Sotah 58

מטבול יום דשרץ

from a tebul yom [who was defiled] by a creeping thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is then unclean in the first degree but not a source of primary cause of defilement. A creeping thing is a primary source of defilement. ');">¹</span>

מה לטבול יום דשרץ שכן במינו אב הטומאה

[Should it be objected that] it applies [only] to a tebul yom [who was defiled] by a creeping thing because he belongs to that category in which there may be a primary source of defilement],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A man who touches a dead body becomes a primary source of uncleanness. This does not apply to foodstuffs.] ');">²</span>

כלי חרש יוכיח

the case of an earthenware vessel proves [the contrary].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it can never be a primary source of defilement and yet defiles the heave-offering by contact. ');">³</span>

מה לכלי חרש שכן מטמא מאוירו

[And should it be objected that] it applies to an earthenware vessel because its interior space renders unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without actual contact, v. Lev. XI, 33. ');">⁴</span>

טבול יום יוכיח

the case of tebul yom proves [the contrary].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he obviously cannot defile except by direct contact and yet he disqualifies the heave-offering by touching it. ');">⁵</span>

וחוזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שמותרין בחולין ופוסלין בתרומה כל שכן ככר שני שפוסל בחולין דפוסל בתרומה

Thus the original reasoning [by <i>a fortiori</i>] holds good, since the characteristic [of the tebul yom] is unlike the characteristic [of the earthenware vessel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the latter unlike the former defiles by its interior space. ');">⁶</span>

ודור אחר פריך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד חמור

and vice versa;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former, unlike the latter, being possibly a primary source of defilement. ');">⁷</span>

ורבן יוחנן בן זכאי צד חמור לא פריך

the point they have in common is that they are allowed with non-holy food but disqualify the heave-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is difficult to explain, since an earthenware vessel does disqualify non-holy food (v. Lev. Xl, 33ff). Rashi suggests another reading which is not free from difficulty. Tosaf. of Sens explains the reference to be to a broken earthenware vessel which in respect of non-holy food communicates no defilement.] ');">⁸</span>

תניא אמר רבי יוסי מנין לרביעי בקודש שפסול

How much more, then, must a loaf unclean in the second degree, which disqualifies in the case of non-holy food, disqualify the heave-offering! ANOTHER GENERATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would not regard this as unclean. ');">⁹</span>

ודין הוא מה מחוסר כיפורים שמותר בתרומה פסול בקודש שלישי שפסול בתרומה אינו דין הוא שיעשה רביעי בקודש

however, might object. What is the point common to them both? That in each there is a characteristic which makes for severity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the law relating thereto, viz., the tebul yom can be a primary source of defilement and the interior space of an earthenware vessel can render unclean. ');">¹⁰</span>

ולמדנו שלישי לקודש מן התורה ורביעי מקל וחומר

But R. Johanan does not raise an objection on the ground that there is in each a characteristic which makes for severity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the characteristic of severity is peculiar to each and not common to both. ');">¹¹</span>

שלישי לקודש מן התורה מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל מי לא עסקינן דנגע בשני ואמר רחמנא לא יאכל רביעי מקל וחומר כדאמרן

It has been taught: R. Jose said: Whence is it that with sacrificial food there is disqualification with the fourth degree of defilement? It is a deduction [from <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning]: If one lacking atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a leper on his recovery, (v. Lev. XIV, 9ff). The seventh day the sacrifice had not yet been offered, and he may not partake of sacrificial food until this has been done. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ר' יוחנן טעם בריבי איני יודע מה הוא שהרי תשובתו בצדו אוכל הבא מחמת טבול יום יוכיח שפסול בתרומה ואינו עושה רביעי בקודש

who is permitted with the heave-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not disqualify it by his touch. ');">¹³</span>

דתניא אבא שאול אומר טבול יום תחילה לקודש לטמא שנים ולפסול אחד

is dis qualified as regards sacrificial food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he disqualifies it by his touch. ');">¹⁴</span>

ר' מאיר אומר מטמא אחד ופוסל אחד וחכמים אומרים כשם שפוסל אוכלי תרומה ומשקי תרומה כך פוסל אוכלי קודש ומשקי קודש

how much more does the third degree, which is disqualified with the heave-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As proved on a fortiori reasoning, supra. ');">¹⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רב פפא ממאי דר' יוסי כרבנן סבירא ליה דילמא כאבא שאול ס"ל דאמר לטמא שנים ולפסול אחד

create a fourth degree of defilement with sacrificial food! We learnt [the rule about] a third degree of defilement with sacrificial food from the Torah and a fourth degree from <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Once the third degree is derived from the Torah, it is possible to employ the a fortiori reasoning in regard to the fourth degree. Were it not so, we should have required the a fortiori reasoning for the third degree only.] ');">¹⁶</span>

אי סלקא דעתך כאבא שאול ס"ל לייתיה לרביעי בקודש מאוכל שבא מחמת טבול יום

whence have we it from the Torah that there is a third degree with sacrificial food? — As it is written: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19. ');">¹⁷</span>

ומה אוכל הבא מחמת טבול יום דטבול יום גופיה מותר בחולין אמרת עושה רביעי בקודש אוכל

— do we not deal here with [flesh] that touched something unclean in the second degree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'unclean thing' means that which had been rendered unclean by something else. The flesh was accordingly unclean in the third degree. ');">¹⁸</span> And the All-Merciful declared: 'It shall not be eaten'. A fourth degree [is derived] from <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning as we stated above. R. Johanan said: I do not understand the Master's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 1. ');">¹⁹</span> reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose's argument as given in the preceding paragraph with respect to a fourth degree with holy food. ');">²⁰</span> since its refutation is by its side, viz., food which is made unclean by contact with a tebul yom proves [the contrary], inasmuch as it is disqualified in the case of heave-offering but does not create a fourth degree of defilement with sacrificial food. For it has been taught: Abba Saul said: A tebul yom is unclean in the first degree as regards sacrificial food to create two further degrees of defilement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What touches him is unclean in the second degree and what this touches is unclean in the third. ');">²¹</span> and one degree of disqualification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the heave-offering was touched by the object unclean in the third degree it would become disqualified but would not create a fourth degree. ');">²²</span> R. Meir Says: He creates one further degree of defilement and one of disqualification. The Sages Say: Just as he disqualifies food or liquids of the heave-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But does not create any further degree of defilement. ');">²³</span> so he disqualifies sacrificial food and drinks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Without creating a further degree of defilement. Whereas, adopting R. Jose's arguments the food touched by the tebul yom should on a fortiori reasoning produce here a disqualification in the fourth degree.] ');">²⁴</span> To this R. Papa demurred: Whence is it that R. Jose holds the same view as the Rabbis? perhaps he holds the same view as Abba Saul who says [that the tebul yom] creates two further degrees of defilement and one of disqualification! — If it enter your mind that he holds the same view as Abba Saul, let him [deduce the rule about] a fourth degree of defilement with sacrificial food from the case of food that is rendered unclean by contact with a tebul yom [as follows]: If a tebul yom is himself allowed with non-holy food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not disqualify it. ');">²⁵</span> and yet you say that food which is unclean through him creates a fourth degree with sacrificial food,