the secon part [of the verse] is in respect of defiling liquids, [while] 'it shall be unclean' of the first part is also i respect of defiling liquids,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 13b.');">¹⁴</span>

ואימא כי לא מטמאו משקין הבאין מחמת כלי אבל משקין הבאין מחמת שרץ ה"נ דמטמאו משקין הבאין מחמת שרץ מי כתיבי

then let it [the Torah] combine them and write them [together]. All food therein which may be eaten, that on which water cometh, and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean: what is the purpose of 'shall be unclean' twice? Hence 'shall be unclean' of the first part is in respect of defiling liquids. [while] 'shall be unclean' of the second part is in respect of defiling eatables. Y perhaps it is in respect of defiling vessels?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the second 'shall be unclean' - why then does R. Jose rule that it is clean in respect of vessels?');">¹⁵</span> - Does it [the reverse] not follow a minori: if a utensil, which defiles liquids, cannot defile [another] utensil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As shown infra.');">¹⁶</span> then how much the more should liquids which are unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'come'.');">¹⁷</span> through a utensil not defile utensils! Yet perhaps, they do<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when do they not.');">¹⁸</span> not defile [utensils] [when they are] liquids unclean through a utensil; but liquids which are unclean through a sherez, do indeed defile [utensils]? - Are then liquids which are unclean through a sherez, written [in Scripture]?