Chullin 34

Chullin 34

בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה ורבי יהושע לא ס”ד דקתני בשר דאי בתרומה בשר מי איכא

with regard to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara responds: It should not enter your mind that the mishna is referring to a case of the level of purity of teruma, as the mishna teaches a case of the slaughter of animals and birds and consumption of their meat. And if the mishna is taught with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, is there meat eaten with the level of purity of teruma? The practice of preparing non-sacred food items on the level of purity of teruma is done only so that one will not treat actual teruma in the correct manner, and teruma is separated only from produce that grows in the ground.

אלא מאי בקדשים חיה בקדשים מי איכא בשר בבשר מיחלף בשר בפירי לא מיחלף

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the case in the mishna? Is it a case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food? Is there an undomesticated animal that can be sacrificed as an offering and its meat is sacrificial food? The Gemara answers: Although undomesticated animals cannot be sacrificed as an offering, there are those who would undertake to eat their meat only when prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food because meat of an undomesticated animal is sometimes interchanged with meat of a domesticated animal. No one would undertake to eat meat only when prepared on the level of purity of teruma, because meat would not be interchanged with produce.

אמר עולא חבריא אמרין בחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש ודלא כרבי יהושע

Ulla said: My colleagues say that the mishna is referring to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, but non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.

ואנא אמינא רבי יהושע היא ולא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא חולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש דחמירי דאית בהו שלישי אלא אפילו חולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה נמי אית בהו שלישי

Ulla continues: And I say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and when he said that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, he is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, that they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rather, even non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.

מאן חבריא רבה בר בר חנה היא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א”ר יוחנן מאי אהדרי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע להדדי

The Gemara asks: Who are the colleagues to whom Ulla referred? It is Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua reply to each other? The differences between their opinions are twofold. First, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with first-degree impurity assumes first-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity. Second, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but not vis-à-vis teruma.

אמר לו ר”א לרבי יהושע מצינו אוכל חמור מן האוכל דאילו נבלת עוף טהור בחוץ לא מטמא ואילו אוכלה מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה ואנו היאך לא נעשה אוכל כמאכל

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The basis for my opinion that one assumes the level of impurity of that which he ate is that we found a case where the halakha of the one who eats a food item is more stringent than the halakha of the food itself. As, the carcass of a kosher bird on the outside, i.e., when one comes into contact with it, does not impart ritual impurity, while one who eats the carcass of the kosher bird renders his garments impure when the food is in his throat. And we, in light of that, how will we not deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity at least like that of the food that he ate?

ורבי יהושע מנבלת עוף טהור לא גמרינן דחידוש הוא אלא מצינו שהמאכל חמור מן האוכל דאילו מאכל בכביצה ואוכל עד דאכיל כחצי פרס ואנו היאך נעשה אוכל כמאכל

And Rabbi Yehoshua responded that we do not derive other cases from the case of the carcass of a kosher bird, because it is a novel ruling that cannot serve as a paradigm. Rather, we found that the halakha of food is more stringent than the halakha of the one who eats it, as food becomes impure if its measure is that of an egg-bulk, and one who eats impure food does not become impure until he eats half of a half-loaf. And we, in light of that, how will we deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity like that of the food that he ate?

ור”א טומאה משיעורין לא גמרינן ועוד לדבריך שאתה אומר על ראשון שני יפה אתה אומר שני שני למה

And Rabbi Eliezer responded: We do not derive the relative stringency of ritual impurity from the relative size of halakhic measures, as measures are not indicative of stringency or leniency. And furthermore, according to your statement, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with first-degree ritual impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, what you say is well. But that which you say with regard to one who eats food with second-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, why is that the case? It contradicts your reasoning.

אמר לו מצינו שהשני עושה שני ע”י משקין

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: We found that food with second–degree impurity renders other food impure with second-degree impurity by means of liquids. Liquids that come into contact with food with second-degree impurity render other food with which they come into contact impure with second-degree impurity.

