Chagigah 20
מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי בְּהוּ מַעֲלָה.
It is deduced from the fact that it is not taught in their regard that those who eat non-sacred produce according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food must treat the produce with a higher standard with regard to their degree of purity, like those who actually partake of sacrificial food.
וְדִלְמָא הַאי דְּלָא קָתָנֵי בְּהוּ מַעֲלָה, דְּאִי דָּמוּ לִתְרוּמָה — הָא תָּנֵי תְּרוּמָה, וְאִי דָּמוּ לְחוּלִּין — הָא תָּנֵי לְחוּלִּין. דִּתְנַן: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְרוּמָה.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps the reason for this fact, that a higher standard is not taught with regard to those who actually partake of sacrificial food, is that these foods are not on a distinct level of ritual purity, as, if they are similar to the level of teruma, teruma has already been taught; and if they are similar to non-sacred produce, non-sacred produce has also already been taught. As we learned in a baraita that they are not considered to be on a level of their own: Non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food are like non-sacred food; Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: They are like teruma, but not like sacrificial food. Therefore, the fact that this level is not explicitly mentioned affords no proof.
אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר הָיָה חָסִיד שֶׁבַּכְּהוּנָּה, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא הָיָה אוֹכֵל עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ כׇּל יָמָיו, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַחַטָּאת.
Rather, the proof is derived from the last clause in the mishna: Yosei ben Yo’ezer was the most pious member of the priesthood, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zav for those who ate sacrificial food. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered rendered impure by the treading of a zav for those preparing the purification waters.
לַחַטָּאת אִין, לַקּוֹדֶשׁ לָא. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קוֹדֶשׁ כְּקוֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ.
The Gemara infers from this: For the purifying waters, yes, his cloth was considered to have ritual impurity imparted by treading, but for sacrificial food, no, it was not considered to have ritual impurity imparted by treading. Apparently, he maintains that non-sacred produce prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food is like sacrificial food, as one who is particular to preserve the ritual purity required for sacrificial food even with regard to non-sacred produce is considered pure even with regard to sacrificial food themselves.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: נָפְלָה מַעְפׇּרְתּוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ, אָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״תְּנָהּ לִי״ וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ — טְמֵאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עַמְרָם: נִתְחַלְּפוּ לוֹ כֵּלִים שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּכֵלִים שֶׁל חוֹל וּלְבָשָׁן — נִטְמְאוּ.
§ With regard to the particular care that must be taken to prevent any suspicion that one’s clothes have contracted impurity, Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said: If the shawl of one who was stringent with regard to ritual purity fell off of him, and he said to another person: Give it to me, and he gave it to him, the shawl is impure. Even if the other individual is himself pure, since his attention was diverted at that moment from being cautious with regard to impurity, it is as though the shawl were rendered impure. Similarly, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram says: If one’s Shabbat clothes were switched for his weekday clothes and he wore them, they are impure. His assumption that they were different clothes than the clothes he had intended to wear is enough of a distraction to spoil his caution against impurity.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים חֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּפוּ לָהֶן כְּלֵיהֶן בְּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְטִימְּאָן.
Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: There was an incident involving two women who were wives of ḥaverim, who are meticulous in observance of halakha especially with regard to matters of impurity, whose clothes were switched in the bathhouse; and the incident came before Rabbi Akiva and he declared the clothes impure. This demonstrates that an unintentional act is considered a lapse of attention, which renders the items impure, even if there was no other reason to consider them impure.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לַסַּל לִיטּוֹל פַּת חִטִּין וְעָלְתָה בְּיָדוֹ פַּת שְׂעוֹרִים, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּנִטְמֵאת?
Rabbi Oshaya strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, one who inserted his hand into a basket to take a loaf of wheat bread, and a loaf of barley bread came up in his hand instead; in that case, too, will you say that the loaf is rendered impure?
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָתַנְיָא: הַמְשַׁמֵּר אֶת הֶחָבִית בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁל יַיִן וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן — טְהוֹרָה מִלְּטַמֵּא! וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וַאֲסוּרָה מִלֶּאֱכוֹל. אַמַּאי?
And if you would say, indeed, this is correct, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who is minding a barrel to ensure its ritual purity on the assumption that it is a barrel of wine and it is found to be of oil, it is ritually pure in the sense that it does not transmit impurity? This indicates that one’s lack of knowledge with regard to the identity of the item he is minding does not itself cause impurity. The Gemara rejects this: But according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of that same baraita: And it is prohibited to be eaten, which indicates that the supervision is insufficient in this case. The Gemara asks: Why is it that the barrel’s status is pure and yet there is a prohibition against eating its contents? If the supervisor’s error does not harm the food’s ritually pure status, one should likewise be permitted to eat it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, בְּאוֹמֵר: שְׁמַרְתִּיהָ מִדָּבָר הַמְטַמְּאָהּ וְלֹא מִדָּבָר הַפּוֹסְלָהּ.
