Chullin

is considered unclean for consecrated things.1 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].2 ‘[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.3 — He replied: He merely stated the stronger case.4 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’?5 — 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.6 — 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]:7 Common food, unclean in the first degree, is itself unclean and renders unclean;8 that which is unclean in the second degree renders invalid8 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.9 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]?10 — He replied. Drop the question of the pottage containing ingredients of terumah the third degree is deemed to be unclean in the second degree with regard to consecrated things; hence whosoever eats it becomes unclean in the second degree with regard to consecrated things. And this is nothing strange, as we find that foodstuffs unclean in the second degree can render others, too, unclean in the second degree through the medium of a liquid. Now it is evident from these final words of R. Joshua that when he stated above in the original Baraitha, ‘This applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah’, he thereby definitely intended to deny the existence of a third degree of uncleanness in common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things; for if he stated it merely as his explanation for the ruling he gave, namely, that he who ate common food unclean in the third degree became unclean in the second degree (which would be identical with the final words of R. Joshua as given here), then R. Eliezer's final question ‘Furthermore, why etc.’ is unintelligible, as he already knew R. Joshua's reason. It is therefore established that Rabbah b. Bar Hana, who reported this discussion, was of the opinion that according to R. Joshua there could be no third degree of uncleanness in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things; and this view corresponds with that attributed by Ulla to ‘My colleagues’. See Rashi and Tosaf. ad loc. cleanness proper to consecrated things that it need not even be mentioned. itself unclean and will also by contact defile other food’, the latter signifying, ‘that which is itself unclean but will not defile other food’. (v. Rashi and Tosaf. ad loc.), and although unclean in the third degree may nevertheless be eaten by a priest. the priest is definitely forbidden to eat the terumah contained in the pottage, for as soon as he partakes of the pottage he is rendered unfit for terumah.