אמר לו והא משקין נמי תחלה הוו דתנן כל הפוסל בתרומה מטמא משקין להיות תחלה חוץ מטבול יום

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But aren’t those liquids also impure with first-degree ritual impurity through contact with an item impure with second-degree impurity? As we learned in a mishna (Para 8:7): Any item with second-degree ritual impurity that disqualifies teruma renders liquids impure with first-degree ritual impurity. These liquids assume a degree of impurity greater than that of the item that rendered them impure. This rabbinic decree applies to all people and items with second-degree impurity except for one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. Liquids with which he comes into contact follow the standard course of transmitted impurity and assume third-degree impurity, one level below his own impurity.

ועוד שלישי שני למה

Rabbi Eliezer questioned the next segment in the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua: And furthermore, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with third-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, why is that the halakha? It contradicts your reasoning.

אמר לו אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בתרומה שטהרתה

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: I too stated that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food only with regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, as its state of purity

טומאה היא אצל הקדש

is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. The Sages issued a decree that even one who is vigilant to partake of his teruma in a state of ritual purity is considered impure vis-à-vis one partaking of sacrificial food. Therefore, one who ate a food item that was prepared on the level of purity of teruma that had become impure with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity, and he renders sacrificial food impure.

אמר רבי זירא א”ר אסי א”ר יוחנן א”ר ינאי האוכל שלישי של חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש נעשה גופו שני לקדש

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yannai says: With regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and these items had become impure with third-degree impurity, his body becomes impure with second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. He renders sacrificial food with which he comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity, and that food in turn disqualifies sacrificial food with which it comes into contact.

איתיביה רבי זירא לרבי אסי שלישי שני לקדש ואין שני לתרומה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה על טהרת תרומה אין על טהרת הקדש לא

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua: One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. This is stated in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma. The Gemara infers: Yes, one is able to prepare items on the level of purity of teruma, but one is not able to prepare items on the level of purity of sacrificial food, as in the latter case the non-sacred food does not become impure at all.

אמר ליה לא מיבעיא קאמר

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: That inference is incorrect, as Rabbi Yehoshua is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua teaches that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.

והא אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בתרומה קאמר אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua say to Rabbi Eliezer according to the explanation that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I too stated this only with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, indicating that he was not referring to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar bar Ḥana and Rabbi Asi are amora’im, and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and they disagree about whether the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua was stated specifically with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, or whether it includes even those prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food.

אמר עולא האוכל שלישי של חולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה נפסל גופו מלאכול בתרומה

§ Ulla says: One who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and that are impure with third-degree impurity, his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma.

מאי קמ”ל תנינא שלישי שני לקדש ואין שני לתרומה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה שני הוא דלא הוי הא שלישי הוי

The Gemara asks: What is Ulla teaching us? We already learn in the mishna cited earlier (33b) from tractate Teharot: One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. This is stated in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma. The Gemara infers: It is second-degree impurity that he does not assume, but third-degree impurity he assumes, and he is therefore disqualified from partaking of teruma.

אי מההיא הוה אמינא לא שני הוי ולא שלישי הוי ואיידי דאמר שני בקדש אמר נמי אין שני בתרומה קמ”ל

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Ulla to teach this halakha, as if it was learned from that mishna, I would say that vis-à-vis teruma he assumes neither second-degree nor third-degree impurity, as there is no reason to deem the status of one who eats like that of the food that he ate. And perhaps it was only since Rabbi Yehoshua said that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food that he also said that he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that he assumes third-degree impurity and is disqualified from partaking of teruma.

איתיביה רב המנונא לעולא הראשון שבחולין טמא ומטמא והשני פוסל ואינו מטמא והשלישי נאכל בנזיד הדמע

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to the statement of Ulla from a mishna (Teharot 2:3): Non-sacred food that is impure with first-degree impurity is impure and renders teruma impure in the sense that this teruma disqualifies other teruma with which it comes into contact. Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity disqualifies teruma, but it does not render teruma impure, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And food that is impure with third-degree impurity may be eaten by a priest in a stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma.

ואי אמרת נפסל גופו מלאכול בתרומה ספינן ליה מידי דפסיל ליה לגופיה אמר ליה הנח לנזיד הדמע

And if you say that by partaking of food that is impure with third-degree impurity his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma, do we feed him a matter that invalidates his body from the right to partake of teruma? According to this, when eating the stew that contains food that is impure with third-degree impurity, he is disqualified from partaking of the spices of teruma that the mishna permits him to add to the stew. Ulla said to him: Leave the matter of stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma,