פסחים יח

פסחים יח

בָּטְלוּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִכֵּלִים הוּא דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ, אֲבָל בָּאוֹכָלִין כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, אַמַּאי בָּטְלוּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ לִגְמָרֵי?

The purification waters are nullified in its innards and do not impurify the meat of the cow. And if it enters your mind that it was from his ruling with regard to liquids transmitting impurity to vessels by Torah law that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion, but with regard to foods he holds in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that liquids transmit ritual impurity to food by Torah law, why does he say that the purification waters are nullified in its innards entirely and no longer transfer impurity at all?

נְהִי דְּטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לָא מְטַמְּאוּ, טוּמְאָה קַלָּה מִיהָא נִיטַמְּאוּ!

The Gemara elaborates: Although these waters do not transmit a severe form of ritual impurity to a person or vessel that comes into contact with them, in any event let them transmit a lesser form of impurity to food that comes into contact with them. Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling with regard to the purification waters indicates that he retracted his previous opinion entirely and he maintains that there is no impurity of liquids by Torah law at all. Since this impurity is by rabbinic law, the Sages did not extend their decree to the uncommon circumstance of the purification waters.

מַאי ״בָּטְלוּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ״ נָמֵי? בָּטְלוּ מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, אֲבָל טוּמְאָה קַלָּה מְטַמְּאוּ. מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה נָמֵי מְטַמְּאוּ, הָא ״בְּשָׂרָהּ טָמֵא״ קָתָנֵי!

The Gemara rejects this contention: What, too, is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s phrase: They are nullified in its innards? It means that they are nullified only from a severe form of impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the purification waters transmit a lesser form of impurity. This proves by inference that the first tanna maintains that the purification waters also transmit a severe form of impurity to people and vessels. This is a problematic conclusion, as the first tanna teaches: Its flesh is impure, which clearly indicates that its flesh alone is impure, whereas the purification waters swallowed by the cow do not transmit impurity to people or vessels. The result is that according to this approach, there is no difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and the first tanna.

כּוּלֵּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: פָּרָה שֶׁשָּׁתְתָה מֵי חַטָּאת — בְּשָׂרָהּ טָמֵא. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — טוּמְאָה קַלָּה, אֲבָל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה — לֹא, שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בָּטְלוּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ.

The Gemara answers: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: With regard to a cow that drank the purification waters, its flesh is impure. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a lesser form of impurity, but with regard to a severe form of purity, no, its flesh is not impure, as Rabbi Yehuda says: The waters are nullified in its innards and their status is no longer that of purification waters. Instead, their impurity is by rabbinic law, like any other liquid.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בָּטְלוּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ לִגְמָרֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מַשְׁקֶה סָרוּחַ.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is possible to explain that the waters are nullified in its innards entirely from any type of impurity, as this issue is unrelated to the question of whether the impurity of liquids is by Torah law or rabbinic law. Rather, this halakha is due to the fact that purification waters become a foul liquid when ingested, and the principle is that offensive liquid can neither be rendered impure itself nor transfer impurity to other items.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: לָאוֹכָלִין — טְמֵאִין, לְכֵלִים — טְהוֹרִים. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ אֲמָרָהּ, דְּדָרֵישׁ ״יִטְמָא״ — יְטַמֵּא.

It was taught in the baraita about uncertainty as to the impurity of liquids that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: With regard to foods that came into contact with impure liquid, the foods are impure. However, with regard to vessels that came into contact with impure liquid, the vessels are pure. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Yosei said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, who interpreted the term yitma, which is an intransitive verb in the simple conjugation meaning: It shall be impure, as though it were written yetamme, a transitive verb in the intensive conjugation meaning: It shall render impure, i.e., it transmits impurity to other items.

דִּתְנַן, בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל מֵהֶם וְגוֹ׳״, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״טָמֵא״ אֶלָּא ״יִטְמָא״ — יְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, לִימֵּד עַל כִּכָּר שֵׁנִי שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין.

