Shabbat 14a — the Talmud in English

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It is Rabbi Joshua’s opinion.

For we learned:

a person

who eats food

that is

first

in ritual impurity becomes thereby himself also

first

in ritual impurity like it, and renders teruma second-degree. And that teruma, which is impure with the status of second-degree impurity, invalidates by contact other teruma for eating.

And

a person

who eats food

that is

second

in ritual impurity likewise becomes

second

like it, and invalidates teruma from eating through his contact. But he does not render it impure with second-degree impurity, such that it could invalidate other teruma.

And a person who eats

food

that is

third

in ritual impurity becomes

third

only, and does not invalidate teruma through his contact. But he does invalidate consecrated things, for the third degree invalidates the fourth degree in consecrated things.

And all of this is because of a decree of the Sages.

Rabbi Joshua says:

Both a person

who eats first-degree food, and

both a person

who eats second-degree food

becomes only

second

in ritual impurity. For he merely invalidates teruma, but does not render it impure in such a manner that it would invalidate other teruma through its contact.

But a person who eats food that is

third

in ritual impurity becomes

second

only

with regard to

invalidating

consecrated things

alone!

And

a person who eats third-degree food does not become

second with regard to

invalidating

teruma.

And a person who eats foods that are third-degree in ritual impurity becomes impure only

through

food

ordinary produce prepared with the purity of teruma,

and they became impure.

As a matter of basic law, there is no obligation to eat ordinary food in purity; rather, it is eaten even in impurity [according to most of the early authorities]. Nevertheless, the early pious ones were particular to eat their ordinary food in purity.

And some of them would safeguard their ordinary food with the “purity of teruma,” so that the ordinary food would not become impure through any of the impurities that invalidate teruma, even through an impurity that does not apply at all to ordinary food, such as “third-degree impurity,” which applies only to teruma and consecrated things.

And they conducted themselves in this way so that, should it happen that teruma became mixed up with ordinary food and they ate it assuming it was ordinary food, they would not stumble by eating impure teruma.

And there were those who safeguarded their ordinary food with the “purity of consecrated things,” for they imposed stringency upon themselves not to let it become impure even through any of the impurities that invalidate consecrated things.

People who were accustomed to eating consecrated things practiced this observance of purity, because they wished to be continually accustomed to safeguarding their purity.

This practice concerning ordinary produce made “with the purity of consecrated things” or “with the purity of teruma” is not merely a private practice practiced by certain people; rather, it is a level of purity established by the Sages, with rules established for it by the Sages, and one who practices

not according to these rules, his opinion is disregarded.

Those ordinary foods that were prepared with the purity of teruma acquire the law of the level of teruma purity, and if they became third-degree impure, they render consecrated things impure.

Rather, there is a novel point in this impurity.

Those ordinary foods, which became impure from something second-degree impure and acquired the status of third-degree impurity because they are “ordinary produce prepared with the purity of teruma,” do not merely invalidate consecrated things, making them fourth-degree impure.

Rather, with regard to consecrated things, those ordinary foods have the status of

second-degree impurity,

and they make the consecrated things that come into contact with them third-degree [and if those consecrated things return and come into contact with other consecrated things, they make them fourth-degree and invalidate them].

And the reason for this is that safeguarding teruma from an impurity that renders teruma impure is not considered safeguarding for consecrated things. For although, with regard to teruma, these ordinary foods that became impure through contact with something second-degree impure are regarded as merely “third-degree impurity,” we are concerned with regard to consecrated things that, just as he was not careful to safeguard these ordinary foods from touching something second-degree impure, perhaps he did not safeguard them at all and they even touched a primary source of impurity, and became first-degree impure. Therefore they render the consecrated things that come into contact with them impure according to the law of “second-degree impurity.”

It follows that the person who eats these “third-degree” ordinary foods, which have the status of second-degree impurity with regard to consecrated things, becomes—regarding consecrated things—second-degree impure.

Therefore, through his contact he makes the consecrated thing third-degree, and renders it impure so that it will subsequently invalidate the fourth degree.

But ordinary food in general, which was not prepared with the purity of teruma, has no law of third-degree impurity at all, since it was not included in the level of teruma. Consequently, it does not render the person who eats it impure, even with regard to consecrated things, for we find in ordinary food only second-degree impurity.

And we return to explain the reason for the eighteen decrees:

The

one who eats first-degree food, and the

one

who eats second-degree food—

for what reason did the Sages decree impurity upon him,

to invalidate teruma?

And we explain: because we are concerned that,

sometimes

he eats impure food,

ordinary food,

and,

while the impure food is in his mouth,

he takes liquids

of teruma and puts them into his mouth,

and then the impure food touches the liquids of teruma

and invalidates them. And the Torah warned concerning teruma that it be safeguarded in purity, as it is written: “the charge of My teruma.”

The Torah warned that teruma must be guarded in purity, as it is written: “the charge of My teruma.”

Therefore, they decreed that a person who eats impure foods invalidate teruma. Through this, he will not be accustomed to be near teruma while he eats impure food.

