Chullin 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

Ulla said to him:

Ulla:

Leave aside the nazid ha-dema!

as there is no

consumption of

an olive-bulk of

teruma

within the time required for

the duration of

eating a half-loaf,

as the seasoning is minimal and when he eats an olive-bulk of it, more than the time required to eat a half-loaf has already elapsed; therefore, this is not considered eating an olive-bulk with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah, and even one who is impure with impurity of the body by Torah law is not liable to death when he eats teruma in this manner. And the Sages did not impose a stringency prohibiting this eating on one whose body is disqualified through a third-degree impurity. But with regard to one who eats second-degree impurity, they were stringent and prohibited him from eating nazid ha-dema, because his impurity is more severe, and also because the teruma itself was rendered unfit by rabbinic decree through the stew.

Rabbi Yonatan said that Rabbi said: One who eats

in a state of prohibition

a third-degree item of teruma itself—

is prohibited from eating

teruma

but is permitted to touch it, as Ulla said with regard to non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity.

And we say:

And we say:

It was necessary

to state

Ulla’s statement, and it was necessary

to state

Rabbi Yonatan’s statement,

and one cannot derive the statement of one from that of the other.

For if we had only Ulla’s statement, I would say:

The fact that one who eats it is permitted to touch teruma

applies only to non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity; but with teruma,

in which third-degree impurity is by Torah law, we should impose a rabbinic stringency

even with regard to touching it,

that it be

prohibited,

lest he forget and eat it.

Rabbi Yonatan’s statement was therefore necessary,

as he says that it is permitted to touch teruma even when one ate teruma itself.

And if we had only Rabbi Yonatan’s statement, I would say:

The fact that his body becomes disqualified

applies only

when one eats

teruma,

whose impurity is by Torah law.

But

when one eats

non-sacred food

that was prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity, whose entire impurity is only rabbinic, his body should not become disqualified, and

he should also be permitted to eat teruma; therefore, both statements are necessary.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Naḥman and sat saying: One who eats a third-degree item of non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of consecrated-food purity—

is pure to eat consecrated food, for there is no item that creates a fourth degree of impurity with regard to consecrated food except consecrated food that has been sanctified.

Rav Yitzḥak disputes three opinions of amoraim mentioned earlier in the sugya.

a. Rav Yitzḥak maintains that there is a third degree in non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of consecrated-food purity, unlike Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who maintains that there is no third degree in such food.

b. Rav Yitzḥak disputes Rabbi Asi, who says that non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of consecrated-food purity has the same status as non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity, and that one who eats it becomes a second-degree source with regard to consecrated food.

c. Rav Yitzḥak disputes Ulla and Rabbi Yonatan and maintains that one who eats a third-degree item of teruma, or non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity, is permitted to eat teruma, and we do not say that, with regard to the prohibition against eating, the eater is equated with the food even according to Rabbi Yehoshua. According to Rav Yitzḥak, only a third-degree item of consecrated food disqualifies consecrated food and makes it fourth-degree, but not a third-degree item of teruma, although with regard to a third-degree item of teruma there is concern that it is equivalent to a second degree vis-à-vis consecrated food, and therefore renders it impure because of the higher standard the Sages instituted for consecrated food. In his view, even consecrated food sanctified with sanctity of monetary value, which is verbal sanctification, does not create a fourth degree; only consecrated food sanctified through sacrifice creates a fourth degree, and all the more so non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of consecrated-food purity, which is not more stringent than verbal sanctification, does not create a fourth degree.

Therefore, one who eats a third-degree item of non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of consecrated-food purity does not become fourth-degree and is not prohibited from eating consecrated food; only one who eats a third-degree item of consecrated food is prohibited from eating consecrated food.

Rami bar Ḥama did not know that Rav Yitzḥak was more lenient with regard to non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of consecrated-food purity than with regard to non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity, and therefore he raised an objection to him.

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection:

One who eats

a third-degree item—

is second-degree with regard to consecrated food, but is not second-degree with regard to teruma, when the item is non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity.

And Rami bar Ḥama asks:

Why? But

non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of teruma purity

is not sanctified consecrated food,

and according to your statement, the person who eats it should not even become fourth-degree with regard to consecrated food, all the more so he should not become second-degree with regard to consecrated food!

Rav Yitzḥak said to him:

Rav Yitzhak:

Leave aside teruma, for

even

its complete purity

is

is considered impurity with regard to consecrated food;

not only is its third degree considered second-degree with regard to consecrated food, but non-sacred food prepared with the safeguards of consecrated-food purity is considered pure with regard to consecrated food, and when it becomes impure and reaches the third degree, we do not treat it as though it were second-degree.

And from where do you say

that the Sages were so stringent that even complete purity with regard to teruma is considered a possible state of impurity with regard to consecrated food?

As we learned in a Mishna: The garments of an ignoramus

are impure with

the impurity of a support for those who separate themselves,

who eat non-sacred food in purity, because they are concerned that perhaps the wife of the ignoramus, who is menstruating, sat upon them, in which case they are a primary source of impurity and render a person impure. And similarly,

the garments of those who separate themselves—

a support for those who eat teruma,

as they are not as careful as those who eat teruma. And similarly,

the garments of those who eat teruma—

a support for consecrated food. [Ḥagiga 18b].

[Hagiga 18b].