Chullin 34b (לד:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rabbi Yehoshua:

I too

admit that one who eats a third-degree item of non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food does not thereby make his body a second-degree source of impurity,

I did not say

that one who eats a third-degree item becomes a second-degree source

except with regard to

non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of

teruma, for

the precautions taken regarding

its purity

are still subject to a concern of impurity [precise page location].

with regard to sacrificial food,

for we learned: “The garments of those who eat teruma are considered a support that conveys impurity to sacrificial food” [Mishna Hagiga 18b]. Thus, although impurity conveyed by such a support also renders non-sacred food impure, and certainly those who eat teruma are careful to avoid it, nevertheless, since the precautions taken with regard to the more stringent sacrificial food are greater, with regard to sacrificial food we are concerned that the garments of those who eat teruma are impure with support-impurity, because a menstruating woman sat on them. Similarly, a third-degree item that was protected from another form of impurity with the precautions appropriate for teruma is considered by us a second-degree item with regard to sacrificial food, and one who eats it is treated as a second-degree source, just as one who eats a second-degree item is treated with regard to sacrificial food .

We can now explain Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement in the Mishna, where he said, “with regard to non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of teruma,” in three ways.

A. Rabbi Yehoshua innovated that it is possible to impose upon non-sacred food the impurity laws of teruma, even though teruma is less stringent than sacrificial food; all the more so does this apply to non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food.

According to this approach, even one who eats a third-degree item of non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food becomes a second-degree source of impurity with regard to sacrificial food, because the protection afforded non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food is insufficient for sacrificial food itself, with regard to which greater precautions are taken.

The Gemara below cites an opinion that maintains this. However, it is clear that Rabba bar bar Hana disagrees, since according to him Rabbi Yehoshua explicitly said that he stated that one who eats the item becomes a second-degree source only with regard to teruma, and not with regard to non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food.

B. Rabbi Yehoshua came to explain why he holds that one who eats a third-degree item becomes a second-degree source, and he explains that he is speaking of teruma, and that the purity status of teruma is considered impurity with regard to sacrificial food.

According to this approach, it may be said that Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that it is possible to prepare non-sacred food with the purity status of sacrificial food, but one who eats it does not become a second-degree source.

This approach also does not accord with the give-and-take that follows the Mishna according to Rabba bar bar Hana’s tradition. For if Rabbi Yehoshua had already explained in the Mishna why one who eats a third-degree item becomes a second-degree source with regard to sacrificial food, Rabbi Eliezer would not have asked him about it, and Rabbi Yehoshua would not have returned to explain it.

C. Rabbi Yehoshua came to limit the circumstances of the third-degree item about which he was speaking. He says that this applies only to non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of teruma, and not to non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food, because the latter does not contain a third degree.

Only according to this approach can the give-and-take be understood. Rabbi Eliezer did not know Rabbi Yehoshua’s reason from his statement in the Mishna, because the essential purpose of that statement was to limit the circumstances in which a third degree exists with regard to non-sacred food. And when Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Yehoshua for his reason, he answered him that he was speaking only of non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of teruma; this was also his reason, namely, that the purity status of teruma is considered impurity with regard to sacrificial food.

It follows that it was Rabba bar bar Hana who interpreted our Mishna as not being in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, and he is the amora to whom Ulla referred when he said, “The scholars say” .

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said that Rabbi Yannai said: One who eats a third-degree item of non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food becomes a second-degree source with regard to sacrificial food

according to Rabbi Yehoshua, whose ruling is the halakha, because even non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food is not guarded with such great care ; with regard to sacrificial food itself, we are concerned that it is second-degree, and one who eats a second-degree item becomes a second-degree source.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to Rabbi Asi

from the Mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats a

third-degree

item is

a second-degree source with regard to sacrificial food, but is not a second-degree source with regard to teruma, in the case of non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of teruma.

Rabbi Zeira challenges this:

With the purity status of teruma, yes; with the purity status of sacrificial food, no

did Rabbi Yehoshua say that one who eats the item becomes a second-degree source? Either because he maintains that there is no third degree in non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food, or because such food does contain a third degree, but it is not subject to a concern of impurity with regard to sacrificial food, since it was prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food!

Rabbi Asi said to him:

Rabbi Yehoshua did not specifically say teruma; rather,

he stated the matter in the form: It is not necessary to say

that non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of teruma has the impurity status of teruma; all the more so, non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of sacrificial food has the status of sacrificial food, and their laws are identical with regard to one who eats them.

And we challenge this:

But

Rabbi Asi stated his words in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, whereas Rabba bar bar Hana stated in the name of Rabbi Yohanan the give-and-take in which

Rabbi Yehoshua said: “I too stated this only with regard to teruma,”

Rabbi Yehoshua.

And we resolve:

There are amoraim who differ in their understanding of Rabbi Yohanan’s view,

and according to Rabbi Asi’s report in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, Rabbi Yehoshua never said these words .

Ulla said: One who eats a third-degree item of non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of teruma,

although according to Rabbi Yehoshua it renders impure through contact only sacrificial food, whereas teruma that it touched remains pure, nevertheless

his body is disqualified from eating teruma,

because the prohibition against eating does not depend on whether the item renders teruma impure. And although according to Rabbi Yehoshua one who eats a first-degree item becomes a second-degree source, so that we might have said that one who eats a third-degree item becomes fourth-degree and is permitted to eat teruma, this is not the case. Rabbi Yehoshua said that one who eats the item descends in impurity status from that of the food only with regard to impurity conveyed through contact; but one who eats a third-degree item, even when we say that he is third-degree, does not render teruma impure through contact; rather, he is prohibited from eating teruma . In this respect Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that one who eats the item is as stringent as the food itself.

And we challenge this:

What does Ulla teach us

that does not already follow from Rabbi Yehoshua’s words?

For

we have already learned: One who eats a

item that is

third-degree

is

a second-degree source with regard to sacrificial food, but is not a second-degree source with regard to teruma, in the case of non-sacred food prepared with the purity status of teruma. He is not a

second-degree source

with regard to teruma, but

a third-degree source

he is!

And we resolve:

Had we derived it only from that teaching, we might have said: He is neither a second-degree source

with regard to teruma

nor a third-degree source

with regard to teruma.

And since

the fact that

Rabbi Yehoshua said

that one who eats the item is

a second-degree source with regard to sacrificial food, he also said that he is not a second-degree source with regard to teruma; Ulla teaches us

that he becomes a third-degree source with regard to teruma.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to Ulla

from a Mishna in tractate Tohorot [2:3]:

A first-degree source among non-sacred food is impure and renders impure

teruma, in the sense that it disqualifies other teruma.

And a second-degree source

among non-sacred food

disqualifies

teruma,

but does not render it impure

so that it would render other teruma impure.

And a third-degree source,

when it exists among non-sacred food, such as when it was prepared with the purity status of teruma,

may be eaten in a stew of tevel and teruma,

a dish in which garlic and oil of teruma are mixed, and there is no prohibition against eating it, because the teruma does not contract impurity from the stew, which is third-degree.

Rav Hamnuna challenges this:

And if you say

that one who eats a third-degree item

is disqualified from eating teruma,

how can he be permitted to eat the stew? Do

we feed him something that disqualifies his body

from eating teruma, while in the process he eats the teruma spices?!