Chullin 68

טומאה היא אצל הקדש

is considered unclean for consecrated things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra ');">¹</span>

אמר רבי זירא א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן א"ר ינאי

R'Zera said in the name of R'Assi who reported it in the name of R'Johanan who reported it in the name of R'Jannai: He who eats common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated food which was unclean in the third degree, becomes himself unclean in the second degree with regard to consecrated things [only].

האוכל שלישי של חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש נעשה גופו שני לקדש

R'Zera now raised this objection before R'Assi: [It was taught above].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 33b, p. 182.');">²</span>

איתיביה רבי זירא לרבי אסי

'[If it was unclean in] the third degree.

שלישי שני לקדש ואין שני לתרומה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה

[he becomes unclean] in the second degree with regard to consecrated things only, but not with regard to terumah.

על טהרת תרומה אין על טהרת הקדש לא

This applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah'.

אמר ליה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This statement clearly contradicts R. Assi's view as reported by R. Zera.');">³</span>

לא מיבעיא קאמר

- He replied: He merely stated the stronger case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 183, i.e., it is so obvious that there is a third degree of uncleanness in the case of common food kept in the cleanness proper to consecrated things that it need not even be mentioned.');">⁴</span>

והא אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בתרומה קאמר

But has it not been stated [above in the name of R'Johanan]: 'I, too, only said so in the case of [common food kept in the cleanness proper to] terumah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that we have contradictory statements each reported in the name of R. Johanan as to the true view of R. Joshua.');">⁵</span>

אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

- Amoraim disagree as to R'Johanan's view.

אמר עולא

Ulla said: He who eats common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah which was unclean in the third degree becomes unfit to eat terumah.

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

What does he teach us?

מאי קמ"ל

We have already been taught above: '[If it was unclean in] the third degree, [he becomes unclean] in the second degree with regard to consecrated things only but does not become unclean in the second degree with regard to terumah.

תנינא

This applies only to common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah'.

שלישי שני לקדש ואין שני לתרומה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה

Now it says that [with regard to terumah] he does not become unclean in the second degree, but presumably [he becomes unclean] in the third degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And being unclean in the third degree he surely is unfit to eat terumah, hence what is the point of Ulla's teaching?');">⁶</span>

שני הוא דלא הוי הא שלישי הוי

- From this passage I might have thought that he neither becomes unclean in the second degree nor in the third degree, but merely on account of the fact that with regard to consecrated things he becomes unclean in the second degree does it also say with regard to terumah he does not become unclean in the second degree; he [Ulla] therefore teaches us [that he does become unclean in the third degree].

אי מההיא הוה אמינא

R'Hamnuna raised this objection against Ulla: [We have learnt]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. II, 3.');">⁷</span>

לא שני הוי ולא שלישי הוי ואיידי דאמר שני בקדש אמר נמי אין שני בתרומה קמ"ל

Common food, unclean in the first degree, is itself unclean and renders unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terms 'unclean' and 'invalid' are here used in a specific and technical sense; the former signifying, 'that which is itself unclean and will also by contact defile other food', the latter signifying, 'that which is itself unclean but will not defile other food'.');">⁸</span>

איתיביה רב המנונא לעולא

that which is unclean in the second degree renders invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terms 'unclean' and 'invalid' are here used in a specific and technical sense; the former signifying, 'that which is itself unclean and will also by contact defile other food', the latter signifying, 'that which is itself unclean but will not defile other food'.');">⁸</span>

הראשון שבחולין טמא ומטמא והשני פוסל ואינו מטמא והשלישי נאכל בנזיד הדמע

but not unclean; and that which is unclean in the third degree may be eaten [even if it is] a pottage containing ingredients of terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This common food, since it contains ingredients of terumah, must have been kept in the cleanness proper to terumah (v. Rashi and Tosaf. ad loc.) , and although unclean in the third degree may nevertheless be eaten by a priest.');">⁹</span>

ואי אמרת נפסל גופו מלאכול בתרומה ספינן ליה מידי דפסיל ליה לגופיה

Now if you are right in saying that [he who eats common food kept in the cleanness proper to terumah which was unclean in the third degree] becomes unfit to eat terumah, would we then allow [a priest] to eat that which renders him unfit [for eating terumah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first place it is wrong for a priest at any time to render himself unclean, v. Yoma 80b; and in the second place the priest is definitely forbidden to eat the terumah contained in the pottage, for as soon as he partakes of the pottage he is rendered unfit for terumah.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה

- He replied.

הנח לנזיד הדמע

Drop the question of the pottage containing ingredients of terumah