Sotah 59

Chapter 59

א שלישי הבא מחמת שני דשני גופיה אסור בחולין אינו דין שעושה רביעי בקודש

1 then that which is unclean in the third degree through contact with what is unclean in the second degree — the second degree which is itself forbidden in the case of non-holy food1

ב וכי תימא משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לטבול יום שכן אב הטומאה הא אייתינה ממחוסר כיפורים ולא פרכיה

2 — must all the more create a fourth degree with the holy!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The advantage of this deduction consists in that it is more direct than that of R. Jose, which involves a second a fortiori reasoning to prove that there is a disqualification in the third degree in the case of the heave-offering (v. p. 145, n. 3) Tosaf.] ');">2

ג אמר רב אסי אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רבה בן איסי אמר רב ר"מ ור' יוסי ור' יהושע ור' אלעזר ור' אליעזר כולהו סבירא להו דאין שני עושה שלישי בחולין

3 And should you reply [as stated above], 'It can, however, be objected.It applies to a tebul yom because he may be a primary source of defilement', behold he [R. Jose] derived his argument from one lacking atonement and [he] did not raise this objection.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that one lacking atonement is different since he may be a primary source of defilement. The reason R. Jose did not raise this objection is evidently because he is no longer regarded as unclean, and the same applies to a tebul yom. Consequently R. Jose cannot be said to agree with Abba Saul, but must agree with the Rabbis, hence the question of R. Johanan. ');">3

ד ר"מ דתנן כל הטעון ביאת מים מדברי סופרים מטמא את הקודש ופוסל את התרומה ומותר בחולין ובמעשר דברי ר"מ וחכמים אוסרין במעשר

4 R. Assi said in the name of Rab — another version is Rabbah b. Issi said in the name of Rab, — R. Meir, R. Jose, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar and R. Eliezer all hold the view that what is unclean in the second degree does not create a third degree with non-holy food. R. Meir — for we have learnt: Everything that requires immersion in water according to the statement of the scribes4

ה ר' יוסי הא דאמרן דאם איתיה לייתיה לרביעי בתרומה וחמישי בקודש

5 defiles the holy, disqualifies the heave-offering, and is permitted with the non-holy and with the tithe. Such is the statement of R. Meir; but the Sages prohibit in the case of the tithe.5

ו רבי יהושע דתנן ר"א אומר האוכל אוכל ראשון ראשון שני שני שלישי שלישי רבי יהושע אומר האוכל אוכל ראשון ואוכל שני שני שלישי שני בקודש ואין שני בתרומה

6 R. Jose — as we have stated above; for if it were so,6

ז בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה

7 then let him derive a fourth degree with the heave-offering and a fifth with the sacrificial food.7

ח על טהרת התרומה אין על טהרת הקודש לא

8 R. Joshua — for we have learnt: R. Eliezer Says: He who eats food unclean in the first degree is unclean in the first degree; [if he eats] food unclean in the second degree he is unclean in the second degree; and similarly with the third degree. R. Joshua Says: He who eats food unclean in the first or second degree is unclean in the second degree; [if he eats food unclean] in the third degree, he is unclean in the second degree as regards the sacrificial food but not unclean in the second degree as regards the heave-offering. This8

ט אלמא קסבר אין שני עושה שלישי בחולין

9 is said of non-holy food which was prepared in the purity of the heave-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a priest took upon himself that even the non-holy food he ate should be in the same state of purity as the heave-offering. But ordinary non-holy food cannot become unclean in the third degree. ');">9

י ר"א דתניא ר' אלעזר אומר שלשתן שוין הראשון שבקודש ושבחולין ושבתרומה

10 [This means, does it not,] 'When it is in the purity of the heave-offering' but not when it is in the purity of the sacrificial food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As non-holy food cannot be raised to the level of purity of sacrificial food. Rashi reads: 'but not when it is ordinary non-holy food'. This is also the reading of MS.M.] ');">10

יא מטמא שנים ופוסל אחד בקודש

11 Conclude, then, that he holds that [normally] what is unclean in the second degree does not create a third degree with the non-holy. R. Eleazar — for it has been taught: R. Eleazar says: The following three are alike: the first degree of defilement in the case of the sacrificial food, the non-holy and the heave-offering; it creates two further degrees of defilement and one of disqualification with the sacrificial food;11

יב מטמא אחד ופוסל אחד בתרומה

12 it creates one further degree of defilement and one of disqualification with the heave-offering;12

יג ופוסל אחד בחולין

13 and it creates one degree of disqualification with the non-holy.13

יד ר' אליעזר דתנן ר"א אומר חלה ניטלת מן הטהורה על הטמאה כיצד שתי עיסות אחת טהורה ואחת טמאה נוטל כדי חלה מעיסה שלא הורמה חלתה ונותן פחות מכביצה באמצע כדי ליטול מן המוקף

14 R. Eliezer-for we have learnt: R. Eliezer Says: Hallah14 may be taken from [dough] which is pure on account of that which is defiled. How is this? There are two portions of dough, one pure and the other defiled. He takes a quantity sufficient for hallah15 from the dough from which its hallah had not been removed,16 and places a piece less than the size of an egg17 in the centre [of the defiled dough] so that [it may be considered that hallah] had been taken from the mass [of the defiled dough].

Previous Chapter Next Chapter