As we learned in a mishna: On that day, when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya the Nasi, Rabbi Akiva taught: “And every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33). The verse does not say: It is impure [tameh]; rather, it says: It shall be impure [yitma], indicating that an item in an impure earthenware vessel transmits impurity to other items. This verse teaches about a loaf with second-degree ritual impurity status, i.e., ritual impurity imparted through contact with a vessel impurified by a creeping animal, that the loaf renders other items impure with third-degree ritual impurity, even non-sacred items.

וְהָכָא הֵיכִי דָּרֵישׁ? ״וְכׇל מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכׇל כְּלִי יִטְמָא״ — יְטַמֵּא, לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין? אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה.

The Gemara inquires: And here, with regard to the ritual impurity of liquids, how does Rabbi Yosei interpret the verses? The Gemara cites the verse: “From all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk in every vessel, shall be impure [yitma]” (Leviticus 11:34). Rabbi Yosei interprets the end of the verse as: Shall render impure [yetamme], indicating that liquid also transmits impurity to foods. The Gemara discusses this derivation: Do you say that this expression teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to foods, or perhaps the verse is teaching only that it transmits impurity to other liquids, but not to food? You said in response: That was not the correct interpretation.

מַאי ״לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה״? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא מָצִינוּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁעוֹשָׂה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ.

The Gemara wonders about the unusual expression. What is the meaning of the phrase: That was not the correct interpretation? How can this difficulty be dismissed so easily? Rav Pappa said: It means that we did not find any case of ritual impurity that renders a similar item impure. Therefore, it must be that the verse teaches that this liquid transmits impurity to food.

רָבִינָא אָמַר: מִגּוּפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ ״יִטְמָא״ — לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ ״יִטְמָא״ דְּסֵיפָא לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין, ״יִטְמָא״ דְּרֵישָׁא, נָמֵי לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין. נִיעָרְבִינְהוּ וְנִיכְתְּבִינְהוּ: ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא עָלָיו מַיִם וְכׇל מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכׇל כְּלִי יִטְמָא״.

Ravina said: From an analysis of the verse itself you also cannot say that the term: Shall be impure, means that the liquid transmits ritual impurity only to liquids. As, if it enters your mind to say that the term: Shall be impure, in the latter portion of the verse means that it transmits ritual impurity only to liquids, then the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse, in reference to food, should also mean that it transmits ritual impurity only to liquids. And if that is so, let the verse combine the two cases and write them together as follows: From all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, and all drink that may be drunk in every vessel, shall be impure.

תְּרֵי ״יִטְמָא״ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא: ״יִטְמָא״ דְּרֵישָׁא לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין, ״יִטְמָא״ דְּסֵיפָא לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין.

Ravina concludes his proof: Why do I need the term: Shall be impure, twice? Rather, it must be that the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse teaches that food transmits ritual impurity to liquids, while the term: Shall be impure, in the latter portion of the verse teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to food.

וְאֵימָא לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַכֵּלִים! וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא, וּמָה כְּלִי שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֶה — אֵין מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת כְּלִי — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים?

The Gemara asks: And say that the term teaches that liquid transmits ritual impurity to vessels. The Gemara rejects this contention: And isn’t it an a fortiori inference? Just as an impure vessel, which transmits impurity to liquid that comes into contact with it, nevertheless does not transmit impurity to another vessel, so too, liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, is it not right that they should not transmit impurity to vessels?

וְאֵימָא: כִּי לָא מְטַמְּאוּ, מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת כְּלִי. אֲבָל מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְטַמְּאוּ! מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ מִי כְּתִיבִי?

The Gemara suggests: And say that when liquids do not transmit ritual impurity to a vessel, that is in the case of liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with an impure vessel, as the vessel itself does not transmit impurity to another vessel. However, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, a more severe form of impurity, indeed, they should transmit impurity even to vessels. The Gemara rejects this contention: Are liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal stated explicitly in the Torah? The impure liquids mentioned in the verse became impure by contact with a vessel that came into contact with a dead creeping animal.