Rabbi Yirmeya said: The baraita is referring to one who says: I guarded it from things that render it impure but not from things that invalidate it. In other words, he was careful to guard it only from being rendered impure with a severe degree of impurity, which causes anything it renders impure to render others impure in turn, but not from a lesser degree of impurity that merely invalidates it for use but does not enable it to render other items ritually impure. Since he guarded it from impurity, it is considered pure with regard to rendering other items impure, but it still may not be eaten, in case it was invalidated by an impure object.
וּמִי אִיכָּא נְטִירוּתָא לְפַלְגָא? אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ בְּסַל, וְהַסַּל עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְהַמַּגְרֵיפָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסַּל, וְהָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ עַל הַסַּל וְלֹא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ עַל הַמַּגְרֵיפָה — הַסַּל טָהוֹר וְהַמַּגְרֵיפָה טְמֵאָה.
The Gemara asks: And is there guarding by half measures; can it be said that one was careful with regard to only a particular type of impurity? The Gemara responds: Yes, as it is indeed taught in a baraita: If one inserted his hand into a basket filled with figs, and the basket was placed on his shoulder, and a shovel was in the basket, and his mind was on the basket to guard it from impurity, but his mind was not on the shovel, the basket is pure and the shovel is impure.
הַסַּל טָהוֹר? תְּטַמֵּא הַמַּגְרֵיפָה לַסַּל! אֵין כְּלִי מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי. וְלִיטָּמֵא מַה שֶּׁבַּסַּל! אָמַר רָבִינָא, בְּאוֹמֵר: שְׁמַרְתִּיו מִדָּבָר שֶׁמְּטַמְּאוֹ וְלֹא מִדָּבָר הַפּוֹסְלוֹ.
The Gemara asks: Why is the basket pure? Let the shovel render the basket ritually impure, if the former is in fact impure. The Gemara answers: The halakha is that a vessel cannot render a different vessel impure. Therefore, the basket remains pure. The Gemara asks another question: And let it render impure any food that is inside the basket, as food is not a vessel and can therefore be rendered impure by a vessel. Ravina said: The baraita is referring to one who says: I guarded the shovel from things that render it ritually impure, which is why it cannot render other objects impure, but I did not guard it from things that invalidate it, so it is impure. Consequently, there is no proof from here that the contents of the barrel in the earlier case may not be eaten.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא?
Returning to the prior discussion, the Gemara states that in any case it is difficult. Why should an object be impure just because the one guarding it was mistaken with regard to the identity of its contents; how would this accord with the baraita that explicitly taught that if one minds a barrel under the assumption that it is wine and it turns out to contain oil, the oil is pure and cannot render others impure?
וְעוֹד מוֹתֵיב רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, בֶּגֶד זֶה אֲרַגְתִּיו בְּטׇהֳרָה, וְלֹא הָיָה בְּלִבִּי לְשׁוֹמְרוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה. וּמִתּוֹךְ בְּדִיקוֹת שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בּוֹדְקָהּ, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, נִדָּה מָשְׁכָה עִמִּי בַּחֶבֶל. אֲמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כַּמָּה גְּדוֹלִים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: בְּלִבּוֹ לְשׁוֹמְרוֹ — טָהוֹר, אֵין בְּלִבּוֹ לְשׁוֹמְרוֹ — טָמֵא.
And Rabba bar Avuh raised a further objection: There was an incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: Rabbi, I wove this garment in a ritually pure state, but my mind was not on it to guard its state of purity. In other words, although I did not intend to guard it in this manner, I am certain that no impurity came into contact with it. And during the interrogations that Rabbi Yishmael conducted with her, to see if it had remained in a state of purity, she happened to say to him: Rabbi, a menstruating woman pulled the rope with me as I was weaving, and the garment was therefore rendered fully impure by a menstruating woman moving it. Rabbi Yishmael said: How great are the words of the Sages when they said: If one’s mind is focused on guarding it, it is pure; if one’s mind is not focused on guarding it, it is impure. Since she was not focused on preserving the garment’s pure state, it contracted impurity without her noticing.
שׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, מַפָּה זוֹ אֲרַגְתִּיהָ בְּטָהֳרָה, וְלֹא הָיָה בְּלִבִּי לְשׁוֹמְרָהּ. וּמִתּוֹךְ בְּדִיקוֹת שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בּוֹדְקָהּ, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, נִימָא נִפְסְקָה לִי וּקְשַׁרְתִּיהָ בַּפֶּה.
