מפת הסוגיא — חולין ל״גSugya map — Chullin 33

משנה: השוחט בהמה, חיה ועוף ולא יצא מהם דם בשעת השחיטה — כשרים, ונאכלים בידיים טמאות (׳מסואבות׳), לפי שלא הוכשרו לקבל טומאה בדם (שהוא אחד משבעת המשקים המכשירים). רבי שמעון אומר: הוכשרו לקבל טומאה בשחיטה עצמה.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them during the slaughter, all of these are permitted for consumption and do not require the ritual washing of the hands as they may be eaten with ritually impure [mesoavot] hands, because they were not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with blood, which is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself.

גמרא: מדיוק המשנה — דווקא לפי שלא יצא דם נאכלים בידיים טמאות, הא אם יצא דם — אין נאכלים בידיים טמאות. ומקשים: מדוע? הרי הידיים הן ׳שניות׳ לטומאה, ואין שני עושה שלישי בחולין (השוחט ידיו טמאות בדרגה שנייה ואינן יכולות לטמא חולין)!

GEMARA: The reason that they may be eaten with ritually impure hands is that blood did not emerge from the animals or birds during the slaughter; but if blood emerged from them during slaughter, they may not be eaten with ritually impure hands. The Gemara asks: Why not? Ordinary hands are impure with second-degree ritual impurity and an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity to non-sacred items with which it comes into contact.

ומניין שמדובר בחולין? מכך ששנינו ׳חיה׳ — ובקדשים אין חיה (אין מקריבים חיה). ועוד: אם בקדשים — כשלא יצא דם הקרבן כשר? והרי הקרבן עצמו צריך דם (להזאת הדם על המזבח)!

The Gemara clarifies: From where is it ascertained that we are dealing in the mishna with non-sacred food, and not with the slaughter of an offering? That is clear, as the tanna teaches in the list of those slaughtered: An undomesticated animal. As, if the tanna is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial animals and birds, is there any undomesticated animal included in the framework of sacrificial animals? And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when no blood emerges from them are the offerings valid? The offering itself requires blood, as it is only through the presenting of the blood upon the altar that the offering is accepted.

ועוד: אם בקדשים — כשיצא דם, וכי הדם מכשיר לקבל טומאה? והרי אמר רבי חייא בר אבא משום רבי יוחנן: דם קדשים אינו מכשיר, שנאמר ׳על הארץ תשפכנו כמים׳ — דם הנשפך כמים (כדם חולין) מכשיר, ולא דם קדשים שאינו נשפך אלא נזרק על המזבח.

And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when blood emerges from them, does it render them susceptible to ritual impurity? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived that the blood of sacrificial animals does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood of a non-sacred animal, which is poured like water when it is slaughtered, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, blood of a sacrificial animal, which is not poured like water but is presented on the altar, does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity.

ועוד: אם בקדשים — כשלא יצא מהם דם, יוכשרו לקבל טומאה ב׳חיבת הקודש׳! שהרי קיימא לן שחיבת הקודש (חשיבות הקרבן) מכשרת אף בלא מגע משקה.

And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when blood does not emerge from them are they not nevertheless rendered susceptible to ritual impurity? Let them be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of regard for sanctity, as we maintain that regard for sanctity renders food suceptible to ritual impurity even in the absence of contact with any of the seven liquids.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה: כאן מדובר בחולין שלקחם בכסף מעשר שני (בירושלים), שדינם כמעשר שני המקבל טומאה שלישית ממגע ידיים שהן שניות; והמשנה שלא כרבי מאיר, כמו ששנינו במשנה:

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Here we are dealing with non-sacred food that one purchased in Jerusalem with second-tithe money, which assumes the status of the second-tithe produce. This produce, in turn, assumes third-degree impurity through contact with hands that have second-degree impurity. And this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Para 11:5):

כל הטעון ביאת מים (טבילה או נטילה) מדברי סופרים, אף שטהור מן התורה — נחשב שני לטומאה: מטמא את הקודש, ופוסל את התרומה (אך אינו מטמאהּ לטמא תרומה אחרת), ומותר בחולין ובמעשר (אינו מטמאם) — דברי רבי מאיר.

With regard to anything that by rabbinic law requires entry into water, i.e., either immersion or ritual washing of the hands, although it is pure by Torah law, it is accorded second-degree impurity. Therefore, such an item renders sacrificial food impure, meaning that the sacrificial food becomes impure and transmits impurity to other sacrificial food, and disqualifies teruma, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And it is permitted for non-sacred food and for second-tithe produce to come in contact with such an item, and no impurity is thereby transmitted. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אוסרים את המעשר (סוברים שנטמא), כלומר מעשר שני חמור מחולין ומקבל טומאה שלישית ממגע ידיים שניות — וזו דעת המשנה שלנו.

