Chullin

because in the time it takes to eat half a loaf there is not consumed an olive's bulk [of terumah].1 R. Jonathan said in the name of Rabbi, He who eats terumah which is unclean in the third degree is forbidden to eat terumah,2 but is permitted to touch it. It is truly necessary to have this statement of R. Jonathan as well as Ulla's. For from Ulla's statement above I should have thought that the ruling applied only to the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah, but in the case of real terumah [I might have said that] he is even forbidden to touch it; it is therefore necessary to have R. Jonathan's statement. And from R. Jonathan's statement alone I should have thought that the ruling applied only to the case of real terumah, but in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah [I might have said that] he is even permitted to eat it; therefore both statements are necessary. R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha was sitting before R. Nahman and said: He who eats common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things which was unclean in the third degree is clean, and he may eat consecrated food, for the only thing which will render consecrated food unclean in the fourth degree is real consecrated food3 [which was unclean in the third degree]. Rami b. Hama raised an objection. [It has 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 why should this be so? This [food which is unclean in the third degree] is not real consecrated food?4 — He replied. Drop the question of terumah, since what is considered clean for terumah may yet be considered unclean for consecrated things. 5 Whence do you gather this? — From [the following Mishnah] which we learnt: The clothes of an ‘am ha-arez6 are regarded as midras7 for the pharisees;8 the clothes of the pharisees are regarded as midras for those who eat terumah; the clothes of those who eat terumah are regarded as midras for those who partake of consecrated food. Thereupon Raba raised this point: You are dealing, are you not, with midras uncleanness? But the law as to midras uncleanness is quite exceptional, consumed within the time normally taken to eat half a loaf of the size of four eggs. In this pottage, however, the admixture of terumah is of so small a quantity that in the above-mentioned time he will certainly not have consumed an olive's bulk of terumah. This being the case, this pottage would not be kept in the cleanness proper to terumah; it is simply common food, hence it cannot be rendered unclean in the third degree. amount to the same thing, save that the former deals with actual terumah and the latter with common food kept in the cleanness of terumah. consecrated things and most certainly not common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah. second degree! consecrated food, and therefore he who eats it is certainly unfit to eat consecrated food. sits or treads upon or leans with the body against an object, provided that it is usual to treat the object in such a way. The object then suffers midras uncleanness and can through contact render men and vessels unclean.