Chullin 34a — the Talmud in English

And we object:

Let us establish it

for our Mishna!

with unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of sacrificial things, and Rabbi Joshua

agrees with it!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind,

[this matter cannot be entertained],

for it teaches

in our Mishna

meat

that became impure,

for if it is

unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of

teruma,

the priests do not practice preserving in the purity of teruma anything other than unconsecrated fruits to which teruma applies, so that they should not stumble by eating impure teruma, thinking that it is unconsecrated produce; whereas

as for meat, is there

teruma?!

And we object:

Rather, what

[rather, what are you saying—that it is speaking]

of

unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of

sacrificial things?

For even then it is difficult:

is there wild-animal meat among sacrificial things?!

And who imposes the purity of sacrificial things upon wild-animal meat? And we answer:

the meat

of a wild animal

is exchanged

with the meat of a sacrificial animal;

it is liable to be confused,

and since it happens that they exchange it, the practice is to observe the purity of sacrificial things with wild-animal meat. But

the meat

of unconsecrated produce

with the fruits

of teruma

is not liable to be confused,

and there is no practice of preserving meat in the purity of teruma.

Ulla said: The colleagues say:

Our Mishna

is about unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of sacrificial things. And

it

is not in accordance with Rabbi Joshua,

who maintains that they do not have a third degree of impurity.

And I say

[and I say]: even

it is Rabbi Joshua,

and Rabbi Joshua did not disagree concerning unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of sacrificial things, which does have a third degree of impurity,

and

what Rabbi Joshua mentioned—unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of teruma—he did not say specifically, but rather

he states: It is not necessary.

It is not necessary

[there is no need to say]

unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of sacrificial things, which is more stringent

than teruma,

for it has a third degree of impurity. Rather, even unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of teruma also has a third degree of impurity.

And we clarify:

Who are the colleagues

[who are his colleagues] of Ulla, who said that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Joshua? And one cannot say that Rabbi Elazar, who explained the Mishna as referring to unconsecrated produce prepared with the purity of sacrificial things, is the one who said that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Joshua, since Rabbi Elazar was Ulla's teacher and not his colleague

. And we say:

It is Rabbah bar bar Hana,

for he had received a tradition concerning the give-and-take between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua in their dispute concerning the impurity of the body. And it becomes clear from these statements that Rabbi Joshua mentioned teruma specifically.

For Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: What did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua respond to one another,

what is Rabbi Eliezer's reason for being stringent, making the food a first degree relative to the first degree, and why did Rabbi Joshua not accept this reason, and what are Rabbi Joshua's reasons in his laws, and why did Rabbi Eliezer not accept them?

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Joshua:

Wherever the Sages instituted matters, they instituted them in the manner of Torah law. And in a place where the Torah said that a person becomes impure through the food that he ate,

we find

the

food

the food

more stringent than the eater

who eats it:

for whereas the carcass of a kosher bird

when it is

outside does not render

anything impure,

whereas

the person who

eats it

is impure—and even more stringent than the carcass, which

renders his garments impure

when it is found

in the house of swallowing; and we

the Sages,

how shall we not make

at the very least

the eater like the food,

so that one who eats a first-degree food will not be a first degree?

And Rabbi Joshua

answered:

We do not derive from the carcass of a kosher bird, for it is an innovation,

and it contains an unusual matter that is not found in any of the impurities: everywhere impurity renders impure outside and not in the hidden parts, whereas the carcass of a kosher bird renders impure in the house of swallowing and not outside.

Rather,

said Rabbi Joshua:

We find that the food is more stringent than the eater, for whereas food

receives impurity from impure food in the measure of an egg,

260, and the eater

of the food upon which the Sages instituted impurity, they did not render him impure

until he eats the measure of half a pras;

thus, the early Sages who instituted the impurity of the body did not equate the measure of food that renders one impure with the impurity of the body to the measure of food that renders food impure according to Torah law

. And how shall we make the eater like the food

when every impure thing descends in the degree of impurity?

And Rabbi Eliezer

answered:

We do not derive the stringency of impurity from measures,

because the measures do not indicate stringency or leniency. Rather, the impurity of food in the measure of an egg we learn from what the Torah said, “of all food that may be eaten,” implying that it is eaten at one time, and the Sages measured that an egg's measure is food eaten at one time. But concerning the impurity of the body, this measure does not apply, for they did not institute that the impurity should be only with food eaten at one time; and the Sages saw fit to institute impurity with the measure of half a pras

. And further

Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Joshua:

According to your words,

that impurity is to be learned from measures, what

do you say concerning

the food

of the first degree

that becomes

second—

you speak well;

but what you say concerning the food

of the second degree

that becomes

second, why

do you concede this to me?

He said to him:

With food of the second degree I concede this to you, because

we find

it also in impurity through contact:

that

the food

of the second degree makes second-degree

food

through liquids

that moisten it, because the liquids become first degrees through the enactment of the Sages—that liquids touching a second degree become first degrees, as it is written in the Mishna brought later in these statements—and the food touching them becomes second degree. And since we find that even in impurity through contact a second degree sometimes makes a second degree, we have reason to be stringent also in eating, which is more stringent than contact, to make the eater like the food.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him,

Rabbi Eliezer:

But the liquids

that touch a second degree

also

were first degrees, as we learned: Every

second degree of impurity that is

disqualifying with regard to teruma—

renders liquids first degrees, except for one who immersed that day,

who disqualifies teruma, but the Sages did not make him render liquids impure, because his impurity was weakened through immersion [Para, chapter 8, Mishna 7].

Rabbi Eliezer rejected Rabbi Joshua's reasoning by claiming that if the food that eats food of the second degree is to be compared to food that became second degree through a liquid, then one must be stringent concerning the food that eats food of the second degree, so that it should be like the liquid that became a first degree

. Rabbi Joshua will answer this claim that one cannot learn from a liquid, because the Sages were stringent with it since it is capable of receiving impurity more than anything else that receives impurity: it receives impurity from a first degree, unlike a person and vessels, which receive impurity only from a primary source of impurity, and it receives impurity in a vessel that is fit, unlike foods. However, from food, which has no special stringency, one can learn concerning the impurity of the body: since food makes food into a second degree, the food that eats food of the second degree also becomes second degree

. And further

Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Joshua: What you are stringent about, that food

of the third degree

becomes

second degree—why,

for at most, one should compare the food to the food?