מִ֭נַּחַל בַּדֶּ֣רֶךְ יִשְׁתֶּ֑ה עַל־כֵּ֝֗ן יָרִ֥ים רֹֽאשׁ׃
Iinom siya mula sa batis sa daan; kaya't itataas niya ang ulo.
Jerusalem Talmud Terumot
The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.40Lev. 11:34: “Any food that can be eaten, if water comes upon it it may become impure, and any drink that can be drunk can become impure in any vessel.” For the notion of preparation for impurity based on this and the nearby verses, cf. Note 26.
The argument ascribed here to the rabbis is difficult to understand and is not found in any of the parallel sources; it is not followed up and is superseded later by the documented opinion of the rabbis. The emphasis is only on the arguments of R. Eliezer, to show that R. Eliezer’s position in the Mishnah is not practice, even if R. Eliezer’s position in the Tosephta would be accepted because he is supported by R. Meїr and R. Eliezer ben Jacob. {Maimonides, Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin 2:14, follows R. Eliezer; the interpretation here follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.}
In Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(1), fruit juices are excluded since the verse speaks only of “water”. It is concluded that only drinks described by a single noun can be meant. Blood is included [loc.cit. 8(4)] since it is compared to water in Ps. 110:7. Fruit juices are excluded since they are called “fruit water”.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included41“A general statement followed by a particular one” is the heading of one of the 13 hermeneutical rules of R. Ismael, listed in the Introduction to Sifra. The detailed description of the rule, that a general statement followed by a particular one applies only to that particular one, is no longer connected with the name of R. Ismael; it represents the opinion of the Sages. For an application, cf. Kilaim Chapter 8, Note 20.
It is asserted here and in Nazir 6:2 that R. Ismael disagrees with the interpretation of the Sages and holds that the particular statement is only an illustration. The concurrence of both mss. here and the one available ms. in Nazir shows that the statement cannot be amended away and that in the Introduction to Sifra, only paragraphs 1 and 2 are attributable to R. Ismael.
In our case, “any drink” is taken as a general statement, “that can be drunk” as a particular one.? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included42This is a theoretical statement, not of relevance here, since the particular is not followed by a second general statement. However, it opens a window for a possible study of the development of the hermeneutical rules.. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea43He is mentioned only here. Greek παρήγορος “comforting”, a sobriquet for Menaḥem; cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins (Hoboken, NJ, 1992; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996), entry Perigord.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food44Sifra Šemini Pereq 9(1). Since spoiled food is no longer food, it is not subject to the impurity of food., so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start45The expression is unclear since foodstuffs spoiled when coming into being never were food and, therefore, never subject to impurity of food., what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure46This argument refers to the quote from Sifra, Note 50, that water is subject to impurity as long as it is acceptable to animals and birds.? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about47Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:1: “All that is exclusively human food needs preparation [for impurity] but no thought.” Once prepared for impurity it automatically is ready to accept impurity. Tosephta Ṭevul Yom 1:5: “Foodstuffs [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than drinks, and drinks [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than foodstuffs. Food may have handles [the peduncles of apples, pears, etc. become impure with the fruit], they do not need thought to be food.” Any fluid other than water is a “drink” only if made for human consumption.? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure48Since nobody will want them as human drink.! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought49This refers to vetch which is human food only in times of famine and, according to R. Jehudah in Tosephta Uqeẓin 3:13, and the Sages in Mishnah Ḥallah 4:10, is treated as standard food if prepared as such. This means that vetch becomes human food only by a combination of intent and action, never by intent alone, in contrast to drinks., what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus50Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(4).: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.
The argument ascribed here to the rabbis is difficult to understand and is not found in any of the parallel sources; it is not followed up and is superseded later by the documented opinion of the rabbis. The emphasis is only on the arguments of R. Eliezer, to show that R. Eliezer’s position in the Mishnah is not practice, even if R. Eliezer’s position in the Tosephta would be accepted because he is supported by R. Meїr and R. Eliezer ben Jacob. {Maimonides, Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin 2:14, follows R. Eliezer; the interpretation here follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.}
In Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(1), fruit juices are excluded since the verse speaks only of “water”. It is concluded that only drinks described by a single noun can be meant. Blood is included [loc.cit. 8(4)] since it is compared to water in Ps. 110:7. Fruit juices are excluded since they are called “fruit water”.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included41“A general statement followed by a particular one” is the heading of one of the 13 hermeneutical rules of R. Ismael, listed in the Introduction to Sifra. The detailed description of the rule, that a general statement followed by a particular one applies only to that particular one, is no longer connected with the name of R. Ismael; it represents the opinion of the Sages. For an application, cf. Kilaim Chapter 8, Note 20.
It is asserted here and in Nazir 6:2 that R. Ismael disagrees with the interpretation of the Sages and holds that the particular statement is only an illustration. The concurrence of both mss. here and the one available ms. in Nazir shows that the statement cannot be amended away and that in the Introduction to Sifra, only paragraphs 1 and 2 are attributable to R. Ismael.
In our case, “any drink” is taken as a general statement, “that can be drunk” as a particular one.? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included42This is a theoretical statement, not of relevance here, since the particular is not followed by a second general statement. However, it opens a window for a possible study of the development of the hermeneutical rules.. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea43He is mentioned only here. Greek παρήγορος “comforting”, a sobriquet for Menaḥem; cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins (Hoboken, NJ, 1992; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996), entry Perigord.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food44Sifra Šemini Pereq 9(1). Since spoiled food is no longer food, it is not subject to the impurity of food., so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start45The expression is unclear since foodstuffs spoiled when coming into being never were food and, therefore, never subject to impurity of food., what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure46This argument refers to the quote from Sifra, Note 50, that water is subject to impurity as long as it is acceptable to animals and birds.? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about47Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:1: “All that is exclusively human food needs preparation [for impurity] but no thought.” Once prepared for impurity it automatically is ready to accept impurity. Tosephta Ṭevul Yom 1:5: “Foodstuffs [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than drinks, and drinks [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than foodstuffs. Food may have handles [the peduncles of apples, pears, etc. become impure with the fruit], they do not need thought to be food.” Any fluid other than water is a “drink” only if made for human consumption.? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure48Since nobody will want them as human drink.! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought49This refers to vetch which is human food only in times of famine and, according to R. Jehudah in Tosephta Uqeẓin 3:13, and the Sages in Mishnah Ḥallah 4:10, is treated as standard food if prepared as such. This means that vetch becomes human food only by a combination of intent and action, never by intent alone, in contrast to drinks., what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus50Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(4).: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.