since a woman about whom there is a doubt whether she is immoral is treated like an immoral woman,1 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!2 — But according to R. Akiba, there are four texts [where the word 'defiled' occurs]3 — 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 texts4 — 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 a fortiori 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 a fortiori reasoning; perhaps [a text] is required as regards the priesthood and the heave-offering is permitted to her!5 — 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],6 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.7 R. Akiba, on the other hand,8 does not accept the analogy of the husband and paramour; and even if he accepted it, a teaching which is deducible by a fortiori reasoning Scripture took the trouble to write down.9
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 eaten10 — 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] flesh11 — [A man who is] certainly clean may eat, but when there is a doubt whether he is unclean or clean he may not eat!12 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?13 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.14 If, further, it [had been derived solely] from the case of the suspected woman, I would have said that the rule15 only applied when that which was touched and that which touched it were both rational beings.16 So it is necessary [to have Rab's teaching].17
ON THAT DAY R. AKIBA EXPOUNDED, AND EVERY EARTHEN VESSEL etc. Since it has no [basis in Scripture according to which it is unclean],18 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 a fortiori reasoning: If a tebul yom,19 who is allowed with non-holy food,20 disqualifies21 the heave-offering,22 how much more so must a loaf unclean in the second degree, which is disqualified in the case of non-holy food,23 render the heave-offering unclean in the third degree! It can, however, be objected, This24 applies to a tebul yom because he may be a source of primary defilement.25 [But it may be answered,] You can draw [the necessary conclusion]
Original footnotes renumbered.
- 'A harlot' (Lev. XXI, 7) whom a priest may not marry.
- 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.
- 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.
- He does not expound 'and'.
- Why does he not apply one occurrence of the word 'defiled' to the matter of the priesthood instead of the heave-offering?
- She is forbidden to the paramour whilst the husband is yet alive.
- 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.
- Who bases the prohibition of marriage with a priest on a text.
- 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.
- Lev. VII, 19.
- Ibid., sic.
- Contrary conclusions are drawn from the verse.
- 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.
- From which it is learnt that the rule is not the same in both localities.
- About a doubtful case of defilement being regarded as unclean.
- As happens with the suspected woman.
- 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.
- As R. Johanan declares in the Mishnah; and yet he held it to be defiled.
- 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.
- And does not defile it.
- [ [H] This term denotes the last degree of uncleanness which cannot communicate defilement to any other object coming into contact with it.]
- By touching it so that it may not be eaten by a priest. v. Yeb. 74b.
- [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.]
- The disqualifying of the heave-offering.
- 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.
from a tebul yom [who was defiled] by a creeping thing.1 [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],2 the case of an earthenware vessel proves [the contrary].3 [And should it be objected that] it applies to an earthenware vessel because its interior space renders unclean,4 the case of tebul yom proves [the contrary].5
Thus the original reasoning [by a fortiori] holds good, since the characteristic [of the tebul yom] is unlike the characteristic [of the earthenware vessel]6 and vice versa;7 the point they have in common is that they are allowed with non-holy food but disqualify the heave-offering.8 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,9 however, might object. What is the point common to them both? That in each there is a characteristic which makes for severity!10 But R. Johanan does not raise an objection on the ground that there is in each a characteristic which makes for severity.11
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 a fortiori reasoning]: If one lacking atonement,12 who is permitted with the heave-offering,13 is dis qualified as regards sacrificial food,14 how much more does the third degree, which is disqualified with the heave-offering,15 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 a fortiori reasoning;16 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 eaten17 — do we not deal here with [flesh] that touched something unclean in the second degree?18 And the All-Merciful declared: 'It shall not be eaten'. A fourth degree [is derived] from a fortiori reasoning as we stated above.
R. Johanan said: I do not understand the Master's19 reason20 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 defilement21 and one degree of disqualification.22 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,23 so he disqualifies sacrificial food and drinks.24 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,25 and yet you say that food which is unclean through him creates a fourth degree with sacrificial food,
Original footnotes renumbered.
- 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.
- [A man who touches a dead body becomes a primary source of uncleanness. This does not apply to foodstuffs.]
- Since it can never be a primary source of defilement and yet defiles the heave-offering by contact.
- Without actual contact, v. Lev. XI, 33.
- Because he obviously cannot defile except by direct contact and yet he disqualifies the heave-offering by touching it.
- Since the latter unlike the former defiles by its interior space.
- The former, unlike the latter, being possibly a primary source of defilement.
- [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.]
- Which would not regard this as unclean.
- 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.
- Because the characteristic of severity is peculiar to each and not common to both.
- 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.
- And does not disqualify it by his touch.
- I.e., he disqualifies it by his touch.
- As proved on a fortiori reasoning, supra.
- [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.]
- Lev. VII, 19.
- Since 'unclean thing' means that which had been rendered unclean by something else. The flesh was accordingly unclean in the third degree.
- V. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 1.
- R. Jose's argument as given in the preceding paragraph with respect to a fourth degree with holy food.
- What touches him is unclean in the second degree and what this touches is unclean in the third.
- 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.
- But does not create any further degree of defilement.
- [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.]
- And does not disqualify it.