Sotah 57

שהרי עשה בה ספק זונה כזונה תרומה נמי לא תיבעי קרא שהרי עשה בה ספק זונה כזונה

since a woman about whom there is a doubt whether she is immoral is treated like an immoral woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'A harlot' (Lev. XXI, 7) whom a priest may not marry. ');">¹</span>

אלא לר' עקיבא ארבעה קראי כתיבי חד לבעל וחד לבועל וחד לכהונה וחד לתרומה

then [for the rule about] the heave-offering a Scriptural verse should likewise be unnecessary, since a woman about whom there is a doubt whether she is immoral is treated like an immoral woman!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if a priest's daughter loses the right to eat of the heave-offering though lawfully married to a non-priest (Lev. XXII, 12), how much more must she forfeit it if she is immoral; v. Yeb. 68a. ');">²</span>

ורבי ישמעאל תלתא קראי כתיבי חד לבעל וחד לבועל וחד לתרומה וכהונה אתיא בקל וחומר

— But according to R. Akiba, there are four texts [where the word 'defiled' occurs]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. V, 17, 28 and 29. In the last verse it is preceded by 'and', which is understood as the duplication of the term. ');">³</span>

ורבי ישמעאל ממאי דאיצטריך קרא לתרומה וכהונה אתיא בקל וחומר דילמא כי אצטריך לכהונה ותרומה שריא

— one [to prohibit the woman] to the husband, one to the paramour, one to the priesthood and one for the heave-offering. Whereas according to R. Ishmael there are [only] three texts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not expound 'and'. ');">⁴</span>

אמר לך מסתברא דומיא דבעל ובועל מה בעל ובועל מחיים אף תרומה נמי מחיים לאפוקי כהונה דלאחר מיתה

— one [to prohibit her] to the husband, one to the paramour, and one for the heave-offering; and [the prohibition] regarding the priesthood he deduces by <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning. Whence, however, does R. Ishmael [know] that a text is required for the heave-offering and that [the prohibition] regarding the priesthood is to be deduced by <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning; perhaps [a text] is required as regards the priesthood and the heave-offering is permitted to her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he not apply one occurrence of the word 'defiled' to the matter of the priesthood instead of the heave-offering? ');">⁵</span>

ור"ע דומיא דבעל ובועל לית ליה

— He can reply to you, This is proved by the analogy of the husband and paramour: just as [the prohibition] respecting husband and paramour is in force already during the lifetime [of the husband],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is forbidden to the paramour whilst the husband is yet alive. ');">⁶</span>

ואי נמי אית ליה מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא

so also [the prohibition] respecting the heave-offering is likewise to come into force during his lifetime, to the exclusion of that respecting the priesthood which comes into effect after death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the husband's lifetime she cannot in any way marry into the priesthood since a priest may not marry a divorcee; the prohibition is consequently to refer here to after the husband's death, that even then a priest may not marry the suspected woman. Since the analogy does not apply, the text cannot be applied to this prohibition. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב גידל אמר רב דבר שיש בו דעת לישאל ואין בו דעת לישאל מהאי קרא נפקא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל ודאי טמא הוא דלא יאכל הא ספק טמא וספק טהור יאכל

R. Akiba, on the other hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who bases the prohibition of marriage with a priest on a text. ');">⁸</span>

אימא סיפא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר כל טהור יאכל בשר ודאי טהור הוא דיאכל בשר הא ספק טמא וספק טהור לא יאכל

does not accept the analogy of the husband and paramour; and even if he accepted it, a teaching which is deducible by <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning Scripture took the trouble to write down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the fact that the rule could be arrived at by deduction does not obviate R. Akiba's contention that it is based on a text. ');">⁹</span>

אלא לאו שמע מינה כאן שיש בו דעת לישאל כאן שאין בו דעת לישאל

R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The [difference between] a case where there is a rational being to be interrogated and one where there is no rational being to be interrogated is derived from the following texts: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואיצטריך דרב גידל אמר רב ואיצטריך למיגמר מסוטה דאי מדרב הוה אמינא בין ברשות היחיד ובין ברשות הרבים איצטריך למיגמר מסוטה

— when the thing is certainly unclean it may not be eaten; hence when there is a doubt whether it is unclean or clean it may be eaten. Consider now the continuation: And as for the flesh, all that is clean shall eat [sacrificial] flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., sic. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי מסוטה הוה אמינא עד דאיכא דעת נוגע ומגיע צריכא

— [A man who is] certainly clean may eat, but when there is a doubt whether he is unclean or clean he may not eat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary conclusions are drawn from the verse. ');">¹²</span>

בו ביום דרש רבי עקיבא וכל כלי חרש כו'

Is not, then, the conclusion to be drawn from this that in one case there is a rational being to be interrogated and not in the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clause 'and as for flesh etc.' speaks of a man who is the object of uncleanness and a rational being to be interrogated; whereas the former 'and the flesh that toucheth etc.' refers to where there is no rational being to be interrogated. ');">¹³</span>

ומאחר דאין לו למה טמא

The statement of R. Giddal in the name of Rab was necessary, and it was also necessary to derive [the rule of defilement caused by a creeping thing] from the case of the suspected woman; for if [it had only been based on] the teaching of Rab, I would have said that the rule was the same whether [the defilement occurred] in a private domain or a public place; therefore it was also necessary to derive it from the case of a suspected woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is learnt that the rule is not the same in both localities. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מן התורה אין לו מדין קל וחומר יש לו ומה טבול יום שמותר בחולין פוסל בתרומה ככר שני שפסול בחולין אינו דין שיעשה שלישי בתרומה

If, further, it [had been derived solely] from the case of the suspected woman, I would have said that the rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About a doubtful case of defilement being regarded as unclean. ');">¹⁵</span>

איכא למיפרך מה לטבול יום שכן אב הטומאה

only applied when that which was touched and that which touched it were both rational beings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As happens with the suspected woman. ');">¹⁶</span>

תיתי

So it is necessary [to have Rab's teaching].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is sufficient if the object touched is a rational being for a doubtful case to be unclean. It is not required that the defiling agent should also be a rational being. ');">¹⁷</span> ON THAT DAY R. AKIBA EXPOUNDED, AND EVERY EARTHEN VESSEL etc. Since it has no [basis in Scripture according to which it is unclean],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Johanan declares in the Mishnah; and yet he held it to be defiled. ');">¹⁸</span> why should it be unclean? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, It has none from the Torah, but it has one as a deduction from <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning: If a tebul yom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bathed during day', i.e., an unclean person who has undergone immersion but awaits sunset before he regains his state of purity. V. Lev. XXII, 7. ');">¹⁹</span> who is allowed with non-holy food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not defile it. ');">²⁰</span> disqualifies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] This term denotes the last degree of uncleanness which cannot communicate defilement to any other object coming into contact with it.] ');">²¹</span> the heave-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By touching it so that it may not be eaten by a priest. v. Yeb. 74b. ');">²²</span> how much more so must a loaf unclean in the second degree, which is disqualified in the case of non-holy food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [If a creeping thing touches an object which in turn comes into contact with non-holy food, the latter, which is in the second degree of uncleanness, is disqualified; v. Lev. XI, 33.] ');">²³</span> render the heave-offering unclean in the third degree! It can, however, be objected, This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disqualifying of the heave-offering. ');">²⁴</span> applies to a tebul yom because he may be a source of primary defilement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'father of defilement'. By, e.g., having touched a corpse or by himself being a leper. Tebul yom cannot thus be made the basis of deduction. ');">²⁵</span> [But it may be answered,] You can draw [the necessary conclusion]