יג אמר רבא הכי קאמר מי גרם לשני לאו ראשון רב אשי אמר ראשון ושני לגבי שלישי בני חדא ביקתא אינון:
13 IN ORDER TO RENDER THE BODY UNFIT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person that has eaten unclean food must not eat any terumah or sacred food. If he touches these they are unclean, unless he has immersed before; v. Mik. X, 7.');"><sup>28</sup></span> [OR TO MAKE UP THE FOOD] FOR TWO MEALS TO FORM AN 'ERUB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By depositing food sufficient for two meals at the end of the Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits, one is permitted to walk on the Sabbath another two thousand cubits from that place. V. 'Er. 82b.');"><sup>29</sup></span> OR TO' MAKE UP AN EGG'S BULK TO CONTAMINATE FOOD, OR TO MAKE UP A DRY FIG'S BULK IN RESPECT OF THE PROHIBITION TO CARRY FORTH ON THE SABBATH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is forbidden to carry things of the quantity of a dry fig from a private place to a public thoroughfare and vice versa, cf. Shab. 76b.');"><sup>30</sup></span> AND A DATE'S BULK WITH REGARD TO THE DAY OF ATONEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eating of food of the quantity of a date on the Day of Atonement is punishable with extinction; cf. Yoma 73b. The same applies to a mouthful of any drink.');"><sup>31</sup></span> ALL KINDS OF DRINKS CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER TO MAKE UP THE FOURTH [OF A LOG] IN ORDER TO RENDER THE BODY UNFIT OR TO MAKE UP A MOUTHFUL WITH REGARD TO THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It has been taught: R'Simeon said, What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the combination of different degrees of uncleanness, referring to the first clause of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>32</sup></span> Because things unclean in the second degree can become unclean in the first degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Toh. I, 1.');"><sup>33</sup></span> But can indeed a thing unclean in the second degree become unclean in the first degree? Surely this is an impossibility?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thing unclean through contact with that of the second degree of uncleanness is itself only of the third degree!');"><sup>34</sup></span> - Said Raba: This is what is meant: What caused the object to be rendered unclean in the second degree? Surely it was something unclean in the first degree!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And because of this origin a combination of the two degrees should be possible.');"><sup>35</sup></span> R'Ashi said: Things unclean in the first degree and those unclean in the second degree in relation to uncleanness of the third degree are considered as belonging to one category.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., one valley'. Both lead after all to uncleanness of the third degree, whether it be direct or not.');"><sup>36</sup></span> [