Talmud su Levitico 11:33

MISHNAH: On the same day³³According to the Babli (Berakhot 28a), any Mishnah which starts “on the same day” was formulated on the day Rabban Gamliel was deposed. There is no proof that this ever was a Galilean tradition., Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.³⁴Lev. 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah.
The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material.” It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”³⁵Probably he reads יְטַמֵּא “it will defile” in place of יִטְמָא “it shall become impure”. Revocalization of the consonantal text is a technique accepted by R. Aqiba, rejected by R. Ismael.; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary.
Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since you were saying that a future generation would purify the tertiary loaf since there is nothing about it in the Torah³⁶He holds that the possibility of tertiary impurity for heave and sacrifices and quaternary for sacrifices is traditional rather than biblical.
The slightly enlarged text is also in Sifra Šemini Parasha 7(12)., but behold, your student Aqiba supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel³⁴Lev. 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah.
The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material. which had become impure by a reptile¹⁰¹A dead reptile from the 8 kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile¹⁰²Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grandfather” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, fol. 27d, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: ¹⁰³Lev. 7:19.“Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation⁹⁵If a person whose body was an original source of impurity is healed, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30; for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure at any place other than the Sanctuary. who does not disable heave disables sanctified food⁹⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:17., it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables¹⁰⁴Everywhere here, פוסל “disables” should read פסול “is disabled”, except the second occurrence (which infringes on the rules of דַּיּוֹ, Note 98). heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument¹⁰⁵It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zebaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices¹⁰⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical..

He also used teach four things in the Babylonian tongue: One who pursues a name, loses his name; One who does not serve the sages, deserves death; One who does not increase, loses; and One who makes use of the crown, perishes, and then it is lost to him.
One who pursues a name, loses his name. How so? This teaches us that a person should not seek to be known in the state, for eventually they will begin to take note of him, and then kill him and take his money.
He who does not serve the sages, deserves death. How so? (They tell) There is a story about a person from Beit Ramah who conducted himself with great piety. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai sent one of his students to go check up on him. The student went, and found him putting oil on a stovetop, and then taking it off and putting it on beans. The student said to him: What are you doing? He replied: I am a high priest, and I am eating the priestly tithe in a state of [ritual] purity. The student said: But is that stovetop impure or pure? He said: Does it say anywhere in the Torah that a stovetop can be impure? The Torah speaks only of an oven becoming impure, as it says (Leviticus 11:33), “Everything in it becomes impure.” The student replied: Just as the Torah speaks of an oven becoming impure, so it speaks also of a stovetop becoming impure, as it also says (Leviticus 11:35), “An oven and a stovetop must be smashed; they are impure.” And if that is so, you have never eaten the priestly tithe in a state of purity in your entire life!
He who does not add, loses. How so? This teaches us that if a person learns only one tractate – or even two, or three – but does not keep adding to them, in the end he will forget even those he did learn.
He who uses it as a crown, perishes, and then it is lost to him. How so? For anyone who uses the Ineffable Name of God has no share in the World to Come.