And the Rabbis prohibit items that require entry into water from coming in contact with second-tithe produce, as they hold that the produce is thereby rendered impure. According to the Rabbis, the status of second-tithe produce is more stringent than that of non-sacred food, and second-tithe produce assumes third-degree impurity upon contact with an item of second-degree impurity, which is in accordance with the opinion of the mishna.

מתקיף רב שימי בר אשי: ומניין? שמא חכמים חולקים על רבי מאיר רק באכילת מעשר (בידיים טמאות), אבל בנגיעה במעשר ובאכילת חולין — אינם חולקים, ואם כן אין ראיה שמדובר במגע.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to this interpretation of that mishna. From where is it clear that it is contact that the Rabbis prohibit? Perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to a person with second-degree impurity partaking of second-tithe produce. But with regard to contact of an individual with second-degree impurity with second-tithe produce or his eating non-sacred food, they do not disagree.

והרי במשנתנו מדובר במגע, מדקתני ׳נאכלין׳ (בלשון סביל) — וכי לא נעסוק אף בכגון שחברו (טמא ידיים) מאכילו, והאוכל עצמו טהור ואינו נוגע? (אם כן הטומאה היא מן המגע, ולא תיתכן בחולין שבכסף מעשר, שבהם חכמים מתירים את הנגיעה.)

And this case in the mishna is a case involving contact with the flesh of the slaughtered animal, from the fact that it teaches: They may be eaten with ritually impure hands, in the passive form, and not: One may eat them with impure hands. Are we not dealing with a case where another with impure hands fed him, but the one eating it was ritually pure and did not touch it? Therefore, the case in the mishna here, which indicates that it is forbidden for one with impure hands to touch the flesh if it has come in contact with the blood, cannot be referring to an animal purchased in Jerusalem with second-tithe money. The reason is that in that case, the Rabbis concede that contact with second-tithe produce, even produce rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the blood, is permitted for one whose hands are impure with second-degree ritual impurity.

אלא אמר רב פפא: כאן מדובר בידיים תחילות (ראשונות לטומאה, המטמאות אף חולין), ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא, כמו ששנינו: אין ידיים תחילות לחולין; רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי מאיר: ידיים תחילות לחולין, ושניות לתרומה.

Rather Rav Pappa said: Here, in the mishna, we are dealing with hands that are impure with first-degree ritual impurity, which render even non-sacred food impure. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it is not that they render non-sacred food impure; rather, it means that they impart to teruma and sacrificial food second-degree impurity rather than third-degree impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it means that they render non-sacred food impure. And in those cases where hands have second-degree impurity it means that they invalidate teruma and impart to it third-degree impurity.

ומדייקים: ׳תחילות לחולין — אין, לתרומה — לא׳? אלא כך אמר: תחילות — אף לחולין (וכל שכן לתרומה); שניות — לתרומה אין, לחולין לא.

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar say that in those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, with regard to non-sacred food, yes, they render it impure, but with regard to teruma, hands do not render it impure? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is saying: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it means that they render even non-sacred food impure, and all the more so they render teruma impure. But in those cases where hands have second-degree impurity, it means that with regard to teruma, yes, the hands invalidate teruma and impart third-degree impurity, but with regard to non-sacred food, hands do not render it impure.

ומקשים: וכי יש ידיים תחילות (ראשונות)? ומשיבים: אין, כמו ששנינו — הכניס ידיו לבית המנוגע: ידיו תחילות, דברי רבי עקיבא; וחכמים אומרים: ידיו שניות.

The Gemara asks: And are there cases where hands assume first-degree impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is taught in a mishna (Yadayim 3:1): If one inserts his hands into a leprous house (see Leviticus 14:33–53) his hands assume first-degree impurity as though his entire body entered the house; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: His hands assume second-degree impurity.

מבארים: לכולי עלמא ביאה במקצת (הכנסת היד בלבד) אינה ׳ביאה׳ (מן התורה), וכאן נחלקו בגזירת חכמים — לטמא את ידיו אטו (משום) ביאת כל גופו.

The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees that in principle, partial entry into a leprous house is not characterized as entry in terms of rendering one who enters impure. Therefore, one who inserted his hands into the house is not impure by Torah law. And here, it is with regard to a rabbinic decree that renders his hands impure that they disagree: The Sages issued a decree that if one inserted his hands into a leprous house, his hands are impure due to the impurity by Torah law that one assumes when he enters the house with his entire body. The objective of the decree is to prevent him from entering the leprous house.