וְלָאו מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר קָאָתֵי: וּמָה מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת כְּלִי — מְטַמְּאִין, מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

The Gemara asks: And doesn’t the impurity of liquids that came into contact with a creeping animal come from an a fortiori inference: Just as liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, which itself became impure due to contact with a creeping animal, transmit impurity, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, all the more so is it not clear that they transmit impurity to a vessel?

דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.

The Gemara answers: Since the basic halakha of these liquids is derived by means of an a fortiori inference, no stringencies are added to it, in accordance with the principle: It is sufficient [dayyo] for the conclusion that emerged from the a fortiori inference to be like the source of the inference. In other words, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. In this case, liquid that became impure through contact with a creeping animal transmits impurity to the same extent that liquid that became impure through contact with a vessel does.

״יִטְמָא״ דְּרֵישָׁא הֵיכִי דָּרֵישׁ? ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא עָלָיו מַיִם יִטְמָא״, יִטְמָא — לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַמַּשְׁקִין. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַמַּשְׁקִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַכְּלִי?

The Gemara asks: How does Rabbi Akiva interpret the term: Shall be impure, in the first portion of the verse: “From all food which may be eaten, upon which water has come, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34)? He interprets the term: Shall be impure, as: Shall render impure. Food transmits ritual impurity to liquids. Do you say that the term teaches that food transmits impurity to liquids, or perhaps the term teaches only that food transmits impurity to a vessel?

אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מַשְׁקֶה שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא אוֹכֶל — אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאֵין מְטַמֵּא אוֹכֶל — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְטַמֵּא כְּלִי?! הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״יִטְמָא״ — לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַמַּשְׁקִין שֶׁהֵן עֲלוּלִין לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.

The Gemara answers: You can say an a fortiori inference that negates this possibility: Just as liquid, which transmits impurity to food, does not transmit impurity to a vessel, with regard to food, which does not transmit impurity to food, is it not right that it should not transmit impurity to a vessel? If so, how then do I establish the meaning of the term: Shall be impure, which in this context indicates that food impurifies other items? This term indicates that food transmits impurity to liquids, which are susceptible to contracting impurity.

מַאי אִירְיָא מַשְׁקִין מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲלוּלִין לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא!

The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Akiva mention specifically that food impurifies liquids due to the fact that they are susceptible to contracting impurity? Let him derive this proof from the simple fact that there is no other item that food could render impure. As food does not transmit impurity to food, the only remaining alternative is that food impurifies liquids.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכִי תֵּימָא אוֹכֶל חָמוּר, דִּמְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקִין, נִיטַמְּיֵיהּ לִכְלִי. הַהוּא חוּמְרָא דְמַשְׁקִין הוּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמַשְׁקִין עֲלוּלִין לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: And lest you say that the impurity of food is severe, as evidenced by the fact that it transmits ritual impurity to liquids despite the fact that liquids do not transfer impurity to other liquids, and therefore let food transmit impurity to a vessel, despite the fact that liquid does not transmit impurity to a vessel; therefore, the Gemara states that the fact that food transmits impurity to liquids is actually a stringency characteristic of liquids, not of food. The impurity of food is not more severe than that of liquids; rather, food transmits impurity to liquids due to the fact that liquids are susceptible to contracting impurity.

וּמָה הִיא עֲלִילָתָן — שֶׁמְּקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁר.

And in what manner is their susceptibility manifest? It is manifest in the fact that they become ritually impure without being first rendered susceptible to impurity. Foods can become impure only after first coming into contact with one of seven liquids. Liquids do not require any preparatory stage before becoming impure.

״יִטְמָא״ — דְּאֵין עוֹשָׂה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ, מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע וְנָפַל מִנִּבְלָתָם עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא״ — הוּא טָמֵא, וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה טוּמְאָה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ! חַד בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ, וְחַד בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת כְּלִי.

Is the principle: Shall be impure teaches that ritual impurity does not render a similar item impure, e.g., that food does not transfer ritual impurity to other food, derived from here? It is derived from there: “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is inferred: It is impure; however, it does not transmit impurity to a similar item. Why is an additional source necessary to teach this same principle? The Gemara explains: Both verses are necessary, as one refers to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, while one verse refers to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with an impure vessel.

