חולין 34 — parallel

34:1

with unconsecrated animals kept in the cleanness proper to terumah and so it will be in accord with R. Joshua? — This cannot be, for our Mishnah speaks of the meat [of the animal], and if you say that it deals with [an animal kept in the cleanness proper to] terumah [it is unintelligible, for] is there such a thing as meat of terumah? You therefore say it deals with [an animal kept in the cleanness proper to] consecrated animals; [but it is likewise difficult, for] is there such a thing as a consecrated wild beast? — One might m stake meat for meat, but one could not mistake meat for produce. Ulla said: ‘My colleagues say that the Mishnah deals with unconsecrated animals kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated animals, and the ruling is not in accordance with R. Joshua's view. But I say that it is in accordance with R. Joshua's view, for he merely states the stronger case: not only in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated food, which is of greater sanctity, is there a third degree of uncleanness, but even in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah there is also a third degree of uncleanness’. Who is meant by ‘my colleagues’? — It is Rabbah b. Bar Hana. For Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan, On what lines did the discussion between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua run? Thus: R. Eliezer said to R. Joshua. We find [in one instance] that the eater is more unclean than the unclean food [he has eaten], for the carcass of a clean bird does not defile by ordinary contact and yet whilst in the gullet it renders the clothes unclean. Should we not then generally regard the eater at least in the same degree of uncleanness as the unclean food [that he has eaten]? And R. Joshua, [what would he reply to this]? — We must not draw any conclusions from the case of the carcass of a clean bird, for it is an anomaly. But argue thus: We find that the unclean food is more unclean than the eater thereof, for foodstuffs [can become unclean] from an egg's bulk [of unclean food], whereas the eater [of unclean food does not become unclean] unless he has eaten the size of two eggs thereof. Surely, then, we cannot generally regard the eater as unclean as the food? And R. Eliezer? — We must not draw any conclusions as to the degree of uncleanness from the specific quantities [required in each case]. Furthermore, according to your own argument, you are consistent when you say that he who eats food unclean in the first degree becomes unclean in the second degree; but why should he who eats that which is unclean in the second degree become likewise unclean in the second degree? — Said R. Joshua to him, Do we not find that foodstuffs unclean in the second degree can render other foodstuffs unclean in the second degree through the medium of a liquid? He [R. Eliezer] retorted, [Yes] but that liquid also becomes unclean in the first degree. For we have learnt: The [degree of uncleanness] which renders terumah invalid will [by contact] render liquids unclean in the first degree, with the exception of a tebul yom. Furthermore, why should he who eats that which is unclean in the third degree become unclean in the second degree? To this R. Joshua replied: I, too, only said so in the case of [common food kept in the cleanness proper to] terumah since [it has been taught that] whatsoever is considered clean for terumah

—

34:2

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

—