Study Pesachim folio 19A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בכל טמא לא יאכל״, מי לא עסקינן דנגע בשני. רביעי מקל וחומר, כדאמרינן.
any impure thing should not be eaten” (Leviticus 7:19). Are we not dealing even with a case where meat touched an object that was ritually impure with 2nd-degree ritual impurity? And nevertheless, the verse states explicitly that it is impure and assumes 3rd-degree ritual impurity status. No other source is needed to teach that consecrated objects can assume 3rd-degree ritual impurity status. Therefore, 4th-degree impurity status can be derived by means of the a fortiori inference, as we stated above.
The Talmud returns to its previous point: And if it enters your mind that R' Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva that non-sacred objects can assume 3rd-degree impurity status, let him also teach the halakha of the 4th degree of impurity with regard to teruma, and the fifth degree with regard to consecrated items, on the basis of that same a fortiori inference. The fact that he does not extend the a fortiori inference to include these halakhot proves that R' Yosei does not agree with R' Akiva’s opinion on this issue.
אלא רבי עקיבא לא סבר כרבי יוסי מנלן?
However, with regard to the fact that R' Akiva does not hold in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei, from where do we derive this? Perhaps he accepts R' Yosei’s a fortiori inference and holds that teruma assumes 4th-degree impurity status and consecrated items assume 5th-degree impurity status.
אמר ליה: דלא לישתמיט תנא וליתני רביעי בתרומה וחמישי בקודש, ונימא רבי עקיבא היא. ואנן אהכי ניקום ונסמוך?!
Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi that there is indirect proof that this is the case. As it is not possible to avoid finding at least one tanna who teaches 4th-degree impurity with regard to teruma and 5th-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items, and says that this is the opinion of R' Akiva, who derived it from the a fortiori inference of R' Yosei. In response to this claim, the Talmud asks: And will we stand and rely on that proof? Can proof for R' Akiva’s opinion be cited from the fact that no such tanna was found? Perhaps there is some source for that halakha.