There was another incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: Rabbi, I wove this cloth in a state of ritual purity, but my mind was not on it to guard it from impurity. And during the interrogations that Rabbi Yishmael conducted with her, she said to him: Rabbi, a thread of mine that was woven into the cloth snapped and I tied it with my mouth. It can be assumed that the thread became moist from her spittle, which means that if that thread was touched by a source of impurity, the cloth would be rendered ritually impure by contact with impure liquids. This is because the Sages decreed that any impurity that touches liquid renders the liquid ritually impure to the first degree, so any vessel that comes into contact with the liquid would be impure to the second degree.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כַּמָּה גְּדוֹלִים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: בְּלִבּוֹ לְשׁוֹמְרוֹ — טָהוֹר, אֵין בְּלִבּוֹ לְשׁוֹמְרוֹ — טָמֵא.
Rabbi Yishmael said: How great are the words of the Sages when they said: If one’s mind is focused on guarding it, it is pure; if one’s mind is not focused on guarding it, it is impure. In any case, if one intends to keep something in a state of ritual purity, a mistake on his part with regard to its identity is not considered enough of a distraction to render the item impure, unlike the baraita that explicitly taught that if one minds a barrel under the assumption that it is wine and it turns out to contain oil, the oil is pure and cannot render others impure.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק, כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת: חֲבֶרְתִּי אֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ, וּמַסְּחָה דַּעְתַּהּ מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok there is no difficulty, as in the case of the two wives of ḥaverim whose garments were switched it can be said that each of them says to herself: My colleague is the wife of an am ha’aretz, and not a ḥaver. And she diverts her mind from her garments, as she is certain that they have already been rendered impure, and a distraction of this kind makes it likely that the garment contracted impurity. It is therefore considered impure.
לְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עַמְרָם נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּכֵלִים דְּשַׁבָּת עָבֵיד לְהוּ שִׁימּוּר טְפֵי — מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ מִינַּיְיהוּ. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, נַעֲבֵיד לְהוּ שִׁימּוּר בִּידֵיהּ דְּחַבְרֵיהּ?
Likewise, according to Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram there is no difficulty either, as with regard to the case of one who switched his Shabbat clothes with his weekday clothes, it can also be said that since he is more protective of Shabbat clothes, he will divert his mind from that higher level of protection if he thinks that they are weekday garments. A distraction of this kind makes it likely that the garment contracted impurity, so it is considered impure. But according to Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar, who deals with the case where one’s shawl fell and another person lifts it up, why should this be considered a distraction? Let him guard his garments from ritual impurity while they are in the other person’s hands; why should they be considered impure?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲזָקָה, אֵין אָדָם מְשַׁמֵּר מַה שֶּׁבְּיַד חֲבֵרוֹ. וְלֹא?
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a presumption that a person does not guard that which is in another’s hand. Since the object is in the hands of another, he will inevitably be distracted from guarding it. The Gemara asks: And can one indeed not guard an item in the hand of another?
וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ חֲמָרָיו וּפוֹעֲלָיו טְעוּנִין טְהָרוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִפְלִיג מֵהֶן יוֹתֵר מִמִּיל — טַהֲרוֹתָיו טְהוֹרוֹת. וְאִם אָמַר לָהֶם: ״לְכוּ וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אַחֲרֵיכֶם״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְעַלְּמוּ עֵינָיו מֵהֶן — טַהֲרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one whose donkey drivers and workers, who were amei ha’aretz, were bearing pure food, without touching the pure food itself but only the earthenware vessels containing them, even if he distanced himself from them as they walked by more than a mil, his pure foods are pure. Since the workers are unaware of his departure, he is still considered to be guarding the food in their possession and need not be concerned that they may have touched the pure foods. But if he said to them: Go, and I will follow behind you, then once they are no longer within his eyesight, his pure foods are impure.
מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: רֵישָׁא בִּמְטַהֵר חֲמָרָיו וּפוֹעֲלָיו לְכָךְ.
The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita, where the food remains pure, and what is different in the latter clause, where the food is impure? Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: The first clause is referring to one who purifies his donkey drivers and workers for this purpose, meaning that he ensured that they immersed and purified themselves beforehand, so that concern for impurity was removed.
אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא נָמֵי! אֵין עַם הָאָרֶץ מַקְפִּיד עַל מַגַּע חֲבֵירוֹ.
The Gemara questions this: If so, in the latter clause they should also be pure. The Gemara responds: An am ha’aretz is not particular about the contact of his colleague, and therefore there is concern that they might have encountered another am ha’aretz on the way, who touched the produce and thereby rendered it impure.
אִי הָכִי, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי! בְּבָא לָהֶם דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן.
