Sotah 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

A food

that is

third-degree

with regard to ritual impurity,

which comes by virtue of a second-degree source of impurity—for the second-degree source itself is prohibited with regard to non-sacred food—is it not logical that it should render a fourth degree with regard to sacred food?

The advantage of this kal va-chomer is that Rabbi Yosei would then be teaching us an additional novelty: that he agrees with Abba Shaul, who maintains that food which comes by virtue of one who immersed that day produces a fourth degree with regard to sacred food.

Rather, certainly Rabbi Yosei does not agree with Abba Shaul, but with the Sages, who maintain that food which comes by virtue of one who immersed that day is itself invalid, but does not invalidate anything else.

But if you should say,

perhaps you might say that Rabbi Yosei did not derive a kal va-chomer from food that comes by virtue of one who immersed that day

because one can refute it: What is distinctive about one who immersed that day? Since

when he was impure he was

a primary source of impurity,

his power is consequently greater, so that food which comes by virtue of him also invalidates a fourth degree with regard to sacred food.

By contrast, a second-degree source of impurity, since when it was impure it was not a primary source of impurity, likewise a third degree that comes by virtue of it does not produce a fourth degree with regard to sacred food.

But in fact, he agrees with Abba Shaul!?

That cannot be said.

For

he has already brought it from one lacking atonement!

Rabbi Yosei himself derives a fourth degree with regard to sacred food by a kal va-chomer from one lacking atonement,

and he did not refute it!

Yet here too one could object: What is distinctive about one lacking atonement? He was previously a primary source of impurity, and therefore he produces a fourth degree with regard to sacred food. By contrast, a third-degree source was never a primary source of impurity, and therefore it should not produce a fourth degree.

This proves that Rabbi Yosei does not regard this as a valid refutation, since now, after he has immersed and the sun has set, that severe impurity has already departed from him, and only the lesser impurity of one lacking atonement remains in him ; if so, the same refutation cannot be raised with regard to one who immersed that day, since he too is no longer a primary source of impurity.

In conclusion, Rabbi Yohanan’s objection to Rabbi Yosei remains: food that comes by virtue of one who immersed that day disproves his position.

Rav Asi said in the name of Rav—and some say that Rabba ben Isi said in the name of Rav:

Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Eliezer all maintain that a second degree does not produce a third degree with regard to non-sacred food.

Rabbi Meir

is found to hold this position from the following:

as we learned

in tractate Parah:

Every

person who is ritually pure by Torah law but is a person

required by rabbinic decree to immerse in water [

immersion ]

by virtue of the Sages’ words,

such as one whose head and the majority of his body entered drawn water, is rabbinically a second degree with regard to impurity, and

renders sacred food impure,

making it a third degree with regard to impurity; and that third degree is itself impure and produces a fourth degree with regard to sacred food.

And invalidates teruma,

but he himself does not become impure to the extent that he could produce a fourth degree with regard to teruma or sacred food.

And he is permitted with regard to non-sacred food and maaser,

since he does not render them impure;

this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages prohibit

him

from

eating

second

maaser.

Thus, Rabbi Meir maintains that a second degree does not produce a third degree with regard to non-sacred food. [The Sages also maintain this with regard to non-sacred food, but the Gemara did not list them because their names were not specified; the reference is to Rabbi Meir and his disputants.]

Rabbi Yosei: This is what we said,

from his words in our sugya we can infer that he maintains this position.

For if it were so,

if he maintained that there is a third degree with regard to non-sacred food,

let him bring it,

he should have brought it and derived

a fourth degree with regard to teruma,

for from the same kal va-chomer by which he derives a third degree with regard to teruma, it is possible to add another degree with regard to teruma:

What is the case with one who immersed that day, who is permitted with regard to non-sacred food but is invalid with regard to teruma?

A third degree, which is invalid with regard to non-sacred food—does it not follow that it should produce a fourth degree with regard to teruma?

And to the same extent that he derives

a fifth degree with regard to sacred food,

he could have derived the following: Since a fourth degree is invalid with regard to teruma, it is possible to apply a kal va-chomer: If one lacking atonement, who is permitted with regard to teruma, invalidates sacred food, then a fourth degree, which is invalid with regard to teruma, should certainly produce a fifth degree with regard to sacred food.

Rather, he certainly maintains that there is no third degree with regard to non-sacred food.

By Torah law, a person cannot contract impurity from impure food, whether he eats it or touches it, because a person contracts impurity only from a primary source of impurity, and it is impossible for impure food to have the status of a primary source of impurity. However, the Sages decreed that a person who eats impure food in the measure of two eggs becomes impure on account of his eating.