And one who drinks impure liquids—

for what reason did the Sages decree impurity upon him,

to invalidate teruma?

Because

sometimes he drinks impure liquids,

while the liquids are in his mouth,

he takes teruma food and puts it into his mouth,

and the impure liquid touches the teruma food

and invalidates it.

And we challenge: These two decrees,

are the same thing,

so why are they counted as two?

And we answer: Had we decreed regarding impure food, we still would not have known it also regarding impure liquids. For

one might have said

that specifically

this

among a person who eats impure food is a matter

that is common, that he will put liquids of teruma into his mouth while the food is in his mouth, since it is the way of a person to drink with his eating. Therefore they decreed regarding it.

это

But that he should drink impure liquids and afterward put teruma food into his mouth,

this

is a matter

that is not common, for it is not the usual practice to eat after drinking.

Therefore there is no need to decree in this case.

It teaches us

that they also decreed in this case.

And had it stated this regarding liquids, I would have said that specifically liquids render the drinker impure because they are exceedingly severe: for they decreed that when they become impure, they always become first-degree impurity. Therefore it was necessary to decree regarding both. Tosafot.

And one who immerses his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water—

for what reason did the Sages decree impurity upon him,

to invalidate teruma?

Rabbi Bibi said in the name of Rav Asi:

Because

at first they would immerse

for their impurity

in gathered and foul-smelling cave water, which was valid for immersion.

which is valid for immersion.

And

after their immersion

they would pour drawn water over themselves,

to remove the foul smell of the ritual bath water. And once they

began and made them

drawn water

a fixed practice, they decreed impurity upon them.

And we inquire about it:

What is “fixed”?

Abaye said: They would say: It is not these

ritual-bath waters alone that purify,

but these and those

the ritual-bath waters together with the drawn waters

purify!

They did not know that they had poured the drawn water in order to remove the filth. Rather, they thought that they had done so for the sake of purification. To prevent this error, they decreed impurity upon the drawn waters.

Rava said to Abaye:

to Abaye,

what practical difference is there

if they say this?

But

in the end

they are immersing in these

ritual-bath waters as well, and they are pure.

Rather, Rava said:

It was not so. Rather, because

they would say: It is not these

ritual-bath waters

that purify, but these

drawn waters alone

purify!

And we are concerned lest they come to abolish the law of the ritual bath and immerse only in drawn waters. And the Torah said: “Only a spring and a pit, a gathering of water.”

And a pure person upon whose head and greater part of whose body three log of drawn water fell—

for what reason did the Sages decree impurity upon him?

For the reason above applies only to an impure person who immersed in a ritual bath.

And we answer: Because

if we did not

decree concerning

this, so that even a completely pure person would become impure through drawn water,

case, namely, that even a completely pure person becomes impure through drawn water,

this

decree would not stand regarding an impure person after he immersed. For they would say: What is the difference between an impure person and a pure person? Just as the pure person does not become impure, so too the impure person who immersed in a ritual bath does not again become impure through drawn water.

И тот, кто читает свиток —

And a scroll—

for what reason did the Sages decree impurity upon it,

to invalidate teruma?

Rav Mesharsheya said:

Because

at first they would conceal the

the

food of teruma beside a Torah scroll.

Because

they said: This

Torah scroll

is consecrated,

it is,

and this

teruma

is consecrated,

it is, and there is no disgrace to the Torah scroll in this.

When they saw

the Sages

that they were coming to a loss

of the Torah scroll, for mice would come there on account of the food and damage the scroll,

the Sages decreed

upon the scroll

impurity. From then on they would not place teruma beside it, since it would become impure because of it [but regarding ordinary food they did not need to decree impurity for this reason, because they were not accustomed to place ordinary food beside consecrated things].

не омытых — по какой причине мудрецы постановили, что они являются источником нечистоты?

And the hands

that have not been washed—for what reason did the Sages decree impurity upon them?

Because the hands are active,

and touch his flesh and the filthy place, and it is disgraceful for teruma that unclean hands touch it. And when he touches it with unclean hands, it also becomes repulsive for eating thereby.

A tanna taught: Even hands that come because of a scroll,

that is, hands that touched a Torah scroll,

invalidate teruma.

And the reason is

because of Rabbi Parnakh.

For Rabbi Parnakh said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who holds a Torah scroll when

the scroll is

bare

without its cloth covering—

is buried bare.

And we raise an objection:

“Bare”—can it enter your mind?

And we explain:

Rather, say:

he is buried

bare—

without mitzvot,

since he forfeited all the reward of his mitzvot.

And we still raise an objection:

“Without mitzvot”—can it enter your mind?

Is this act really so severe?

And we answer:

Rather, say:

he is buried

bare, without that mitzva.

For if he holds the Torah scroll by the parchment in order to study from it, he forfeits the reward for that study. And if he holds it in order to roll it, he receives no reward for the rolling.

And we inquire:

Which

of these decrees

did they decree first?

Did they first decree that the hands themselves should be second-degree sources of ritual impurity, or did they first decree concerning hands that touch a scroll?

If you say, this—

that ordinary hands

they decreed first—

this cannot be said.