Mesorat%20hashas for Chullin 66:37

ולוקמה

He who eats [food unclean in] the first [degree becomes unclean in the] first degree; [if it was unclean] in the second degree, [he becomes unclean in] the second degree; and [if it was unclean in] the third degree, [he becomes unclean in] the third degree. R'Joshua says, [He who eats food unclean in] the first or second degree [becomes unclean in] the second degree; [if it was unclean in] the third degree. [he becomes unclean in] the second degree with regard to consecrated things only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he would render consecrated food unclean in the third degree and the latter in turn could render other consecrated food unclean in the fourth degree.');">²⁶</span> but not with regard to terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he would not by contact render terumah unclean in the third degree (i.e., invalid) ; he is nevertheless forbidden in his condition of uncleanness to eat terumah, v. infra.');">²⁷</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That with common food there can be a third degree of uncleanness.');">²⁸</span> applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah. And so only in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah [is there a third degree of uncleanness], but not in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things, for he [R'Joshua] is of the opinion that in that latter case there cannot be a third degree of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he holds that the determ1nat1on to treat common food with the cleanness proper to consecrated food is of no effect; our Mishnah, therefore, which deals with an animal kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated animals, will agree with R. Eliezer but not with R. Joshua.');">²⁹</span> Why should we not say that our Mishnah deals

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Chullin 66:37. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.