The reason for this decree is the concern that while eating impure food, he might put pure liquids of teruma into his mouth, and the impure food would render the teruma liquid impure, thereby rendering pure teruma impure.

The tannaim disputed what degree of impurity the Sages decreed upon one who eats impure foods.

Rabbi Yehoshua

is found to maintain that there is no third degree with regard to non-sacred food, from the following:

as we learned

in tractate Taharot:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

A person

who eats food

that is impure at the level of a

first degree

with regard to impurity becomes, as a result of eating it,

a first degree

with regard to impurity, by rabbinic decree.

If a person ate food that was a

second degree

with regard to impurity, the person who ate it becomes

a second degree

with regard to impurity.

Likewise, if he ate food that was

a third degree, he becomes

a

third degree, since the Sages decreed that the degree of impurity of one who eats impure foods is equivalent to the degree of impurity of the food itself.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

A pure person

who eats food

that is impure, whether it is

a first degree

with regard to impurity,

or

whether he

eats food

that is

a second degree

with regard to impurity, the person who eats the impure food becomes

a second degree

with regard to impurity.

If he ate food that was

a third degree, the person who ate it becomes

a

second degree—

only

with regard to sacred food.

That is, if he touches sacred food, he renders it a third degree, and that third degree renders a fourth degree.

But

however,

there is no second degree with regard to teruma.

With regard to teruma, he does not have the status of a second degree of impurity, and if he touches teruma, he does not invalidate it.

The reasons for the positions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are explained in tractate Hullin.

Rabbi Yehoshua continues and says: Where do we find non-sacred food that is a third degree? Is there not no third degree with regard to non-sacred food?—

With regard to non-sacred food prepared with the purity of teruma

whose owners were a priest, accustomed to eating teruma, and who undertook to eat even his non-sacred foods in a state of purity, as though they were teruma, so that he would not err and eat impure teruma.

And with regard to such non-sacred food, it is possible for there to be a “third degree of impurity.”

And we infer: Only non-sacred food prepared

with the purity of teruma—there is no

third degree except with regard to it.

But non-sacred food prepared

with the purity of sacred food,

whose owners safeguard it from impurity as though it were sacred food,

not

can there be a third degree with regard to it, because this person’s opinion is disregarded, and his declaration has no effect; the designation of the purity of sacred food does not take hold with regard to this non-sacred food, and it remains like ordinary non-sacred food [and all the more so, a third degree cannot exist with regard to actual non-sacred food].

Evidently,

it is proven that

Rabbi Yehoshua holds

that

a second degree does not produce a third degree with regard to non-sacred food.

Rabbi Elazar: As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says: All three of them,

sacred food, teruma, and non-sacred food,

are equal

in this law:

the first degree

of impurity

in sacred food, in non-sacred food, and in teruma,

whether this first degree was sacred food, non-sacred food, or teruma, is—

It renders two impure and invalidates one,

producing a second, third, and fourth degree

with regard to sacred food.

It renders one impure and invalidates one,

producing a second and third degree

with regard to teruma.

And it invalidates one with regard to non-sacred food,

making it a second degree, but no more, because a second degree does not produce a third degree with regard to non-sacred food. [

The tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar maintains that if the first degree was non-sacred food, it does not produce a fourth degree with regard to sacred food; this occurs only if the first degree was sacred food.]

Rabbi Eliezer: As we learned

in tractate Hallah:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Hallah may be taken from the pure for the impure.

One whose dough became impure intentionally before hallah was separated from it is required to knead another dough in purity, so that he can separate hallah from it on behalf of the impure dough.

How

should he act so that the doughs do not touch one another and the pure one does not become impure? After all, hallah must be separated from “that which is enclosed,” meaning that it must be adjacent to and connected with the dough when the designation of hallah is pronounced?

If there were

two doughs, one pure and one impure—

he takes an amount

equal to the

measure of hallah

that must be taken from the impure dough

from

the

dough

that is pure,

before its hallah has been separated,

while it is still tevel, so that it will not be taken from that which is exempt on behalf of that which is obligated,

and he places less than an egg’s bulk

of the pure dough

in the middle,

between the piece of dough that is to become hallah and the impure dough,

in order to take

hallah

from that which is enclosed,

thereby connecting the hallah to the dough.

The hallah does not become impure through this, since impure food less than an egg’s bulk does not render others impure.