Chullin

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?1 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?2 — One might m1 stake meat for meat,3 but one could not mistake meat for produce.4 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:5 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 contact6 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.7 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?8 He [R. Eliezer] retorted, [Yes] but that liquid also becomes unclean in the first degree.9 For we have learnt: The [degree of uncleanness] which renders terumah invalid10 will [by contact] render liquids unclean in the first degree, with the exception of a tebul yom.11 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 person would keep all the meat in his house, even the meat of a wild beast, in the cleanness proper to consecrated meat. cleanness in order to be so accustomed for terumah, but not his meat. The latter therefore cannot be regarded in law as anything else than ordinary meat even though the owner actually keeps it in the cleanness proper to terumah. latter food will be rendered unclean in the second degree. Strictly the process is this: the unclean food renders the liquid or moisture unclean in the first degree (v. infra) and the latter renders the second food unclean in the second degree. in the first degree! Of course R. Joshua never intended to make any inference from the liquid in that case, for he concedes that liquids are exceptional as they so readily contract uncleanness, but only from the foodstuff. (Rashi). V. however Tosaf. ad loc. He is regarded in the condition of unclean in the second degree and therefore renders terumah invalid, but unlike others which are unclean in the second degree, he does not by his contact render liquids unclean in the first degree. V. Par. VIII, 7.