The Gemara counters: If so, in the first clause of the baraita there should also be concern that they might have met an am ha’aretz, and despite the employer’s warning to his workers to stay ritually pure, they are not careful with regard to the impurity of another am ha’aretz. The Gemara answers: The first clause is referring to a situation when he comes across them via a circuitous path. Since he is not walking directly behind them but can appear from the sides, they cannot always see him. Consequently, they are concerned that he may return at any moment. Therefore, they are careful not to render themselves ritually impure, and they are also wary of the contact of other amei ha’aretz, although they are not usually particular about the contact of their colleagues.
אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא נָמֵי! כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״לְכוּ וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אַחֲרֵיכֶם״ — מִיסְמָךְ סָמְכָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in the latter clause, too, since he can arrive from around a corner at any given moment, they should certainly be cautious. The Gemara responds: Since he said to them: Go and I will follow behind you, they rely on this, and they do not consider themselves to be under observation. Consequently, they are not particular about the contact of another am ha’aretz.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין
חוֹמֶר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ מִבִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁמַּטְבִּילִין כֵּלִים בְּתוֹךְ כֵּלִים לִתְרוּמָה, אֲבָל לֹא לַקֹּדֶשׁ. אֲחוֹרַיִים וָתוֹךְ וּבֵית הַצְּבִיטָה בִּתְרוּמָה, אֲבָל לֹא בַּקֹּדֶשׁ.
MISHNA: Concerning several matters there is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial food than with regard to teruma, a portion of the produce designated for the priest. This expresses itself in many ways, the first being that one may immerse vessels inside other vessels to purify them for teruma; but not for sacrificial food, for which one must immerse each vessel separately. Another difference is that the halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside and its place for gripping apply to vessels used for teruma, meaning that each part of the vessel has its own use and is considered a separate vessel in that it does not convey impurity to the other parts of the vessel when it contracts impurity; but not to sacrificial food, for which an impure section of the vessel does convey impurity to all the other sections.
הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הַמִּדְרָס, נוֹשֵׂא אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ. בִּגְדֵי אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Likewise, one who carries an object trodden on by a zav, a man suffering from gonorrhea, may carry teruma at the same time, if he is careful that neither he nor the impure object should come into contact with the teruma, but this may not be done with sacrificial food. The garments of those who eat teruma are like an object trodden on by a zav with regard to sacrificial food.
לֹא כְּמִדַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִדַּת הַתְּרוּמָה. שֶׁבַּקֹּדֶשׁ: מַתִּיר וּמְנַגֵּב וּמַטְבִּיל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ קוֹשֵׁר. וּבִתְרוּמָה: קוֹשֵׁר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַטְבִּיל.
The mishna lists other stringencies that apply to sacrificial foods but not to teruma: The characteristics of teruma are not like the characteristics of sacrificial food, as in the case of vessels that are used with sacrificial food, if one has a garment or vessel that is tied up he must untie it and dry it if there was any moisture on it, as both a knot and absorbed moisture are considered interpositions that prevent the water of the ritual bath from reaching the entire garment. And he may then immerse them, and afterward he may tie them up again if he wishes. But with regard to teruma he may, if he so desires, tie up the garment and then immerse it without any concern that the knot might be considered an interposition.
כֵּלִים הַנִּגְמָרִים בְּטָהֳרָה, צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לִתְרוּמָה. הַכְּלִי מְצָרֵף מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לִתְרוּמָה.
Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity nevertheless require immersion to be considered pure for sacrificial foods, but not for teruma. A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if one piece of food becomes impure all the other pieces become impure as well; but not with regard to teruma, concerning which each piece is treated independently.
הָרְבִיעִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ פָּסוּל, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִתְרוּמָה. וּבִתְרוּמָה, אִם נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִיָּדָיו — חֲבֶירְתָּהּ טְהוֹרָה, וּבַקֹּדֶשׁ — מַטְבִּיל שְׁתֵּיהֶן, שֶׁהַיָּד מְטַמֵּא אֶת חֲבֶירְתָּהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ אֲבָל לֹא בִתְרוּמָה. אוֹכְלִין אוֹכָלִים נְגוּבִין בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת בִתְרוּמָה, אֲבָל לֹא בַּקֹּדֶשׁ.
The mishna continues the list of differences between sacrificial food and teruma. Sacrificial food that is impure with fourth-degree impurity is disqualified, meaning that the sacrificial food is rendered impure but it does not impart impurity to other items. Teruma is disqualified when it is impure with third-degree impurity; it is not susceptible to fourth-degree impurity at all. And with regard to teruma, if one of one’s hands became impure by rabbinic law that renders only the hands impure, its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, remains pure. But with regard to sacrificial food, if one hand becomes impure he must immerse them both, as one hand renders its counterpart impure with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. One may eat dry foods, i.e., foods that have never come into contact with liquid and are therefore not susceptible to impurity, with impure hands when it is teruma, but not when it is sacrificial food.
