Chullin 67

בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה ורבי יהושע

with unconsecrated animals kept in the cleanness proper to terumah and so it will be in accord with R'Joshua? - This cannot be, for our Mishnah speaks of the meat [of the animal], and if you say that it deals with [an animal kept in the cleanness proper to] terumah [it is unintelligible, for] is there such a thing as meat of terumah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. Hence our Mishnah cannot refer to food kept in the cleanness of terumah.');">¹</span>

לא ס"ד דקתני בשר דאי בתרומה בשר מי איכא

You therefore say it deals with [an animal kept in the cleanness proper to] consecrated animals; [but it is likewise difficult, for] is there such a thing as a consecrated wild beast?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which the Mishnah also speaks.');">²</span>

אלא מאי בקדשים

- One might m<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. Hence our Mishnah cannot refer to food kept in the cleanness of terumah.');">¹</span>

חיה בקדשים מי איכא

stake meat for meat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, as a proper precaution against the time when he must eat consecrated meat (i.e., the flesh of a sacrifice) a person would keep all the meat in his house, even the meat of a wild beast, in the cleanness proper to consecrated meat.');">³</span>

בשר בבשר מיחלף בשר בפירי לא מיחלף

but one could not mistake meat for produce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah is an offering of produce and not of meat, so that a priest would eat his ordinary produce in a state of cleanness in order to be so accustomed for terumah, but not his meat. The latter therefore cannot be regarded in law as anything else than ordinary meat even though the owner actually keeps it in the cleanness proper to terumah.');">⁴</span>

אמר עולא חבריא אמרין

Ulla said: 'My colleagues say that the Mishnah deals with unconsecrated animals kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated animals, and the ruling is not in accordance with R'Joshua's view.

בחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש ודלא כרבי יהושע

But I say that it is in accordance with R'Joshua's view, for he merely states the stronger case:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not necessary', 'it goes without saying'.');">⁵</span>

ואנא אמינא

not only in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated food, which is of greater sanctity, is there a third degree of uncleanness, but even in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah there is also a third degree of uncleanness'.

רבי יהושע היא ולא מיבעיא קאמר

Who is meant by 'my colleagues'? - It is Rabbah B'Bar Hana.

לא מיבעיא חולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש דחמירי דאית בהו שלישי אלא אפילו חולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה נמי אית בהו שלישי

For Rabbah B'Bar Hana said in the name of R'Johanan, On what lines did the discussion between R'Eliezer and R'Joshua run?

מאן חבריא

Thus: R'Eliezer said to R'Joshua.

רבה בר בר חנה היא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן

We find [in one instance] that the eater is more unclean than the unclean food [he has eaten], for the carcass of a clean bird does not defile by ordinary contact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'externally'. For the unique law with regard to the uncleanness of a clean bird v. supra p. 103, n. 1.');">⁶</span>

מאי אהדרי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע להדדי

and yet whilst in the gullet it renders the clothes unclean.

אמר לו ר"א לרבי יהושע

Should we not then generally regard the eater at least in the same degree of uncleanness as the unclean food [that he has eaten]?

מצינו אוכל חמור מן האוכל דאילו נבלת עוף טהור בחוץ לא מטמא ואילו אוכלה מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה ואנו היאך לא נעשה אוכל כמאכל

And R'Joshua, [what would he reply to this]? - We must not draw any conclusions from the case of the carcass of a clean bird, for it is an anomaly.

ורבי יהושע

But argue thus: We find that the unclean food is more unclean than the eater thereof, for foodstuffs [can become unclean] from an egg's bulk [of unclean food], whereas the eater [of unclean food does not become unclean] unless he has eaten the size of two eggs thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the quantity of half of half a loaf', equivalent to the size of two eggs. V. 'Er. 82b.');">⁷</span>

מנבלת עוף טהור לא גמרינן דחידוש הוא

Surely, then, we cannot generally regard the eater as unclean as the food?

אלא מצינו שהמאכל חמור מן האוכל דאילו מאכל בכביצה ואוכל עד דאכיל כחצי פרס ואנו היאך נעשה אוכל כמאכל

And R'Eliezer? - We must not draw any conclusions as to the degree of uncleanness from the specific quantities [required in each case].

ור"א

Furthermore, according to your own argument, you are consistent when you say that he who eats food unclean in the first degree becomes unclean in the second degree; but why should he who eats that which is unclean in the second degree become likewise unclean in the second degree? - Said R'Joshua to him, Do we not find that foodstuffs unclean in the second degree can render other foodstuffs unclean in the second degree through the medium of a liquid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If food unclean in the second degree comes into contact with other food which has moisture or a liquid upon it, the latter food will be rendered unclean in the second degree. Strictly the process is this: the unclean food renders the liquid or moisture unclean in the first degree (v. infra) and the latter renders the second food unclean in the second degree.');">⁸</span>

טומאה משיעורין לא גמרינן

He [R'Eliezer] retorted, [Yes] but that liqui also becomes unclean in the first degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that according to your argument one who eats that which is unclean in the second degree should become unclean in the first degree! Of course R. Joshua never intended to make any inference from the liquid in that case, for he concedes that liquids are exceptional as they so readily contract uncleanness, but only from the foodstuff. (Rashi) . V. however Tosaf. ad loc.');">⁹</span>

ועוד לדבריך שאתה אומר על ראשון שני יפה אתה אומר שני שני למה

For we have learnt: The [degree of uncleanness] which renders terumah invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second degree of uncleanness.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר לו

will [by contact] render liquids unclean in the first degree, with the exception of a tebul yom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one who immersed himself in a mikweh in the daytime but technically does not become clean until after sunset. He is regarded in the condition of unclean in the second degree and therefore renders terumah invalid, but unlike others which are unclean in the second degree, he does not by his contact render liquids unclean in the first degree. V. Par. VIII, 7.');">¹¹</span>

מצינו שהשני עושה שני ע"י משקין

Furthermore, why should he who eats that which is unclean in the third degree become unclean in the second degree?

אמר לו

To this R'Joshua replied: I, too, only said so in the case of [common food kept in the cleanness proper to] terumah since [it has been taught that] whatsoever is considered clean for terumah

והא משקין נמי תחלה הוו דתנן

כל הפוסל בתרומה מטמא משקין להיות תחלה חוץ מטבול יום

ועוד שלישי שני למה

אמר לו

אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בתרומה שטהרתה