מר (רבי עקיבא) סבר: ידיו — כגופו עשאום חכמים (ולכן ראשונות); ומר (חכמים) סבר: ידיים — כידיים דעלמא עשאום (סתם ידיים שניות).

One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that when the Sages issued the decree they determined that the status of his hands inserted into the house is like the status of his body that enters the house, first-degree impurity. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the Sages rendered the status of hands inserted into the house like the status of hands in general, with regard to which they issued a decree of second-degree impurity, even if they had been washed.

ומקשים: ולוקמה (יעמיד רב פפא את משנתנו) כרבי עקיבא, שאמר ׳ידיו תחילות׳? ומשיבים: שמא רבי עקיבא אמר ׳תחילות׳ רק בתרומה וקדשים החמורים, אבל לחולין — שניות הן.

The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Pappa interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Let Rav Pappa interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If one inserts his hands into a leprous house, his hands assume first-degree impurity. The Gemara answers: Perhaps when Rabbi Akiva says that one’s hands assume first-degree impurity, that statement applies only in cases of teruma and sacrificial food, which are stringent. But with regard to non-sacred food, perhaps hands are impure only with second-degree impurity.

ומקשים: וליהוויין נמי שניות, ותעמיד כרבי עקיבא — שהרי שמענו לרבי עקיבא שאמר: שני עושה שלישי בחולין (ואם כן אף ידיים שניות יטמאו את החולין)!

The Gemara objects: And let hands also be impure only with second-degree impurity and the mishna could still be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we heard that Rabbi Akiva says: An item of second-degree impurity imparts third-degree impurity to non-sacred items.

כמו ששנינו: בו ביום דרש רבי עקיבא ׳וכל כלי חרש … יטמא׳ — ׳טמא׳ לא נאמר אלא ׳יטמא׳, לטמא אחרים; לימד על ככר שני שהוא עושה שלישי בחולין.

As we learned in a mishna (Sota 27b): On that day, when Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed Nasi in Yavne, Rabbi Akiva taught: “And every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure, and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33). With regard to the item rendered impure in the vessel, it is not stated: It is impure [tameh]; rather, the term “it shall be impure [yitma]” is stated, indicating that the item has the capacity to transmit impurity to other items. This verse teaches about a loaf with second-degree impurity that had been rendered impure in the airspace of an earthenware vessel in which there was a creeping animal, that through contact it renders non-sacred food impure with third-degree ritual impurity.

ודוחים: שמא דין זה (שני עושה שלישי בחולין) רק בטומאה דאורייתא (כשרץ), אבל בטומאה דרבנן (כטומאת ידיים) — לא.

The Gemara explains: Perhaps this statement, that non-sacred food becomes impure with third-degree ritual impurity, applies only with regard to impurity by Torah law, e.g., a creeping animal; but with regard to impurity by rabbinic law, e.g., impurity of hands, that is not the halakha.

אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי הושעיא (פירוש שלישי): כאן מדובר בחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקודש, והמשנה שלא כרבי יהושע, כמו ששנינו: רבי אליעזר אומר — האוכל אוכל ראשון, נעשה ראשון; שני — שני; שלישי — שלישי.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said a third explanation of the mishna: Here we are dealing with a case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. And the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a mishna (Teharot 2:2): Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first-degree ritual impurity assumes first-degree impurity. One who eats food with second-degree ritual impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity.

רבי יהושע אומר: האוכל אוכל ראשון ושני — נעשה שני; השלישי (האוכל אוכל שלישי) — נעשה שני לקודש (מטמא קודש), ואינו שני לתרומה (אינו פוסל תרומה).

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first-degree or second-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One with second-degree impurity who comes into contact with teruma disqualifies it, but does not render it impure. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, i.e., his contact with sacrificial food renders it impure with the capacity to transmit impurity to other sacrificial food, but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma, and his contact with teruma does not disqualify it.

מבארים: ׳האוכל אוכל שלישי׳ אפשרי רק בחולין (שהרי תרומה וקדשים טמאים אסור לאכול, וחולין סתם אינם מקבלים שלישי) — לפיכך מדובר בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה.

Eating an item that has third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred food, as partaking of impure teruma or sacrificial food is prohibited. Generic non-sacred food cannot contract third-degree impurity at all. Therefore, the case of one who eats food that has third-degree impurity is referring specifically to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma.

ומדייקים: על טהרת תרומה — אין (יש בהם שלישי), על טהרת הקודש — לא; קסבר רבי יהושע: חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקודש אין בהם שלישי.

