Pesachim 16a, b

Today's daf is a long conversation about liquid and impurity.  The rabbis question whether a liquid that has become impure can render other items impure.  Some rabbis believe that it can, and others are more lenient.  The rabbis who suggest that an impure liquid cannot transmit impurity to another object cite a number of proofs.  The strongest proof is Torah law vs. rabbinical law: they state that it was the rabbis and not G-d who decided that liquids could transmit impurity.  

The conversation turns its focus to blood as a particularly sticky liquid (no pun intended...?).  Blood might be considered special; not an ordinary liquid.  Then again, other liquids may be 'exceptional', as well.  A note by Steinsaltz tells us that the Torah stated specifically that water renders produce susceptible to impurity.  Based on a verbal analogy, the Sages included seven other liquids in this halacha as well.  They are wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water.   We learn that all of these liquids can become ritually impure and can transmit ritual impurity.  In addition, there are exceptions to the 'ritual impurity rules' for each of these liquids because the halacha was based on the Torah edict but it was derived by verbal analogy and not by logical reasoning.

Which begs the question: why is logical reasoning more valid than verbal analogy as a proof?  Both are based on human interpretations.  Both could be countered by other verbal analogies or logical reasoning.  Is this an example of a "math is more important than language arts" assumption?  This tiny point opens up a world of questions regarding the values of our Sages.

The Gemara quotes a number of Torah verses in defence of a more stringent halacha.  One of these I found particularly interesting.  Deuteronomy 12:23 tells us "Only be strong not to eat the blood; for the blood is the soul".  (The Gemara goes on to debate whether the 'spurting' blood of a consecrated animal can transmit impurity or whether the 'squeezed' blood retrieved later is also impure.)  The notion of 'blood being the soul' is intriguing.  If blood is the soul, the neshama, then our blood is connected to G-d.  What does this say about bloodletting, or a skinned knee, or a blood transfusion?  Perhaps we are not meant to eat the soul, as it says in the quotation above, but we can treat the soul (blood from a skinned knee, for example), without thought.  Or do we only think of the blood as being the soul when that liquid is draining away in death?

I am still trying to get my head around this notion of ritual impurity.  What is the link that connects together the items that are susceptible to ritual impurity?  Perhaps this blood-soul suggestion was not part of that larger answer.  And the idea that items are sometimes pure and sometimes impure (ritually speaking) is even more convoluting.  Glad that I'll be learning more tomorrow!