Parallel
חולין 34:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
is considered unclean for consecrated things. R. Zera said in the name of R. Assi who reported it in the name of R. Johanan who reported it in the name of R. Jannai: He who eats common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated food which was unclean in the third degree, becomes himself unclean in the second degree with regard to consecrated things [only]. R. Zera now raised this objection before R. Assi: [It was taught above]. ‘[If it was unclean in] the third degree. [he becomes unclean] in the second degree with regard to consecrated things only, but not with regard to terumah. This applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah’. And so only in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah [is there a third degree of uncleanness], but not in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things. — He replied: He merely stated the stronger case. But has it not been stated [above in the name of R. Johanan]: ‘I, too, only said so in the case of [common food kept in the cleanness proper to] terumah’? — Amoraim disagree as to R. Johanan's view. Ulla said: He who eats common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah which was unclean in the third degree becomes unfit to eat terumah. What does he teach us? We have already been taught above: ‘[If it was unclean in] the third degree, [he becomes unclean] in the second degree with regard to consecrated things only but does not become unclean in the second degree with regard to terumah. This applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah’. Now it says that [with regard to terumah] he does not become unclean in the second degree, but presumably [he becomes unclean] in the third degree. — From this passage I might have thought that he neither becomes unclean in the second degree nor in the third degree, but merely on account of the fact that with regard to consecrated things he becomes unclean in the second degree does it also say with regard to terumah he does not become unclean in the second degree; he [Ulla] therefore teaches us [that he does become unclean in the third degree]. R. Hamnuna raised this objection against Ulla: [We have learnt]: Common food, unclean in the first degree, is itself unclean and renders unclean; that which is unclean in the second degree renders invalid but not unclean; and that which is unclean in the third degree may be eaten [even if it is] a pottage containing ingredients of terumah. Now if you are right in saying that [he who eats common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah which was unclean in the third degree] becomes unfit to eat terumah, would we then allow [a priest] to eat that which renders him unfit [for eating terumah]? — He replied. Drop the question of the pottage containing ingredients of terumah
—