Sotah

R. Assi said in the name of Rab — another version is Rabbah b. Issi said in the name of Rab, — R. Meir, R. Jose, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar and R. Eliezer all hold the view that what is unclean in the second degree does not create a third degree with non-holy food. R. Meir — for we have learnt: Everything that requires immersion in water according to the statement of the scribes  defiles the holy, disqualifies the heave-offering, and is permitted with the non-holy and with the tithe. Such is the statement of R. Meir; but the Sages prohibit in the case of the tithe.  R. Jose — as we have stated above; for if it were so,  then let him derive a fourth degree with the heave-offering and a fifth with the sacrificial food.  R. Joshua — for we have learnt: R. Eliezer Says: He who eats food unclean in the first degree is unclean in the first degree; [if he eats] food unclean in the second degree he is unclean in the second degree; and similarly with the third degree. R. Joshua Says: He who eats food unclean in the first or second degree is unclean in the second degree; [if he eats food unclean] in the third degree, he is unclean in the second degree as regards the sacrificial food but not unclean in the second degree as regards the heave-offering. This  is said of non-holy food which was prepared in the purity of the heave-offering.  [This means, does it not,] 'When it is in the purity of the heave-offering' but not when it is in the purity of the sacrificial food?  Conclude, then, that he holds that [normally] what is unclean in the second degree does not create a third degree with the non-holy. R. Eleazar — for it has been taught: R. Eleazar says: The following three are alike: the first degree of defilement in the case of the sacrificial food, the non-holy and the heave-offering; it creates two further degrees of defilement and one of disqualification with the sacrificial food;  it creates one further degree of defilement and one of disqualification with the heave-offering;  and it creates one degree of disqualification with the non-holy.  R. Eliezer-for we have learnt: R. Eliezer Says: Hallah  may be taken from [dough] which is pure on account of that which is defiled. How is this? There are two portions of dough, one pure and the other defiled. He takes a quantity sufficient for hallah  from the dough from which its hallah had not been removed,  and places a piece less than the size of an egg  in the centre [of the defiled dough] so that [it may be considered that hallah] had been taken from the mass [of the defiled dough].