Sotah 30b — the Talmud in English

And the Sages prohibit

taking challa from the pure dough for the impure dough; rather, he should separate it from the impure dough itself, for the reason that will be explained below.

And it was taught

in a beraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer it is possible to place in the middle even

an egg-bulk,

and nevertheless the challa will not become impure.

They thought

the Rabbis that

both this and that,

both the beraita that permits Rabbi Eliezer even an egg-bulk and the Mishna that permits only less than an egg-bulk, speak

of first dough,

where the impure dough is a first-degree source of impurity, and has the power to render the dough touching it impure and make it second-degree impure; nevertheless, the beraita holds that it is possible to place in the middle even an egg-bulk, because although the egg-bulk receives impurity and becomes second-degree impure, it does not render the dough designated to become challa impure, so long as the designation challa has not been pronounced over it and it is non-sacred produce. For a second degree does not make a third degree in non-sacred produce.

And immediately when he pronounced the designation challa over it and it became teruma, he separates it from the egg-bulk, so that it should not become impure from it, according to the law of teruma that becomes impure through a third degree.

And the Rabbis further thought that both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, who prohibit taking from the pure dough for the impure dough, hold that the pure dough does not have the status of teruma, despite the fact that its work has already been completed and it has become obligated in challa, because

non-sacred produce subject to challa [

from the expression “tevel” ]

is not like challa.

And nevertheless the Rabbis prohibit taking from the pure dough for the impure dough.

Is it not that they disagree about this

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis:

One master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

held: A second degree does not make a third degree in non-sacred produce.

And one master,

the Rabbis,

held: A second degree does make a third degree in non-sacred produce,

and therefore, if he joins the pure dough, it will become impure from the middle, impure dough, which is second-degree impure, despite the fact that the pure dough is still non-sacred produce. And when he gives the challa to a koen, he causes him to stumble, giving him impure challa under the presumption that it is pure. [

And the tan­נא of the Mishna concedes that Rabbi Eliezer holds that a second degree does not make a third degree in non-sacred produce; and the reason that he prohibits placing an egg-bulk in the middle is to reduce as much as possible the impurity of the middle portion, since it is prohibited to cause impurity to non-sacred produce in the Land of Israel, and only because of the enactment of challa, that it should be separated in purity, did they permit it here. And since it is possible with less than an egg-bulk, there is no reason to render impure a full egg-bulk, which is more significant. And further, Rabbi Eliezer is concerned lest he not manage to separate the challa immediately after pronouncing the designation, and it become impure from the egg-bulk while it is already teruma.

And the Rabbis prohibit even with less than an egg-bulk, as a decree lest he make an egg-bulk, and then the middle portion will render the pure portion impure, since according to them a second degree does make a third degree in non-sacred produce. Rashi ].

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:

It was not about this that they disagreed, but rather

everyone agrees that a second degree does not make

a third degree in non-sacred produce, and here they disagree concerning non-sacred produce subject to challa.

One master,

the Rabbis,

held: It is like challa,

and even before the designation challa is pronounced, the pure dough already has the status of teruma, which becomes impure through a third degree; therefore, one may not join pure dough to impure dough.

And one master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

held: It is not like challa,

and there is no third degree in non-sacred produce.

And if you wish, say: Everyone agrees that non-sacred produce subject to challa is not like challa, and a second degree does not make a third degree in non-sacred produce.

And here, they disagree about

whether

it is permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred produce in the Land of Israel.

One master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

held:

In order to rectify the challa so that it will be separated in purity,

it is permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred produce in the Land of Israel,

and there is no concern that we are rendering the middle dough impure [and according to the tan­נא of the beraita, it is permitted even with an egg-bulk, because since it is permitted to cause impurity, there is no difference between much and little; and the tan­נא of the Mishna holds that nevertheless one must reduce the impurity as much as possible and not place in the middle a measure of an egg-bulk, which is a significant measure. And another possibility is that the tan­נא of the beraita and the Mishna disagree as to whether there is concern lest he not manage to separate the challa from the middle portion immediately after pronouncing the designation. Rashi ].

And one master

the Rabbis

held: It is prohibited to cause impurity to non-sacred produce in the Land of Israel

even for the sake of the enactment of challa. Therefore, it is prohibited to place pure dough in the middle, since it will become impure from the impure dough, which is a first-degree source of impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

On that very day Rabbi Akiva expounded, and so forth

What is the manner? A thousand cubits are the open land, and two thousand cubits are the Shabbat limit. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, says: A thousand cubits are the open land, and two thousand cubits are fields and vineyards.

And we explain:

About what do they disagree?

One master,

Rabbi Akiva,

held:

The prohibition of

domains is from the Torah,

as hinted at in the verse above.

And one master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

held:

The prohibition of domains is only

rabbinic,

and it is not hinted at in the verse at all.

The Sages taught: On that very day Rabbi Akiva expounded: When Israel ascended from the sea, they directed their eyes to recite a song.

And how did they recite the song?

Like an adult who recites the Hallel

and discharges the public’s obligation, for he recites

and they answer after him

at each passage

the beginnings of sections,

namely, “Hallelujah,” which is the beginning of the section.

So it was with the Song at the Sea:

Moses said “

I shall sing to the Lord,”

and they said “

I shall sing to the Lord.”

Moses said “

For He is most exalted,”

and they said “

I shall sing to the Lord.”

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, says: Like a child who recites the Hallel

who cannot discharge their obligation, since he is not obligated in the matter,

and

therefore

they answer after him everything that he says.

So it was with the Song at the Sea:

Moses said “

I shall sing to the Lord,”

and they said “

I shall sing to the Lord.”

Moses said “

For He is most exalted,”

and they said “

For He is most exalted.”

Rabbi Nehemiah says: Like a scribe,

a teacher of children who is regularly in the synagogue,

who leads the Shema

for the ten who assemble,

who begins first

with the blessings before the recitation of the Shema [“leads” from the expression “before the festival,” that is, before the festival ],

and they answer after him

and all recite together. So Moses began, and the holy spirit rested upon all of them, and they composed the song together according to its wording.

And we explain:

About what do they disagree?

Rabbi Akiva held: “

saying” —

concerning the first matter,

that they always answer, “I shall sing to the Lord,” which is the beginning of the song.

And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, held: “

saying” —

concerning every single matter,

that they answer after him each and every thing.

And Rabbi Nehemiah held: “

And they said,”

which implies

that they all said it together,

Moses and the children of Israel said together

“saying” —

that Moses began first.

And this is its explanation: They all said as one, after they had received permission to say it, that is, after Moses began.

The Sages taught: Rabbi Yosei the Galilean expounded: When Israel ascended from the sea, they directed their eyes to recite a song.

And how did they recite the song?

A child

an older child

lying on his mother’s knees, and an infant

a small one

nursing from his mother’s breasts; when they saw the Divine Presence, the older child raised his neck, and the infant withdrew the breast from his mouth,

that is, everyone, from the important to the least important,

and they said “

This is my God and I shall glorify Him.”

As it is stated: “

From the mouths of infants and sucklings You established strength.”

Rabbi Meir used to say: From where is it derived that even fetuses in their mothers’ wombs recited the song

at the sea?