Sotah

Thus the original reasoning [by a fortiori] holds good, since the characteristic [of the tebul yom] is unlike the characteristic [of the earthenware vessel]  and vice versa;  the point they have in common is that they are allowed with non-holy food but disqualify the heave-offering.  How much more, then, must a loaf unclean in the second degree, which disqualifies in the case of non-holy food, disqualify the heave-offering! ANOTHER GENERATION,  however, might object. What is the point common to them both? That in each there is a characteristic which makes for severity!  But R. Johanan does not raise an objection on the ground that there is in each a characteristic which makes for severity. It has been taught: R. Jose said: Whence is it that with sacrificial food there is disqualification with the fourth degree of defilement? It is a deduction [from a fortiori reasoning]: If one lacking atonement,  who is permitted with the heave-offering,  is dis qualified as regards sacrificial food,  how much more does the third degree, which is disqualified with the heave-offering,  create a fourth degree of defilement with sacrificial food! We learnt [the rule about] a third degree of defilement with sacrificial food from the Torah and a fourth degree from a fortiori reasoning;  whence have we it from the Torah that there is a third degree with sacrificial food? — As it is written: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten  — do we not deal here with [flesh] that touched something unclean in the second degree?  And the All-Merciful declared: 'It shall not be eaten'. A fourth degree [is derived] from a fortiori reasoning as we stated above. R. Johanan said: I do not understand the Master's  reason  since its refutation is by its side, viz., food which is made unclean by contact with a tebul yom proves [the contrary], inasmuch as it is disqualified in the case of heave-offering but does not create a fourth degree of defilement with sacrificial food. For it has been taught: Abba Saul said: A tebul yom is unclean in the first degree as regards sacrificial food to create two further degrees of defilement  and one degree of disqualification.  R. Meir Says: He creates one further degree of defilement and one of disqualification. The Sages Say: Just as he disqualifies food or liquids of the heave-offering,  so he disqualifies sacrificial food and drinks.  To this R. Papa demurred: Whence is it that R. Jose holds the same view as the Rabbis? perhaps he holds the same view as Abba Saul who says [that the tebul yom] creates two further degrees of defilement and one of disqualification! — If it enter your mind that he holds the same view as Abba Saul, let him [deduce the rule about] a fourth degree of defilement with sacrificial food from the case of food that is rendered unclean by contact with a tebul yom [as follows]: If a tebul yom is himself allowed with non-holy food,  and yet you say that food which is unclean through him creates a fourth degree with sacrificial food,