Chullin 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this:

Let us establish

our Mishna as referring to non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of teruma

and Rabbi Yehoshua

agrees with it!

And we answer:

That cannot enter your mind,

[this matter cannot be entertained],

as it teaches

in our Mishna:

meat

that became impure,

for if it referred to

non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of

teruma,

the priests do not observe the purity standards of teruma for non-sacred produce except for fruits to which teruma applies, so that they will not come to eat impure teruma, thinking that it is non-sacred produce, whereas meat—

is there

teruma for it?!

And we challenge this:

Rather, what

[what are you saying—that it is referring]

to

non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of

sacred food?

That too presents a difficulty:

is there such a thing as wild-animal meat among sacred food?!

And who imposes the purity standards of sacred food upon wild-animal meat? And we answer:

the meat

of a wild animal

is confused with the meat

of an animal consecrated as an offering;

they are interchangeable,

and since it happens that they are confused, the practice is to observe the purity standards of sacred food with regard to wild-animal meat. But

the meat

of non-sacred animals

is not confused with the produce

of teruma;

they are not interchangeable,

and there is no practice of maintaining meat according to the purity standards of teruma.

Ulla said: The colleagues say:

our Mishna concerns

non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of sacred food. And

it

is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who holds that such food does not have third-degree impurity.

But I say

[and I say]: Even

it is Rabbi Yehoshua,

and Rabbi Yehoshua did not dispute the existence of third-degree impurity in non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of sacred food.

And

when Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of teruma, he did not mean this specifically; rather,

he stated the matter by way of “it is not necessary.”

It is not necessary

[it goes without saying]

that non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of sacred food, which is more stringent

than teruma,

has third-degree impurity. Rather, even non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of teruma also has third-degree 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 Yehoshua? It cannot be said that Rabbi Elazar, who interpreted the Mishna as referring to non-sacred food prepared according to the purity standards of sacred food, was the one who said that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Elazar was Ulla's master and not his colleague .

And we say:

It is Rabba bar bar Ḥana,

who had received a tradition concerning the give-and-take between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in their dispute regarding the impurity of the body. It becomes clear from these statements that Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned teruma specifically.

As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: What did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua respond to one another?

What is Rabbi Eliezer's reasoning for being stringent and making the food a first-degree source of impurity, why did Rabbi Yehoshua not accept this reasoning, what are Rabbi Yehoshua's reasons for his rulings, and why did Rabbi Eliezer not accept them?

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua:

Whenever the Sages instituted enactments, they instituted them in the manner of Torah law. And where the Torah stated that a person becomes impure through the food he ate,

we find

that the

food that consumes

the food

is more stringent than the food consumed,

the food that is eaten.

For if the carcass of a kosher bird

is

outside the body, it does not render

anything impure,

whereas

the person who

eats it

becomes impure, and is even more stringent than the carcass, since it

renders his garments impure

when it is

in the house of swallowing, and we,

the Sages,

how could we not make

at least

the food like the consumed food,

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

And Rabbi Yehoshua

replied:

We cannot derive this from the carcass of a kosher bird, because it is an innovation,

and it contains an unusual feature not found with any other impurity: In every other case, impurity renders impure when it is outside the body and not in concealed areas, whereas the carcass of a kosher bird renders impure in the house of swallowing and not outside the body.

Rather,

said Rabbi Yehoshua:

We find that the food is more stringent than the one who eats it: For if food

becomes susceptible to impurity from impure food in the measure of an egg,

260 , whereas the person who eats

the food, whom the Sages instituted should contract impurity, they did not render him impure

until he eats half a pras,

thus the early Sages who instituted the impurity of the body did not equate the measure of food that conveys the impurity of the body with the measure of food that conveys the Torah impurity of food .

And how could we make the food like the consumed food,

when in every case the impurity descends one degree in the hierarchy of impurity?

And Rabbi Eliezer

replied:

We cannot derive the stringency of impurity from measures,

since the measures do not indicate stringency or leniency. Rather, we learn the impurity of food in the measure of an egg from what the Torah said: “Of all food that may be eaten,” which implies food that can be eaten at one time; and the Sages assessed that an egg's bulk is food eaten at one time. But this measure is not applicable to the impurity of the body, since they did not institute that the impurity should apply only when food is eaten at one time; instead, the Sages saw fit to institute impurity at the measure of half a pras .

And furthermore,

Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Yehoshua:

According to you,

that impurity can be derived from measures, what

do you say about

the food

of first degree

that becomes

second degree—

you speak well;

but what do you say about the food

of second degree

that becomes

second degree—why

do you concede this point to me?

He said to him:

With regard to food of second degree, I concede your point, because

we find

this also with impurity through contact:

For

the food

of second degree makes second-degree

food

through liquid

that is moist upon it, since, by rabbinic enactment, liquids become first-degree sources of impurity when they touch an object of second degree, as the Mishna cited below states, and food that touches them becomes second degree. Since we find that even with impurity through contact, an object of second degree sometimes makes another object second degree, we should be stringent even with eating, which is more stringent than contact, and make the food like the consumed food.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him

Rabbi Eliezer:

But the liquids

that touch an object of second degree

also

were initially first degree, as we learned: Any

object of second-degree impurity that

disqualifies teruma—

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

who disqualifies teruma, but whom the Sages did not subject to the additional stringency of rendering liquids impure, since his impurity was weakened through immersion [Para, chapter 8, mishna 7].

Rabbi Eliezer rejected Rabbi Yehoshua's reasoning by arguing that if the food that eats food of second degree is to be equated with food that becomes second degree through liquid, then the food that eats food of second degree should be treated stringently and made like the liquid that becomes first degree .

Rabbi Yehoshua will answer this claim by saying that nothing can be derived from liquids, because the Sages were stringent with regard to them since they are more capable of contracting impurity than anything else that contracts impurity: They contract impurity from an object of first degree, unlike a person and vessels, which contract impurity only from a primary source of impurity; and they contract impurity from a vessel fit to receive them, unlike food. But from food, which has no special stringency, one can derive the impurity of the body: Since food makes other food second degree, food that eats food of second degree likewise becomes second degree .

And furthermore,

Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to your stringency that food

of third degree

becomes

second degree, why

is that so? At most, the food should be equated with the consumed food.