Sotah 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

And the Sages prohibit

taking ḥalla from the pure dough for the impure dough; rather, one must 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 ḥalla will not become impure.

They assumed

the Sages that

both this and that,

both the beraita, which permits Rabbi Eliezer to place even an egg-bulk in the middle, and the Mishna, which permits only less than an egg-bulk, speak

of first dough,

in which the impure dough is a first-degree source of ritual impurity and has the power to render dough that touches it second-degree impure. Nevertheless, the beraita maintains that it is possible to place even an egg-bulk in the middle, because although the egg-bulk contracts impurity and becomes second-degree impure, it does not render the dough designated to become ḥalla impure, as long as it has not yet been designated as ḥalla and remains ordinary non-sacred produce. For a second-degree impurity does not create a third-degree impurity in non-sacred produce.

As soon as he designates it as ḥalla and it becomes teruma, he separates it from the egg-bulk, so that it will not become impure through it, as is the law concerning teruma, which can become impure with third-degree impurity.

The Sages further assumed that both Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages, who prohibit taking from the pure dough for the impure dough, maintain that the pure dough does not yet have the status of teruma, despite the fact that its processing has already been completed and it has become subject to the obligation of ḥalla, because

non-sacred produce that is subject to ḥalla [

from the term “tevel”]

is not considered like ḥalla.

Nevertheless, the Sages prohibit taking from the pure dough for the impure dough.

Is that not the basis of their dispute

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages?

One master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

maintains: A second-degree impurity does not create a third-degree impurity in non-sacred produce.

And the other master,

the Sages,

maintains: A second-degree impurity does create a third-degree impurity in non-sacred produce;

therefore, if he joins the pure dough, it will become impure through the impure middle dough, which is second-degree impure, even though the pure dough is still non-sacred produce. And when he gives the ḥalla to the priest, he causes him to sin, giving him impure ḥalla under the presumption that it is pure. [

The tanna of the Mishna agrees that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a second-degree impurity does not create a third-degree impurity in non-sacred produce. The reason he prohibits placing an egg-bulk in the middle is to minimize 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 it was permitted here only for the sake of the enactment that the ḥalla be separated in purity. Since it is possible to use less than an egg-bulk, there is no reason to render impure an entire egg-bulk, which is a significant measure. Moreover, Rabbi Eliezer is concerned that perhaps he will not manage to separate the ḥalla immediately after its designation, and it will become impure from the egg-bulk once it has already become teruma.

The Sages prohibit it even with less than an egg-bulk, as a decree lest he use an egg-bulk; in that case, the impure middle portion would render the pure dough impure, since according to them a second-degree impurity does create a third-degree impurity in non-sacred produce. Rashi.]

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:

They did not disagree over that; rather,

everyone agrees that a second-degree impurity does not create

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

One master,

the Sages,

maintains: It is considered like ḥalla;

even before the designation of ḥalla, the pure dough already has the status of teruma, which can become impure with third-degree impurity. Therefore, one may not join pure dough to impure dough.

And the other master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

maintains: It is not considered like ḥalla;

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

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone agrees that non-sacred produce subject to ḥalla is not considered like ḥalla, and that a second-degree impurity does not create a third-degree impurity in non-sacred produce.

And here, in

the question of whether

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

One master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

maintains:

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

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

there is no concern that we are rendering the middle dough impure [and according to the tanna of the beraita, it is permitted even with an egg-bulk, since once it is permitted to cause impurity, there is no difference between much and little. The tanna of the Mishna nevertheless maintains that one should minimize the impurity as much as possible and should not place in the middle an egg-bulk, which is a significant measure. Alternatively, it may be said that the tanna of the beraita and the tanna of the Mishna disagree over whether there is concern that perhaps he will not manage to separate the ḥalla from the middle portion immediately after its designation. Rashi]

And the other master,

the Sages,

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

even for the sake of the enactment concerning ḥalla. Therefore, it is prohibited to place pure dough in the middle, since it will become impure through 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 on

What is the meaning of this? One thousand cubits are the open space around the cities, and two thousand cubits are the teḥum Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: One thousand cubits are the open space around the cities, and two thousand cubits are fields and vineyards.

And we explain:

Over what do they disagree?

One master,

Rabbi Akiva,

maintains:

The prohibition of

traveling beyond the Shabbat limit is by Torah law,

as alluded to in the verse cited above.

And the other master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

maintains:

The prohibition of traveling beyond the Shabbat limit is only

rabbinic,

and is not alluded to 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 reciting a song.

And how did they recite the song?

Like an adult who recites the Hallel,

and enables the congregation to fulfill its obligation: He recites

and they respond after him

at each passage

with the beginnings of the sections,

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

So too with the Song at the Sea:

Moses said, “

I shall sing to Hashem,”

and they said, “

I shall sing to Hashem.”

Moses said, “

For He is greatly exalted,”

and they said, “

I shall sing to Hashem.”

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: Like a minor who recites the Hallel,

who cannot enable them to fulfill their obligation, since he is not himself obligated in the matter,

and

therefore

they respond after him with everything that he says.

So too with the Song at the Sea,

Moses said, “

I shall sing to Hashem,”

and they said, “

I shall sing to Hashem.”

Moses said, “

For He is greatly exalted,”

and they said, “

For He is greatly exalted.”

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Like a schoolteacher,

who teaches children and is regularly present in the synagogue,

who leads the recitation of the Shema

for the ten who have gathered,

who begins first

with the blessings preceding the recitation of the Shema [the expression “leads” derives from the phrase “the festival is spread out,” meaning before the festival],

and they respond after him

and all recite together. So too, Moses began, and the Divine Spirit rested upon them all, and they directed the song together in accordance with its written form.

And we explain:

Over what do they disagree?

Rabbi Akiva maintains: “

Saying”—

concerning the first matter,

for they always respond, “I shall sing to Hashem,” which is the beginning of the song.

And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, maintains: “

Saying”—

concerning each and every matter,

for they respond after him with each and every statement.

And Rabbi Neḥemya maintains: “

And they said”—

this implies

that they all said it together,

Moses and the Children of Israel said together, “

saying”—

for Moses began first.

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

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

And how did they recite the song?

An infant

a large child

lying on his mother’s knees, and a baby

a small one

nursing at his mother’s breasts—when they saw the Divine Presence, the infant raised his neck, and the baby released the breast from his mouth,

meaning, everyone, from the most distinguished to the least distinguished,

and they said, “

This is my God and I shall glorify Him.”

As it is stated, “

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

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

at the sea?