וּצְרִיכִי? דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת כְּלִי — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חֲמִירִי. אֲבָל בְּמַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ — דַּחֲמִירִי, אֵימָא עוֹשֶׂה טוּמְאָה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ.

The Gemara adds: And both verses are necessary, as neither of the halakhot could have been derived from the other. As, had the verse taught us only the halakha with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel, one might have thought that liquids do not transfer impurity to similar items only due to the fact that their impurity is not severe, as it did not result from contact with a primary source of impurity; however, with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, which are impure with a severe form of impurity that resulted from contact with a primary source of impurity, say that they transmit impurity to a similar item.

וְלַשְׁמְעִינַן מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת שֶׁרֶץ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מַשְׁקִין הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת כְּלִי! מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתֵב לַהּ קְרָא.

The Gemara asks: And let the verse teach us that liquids do not transmit impurity with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a creeping animal, and all the more so will that be the case with regard to liquids that come to a state of impurity due to contact with a vessel. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as at times with regard to a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless unnecessarily wrote it explicitly.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: לָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא,

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But didn’t Rava say that Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the third-degree ritual impurity status of non-sacred items? Contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yosei maintains that an item with second-degree ritual impurity does not confer third-degree impurity status upon non-sacred items by Torah law.

וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!

And similarly, Rabbi Akiva does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fourth-degree impurity of consecrated property. The relevance of these observations to the issue at hand is that if Rabbi Yosei maintains that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law, he evidently interprets the verse as: Yetamme, just as Rabbi Akiva does. However, in that case, he would also hold that second-degree ritual impurity confers upon another non-sacred item third-degree impurity status, as that halakha is also derived from the term: Yetamme.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ אֲמָרָהּ, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

Rav Ashi said to him: Rabbi Yosei said this halakha that liquids transmit impurity by Torah law in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher; however, he himself does not hold accordingly, as Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that liquids do not transmit impurity to other items by Torah law.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִנַּיִין לָרְבִיעִי בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל?

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana with regard to Rava’s statement: Granted, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived with regard to a consecrated item with fourth-degree ritual impurity that it is only disqualified and does not transfer impurity to other objects?

וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים שֶׁמּוּתָּר בִּתְרוּמָה, פָּסוּל בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ. שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁפָּסוּל בִּתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה רְבִיעִי בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ?

The baraita continues: And this halakha is a logical a fortiori inference: Just as one who lacks atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, who is permitted to eat teruma, disqualifies a consecrated item if he comes into contact with it, with regard to third-degree ritual impurity, which disqualifies teruma, and in that way is more severe than one who lacks atonement, is it not right that it should confer fourth-degree ritual impurity status upon a consecrated item? The status of an item with third-degree ritual impurity should be no less severe than that of a person who lacks atonement.

וְלָמַדְנוּ שְׁלִישִׁי בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וּרְבִיעִי מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.

The Gemara notes: And we derived third-degree impurity with regard to consecrated items from the Torah, and fourth-degree impurity of consecrated items by means of the above a fortiori inference. In light of the dayyo principle, one might have thought that this a fortiori inference cannot serve as the basis of the halakha that consecrated property can assume fourth-degree impurity status. Since the source of this inference is third-degree impurity status, the conclusion that emerges can be only that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status, like teruma itself. The Gemara explains that the dayyo principle does not apply in this case. If the a fortiori inference is rendered moot as a result of applying that principle, the principle is not applied. Because the fact that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status is derived from the verse, if that which emerges from the inference is that halakha itself, the a fortiori inference is moot. Therefore, the principle does not apply and the fact that consecrated objects can assume fourth-degree impurity status is derived from the inference.

שְׁלִישִׁי מִן הַתּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע

The Gemara elaborates. The fact that consecrated objects can assume third-degree impurity status is derived from the Torah, as it is written: “And the flesh that touches