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement that if one prepares items as if their level of purity were on the level of purity of teruma, then yes, they have the status like teruma, but if one prepares items as if their level of purity were on the level of purity of sacrificial food, they do not have the status like sacrificial food, and such items would not contract third-degree impurity. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.

ומקשים: ולוקמה (יעמיד את המשנה)…

The Gemara objects: Let us interpret the mishna

…בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה וכרבי יהושע! ודוחים: לא תעלה על דעתך, שהרי קתני ׳בשר׳ — ואם בתרומה, וכי יש בשר? (טהרת תרומה נוהגת רק בגידולי קרקע, לא בבשר.)

with regard to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara responds: It should not enter your mind that the mishna is referring to a case of the level of purity of teruma, as the mishna teaches a case of the slaughter of animals and birds and consumption of their meat. And if the mishna is taught with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, is there meat eaten with the level of purity of teruma? The practice of preparing non-sacred food items on the level of purity of teruma is done only so that one will not treat actual teruma in the correct manner, and teruma is separated only from produce that grows in the ground.

ומקשים: אלא מאי, בקדשים? והרי בקדשים אין חיה! ומשיבים: אף שאין מקריבים חיה, יש המקפידים לאכול בשר חיה בטהרת קודש מפני שבשר מתחלף בבשר, אך לא בטהרת תרומה — שאין בשר מתחלף בפירות.

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the case in the mishna? Is it a case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food? Is there an undomesticated animal that can be sacrificed as an offering and its meat is sacrificial food? The Gemara answers: Although undomesticated animals cannot be sacrificed as an offering, there are those who would undertake to eat their meat only when prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food because meat of an undomesticated animal is sometimes interchanged with meat of a domesticated animal. No one would undertake to eat meat only when prepared on the level of purity of teruma, because meat would not be interchanged with produce.

אמר עולא: חבריי אומרים שהמשנה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקודש, ושלא כרבי יהושע (הסובר שאין בהם שלישי).

Ulla said: My colleagues say that the mishna is referring to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, but non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.

ואני אומר: רבי יהושע היא, ובלשון ׳לא מיבעיא׳ אמר — לא מיבעיא חולין שנעשו על טהרת קודש החמורים שיש בהם שלישי, אלא אפילו חולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה אף הם יש בהם שלישי.

Ulla continues: And I say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and when he said that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, he is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, that they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rather, even non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.

מאן חבריי? רבה בר בר חנה, שאמר משום רבי יוחנן: מה השיבו רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע זה לזה (בעניין דרגת האוכל אוכל טמא)?

The Gemara asks: Who are the colleagues to whom Ulla referred? It is Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua reply to each other? The differences between their opinions are twofold. First, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with first-degree impurity assumes first-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity. Second, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but not vis-à-vis teruma.

אמר רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע: מצינו שהאוכל חמור מן המאכל — נבלת עוף טהור מבחוץ (במגע) אינה מטמאה, ואילו האוכלהּ מטמא בגדים בבית הבליעה; ואם כן כיצד לא נעשה את האוכל (אדם) כמאכל (בדרגת הטומאה)?

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The basis for my opinion that one assumes the level of impurity of that which he ate is that we found a case where the halakha of the one who eats a food item is more stringent than the halakha of the food itself. As, the carcass of a kosher bird on the outside, i.e., when one comes into contact with it, does not impart ritual impurity, while one who eats the carcass of the kosher bird renders his garments impure when the food is in his throat. And we, in light of that, how will we not deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity at least like that of the food that he ate?

ורבי יהושע השיב: מנבלת עוף טהור אין ללמוד, שחידוש הוא; אדרבה — מצינו שהמאכל חמור מן האוכל: מאכל מטמא בכביצה, ואדם אינו נטמא עד שיאכל כחצי פרס; ואם כן כיצד נעשה את האוכל כמאכל?

And Rabbi Yehoshua responded that we do not derive other cases from the case of the carcass of a kosher bird, because it is a novel ruling that cannot serve as a paradigm. Rather, we found that the halakha of food is more stringent than the halakha of the one who eats it, as food becomes impure if its measure is that of an egg-bulk, and one who eats impure food does not become impure until he eats half of a half-loaf. And we, in light of that, how will we deem one who eats the impure item to be on a level of impurity like that of the food that he ate?

ורבי אליעזר השיב: אין למדים חומרת טומאה משיעורים. ועוד: לדבריך — האומר על אדם שאכל ׳ראשון׳ שנעשה ׳שני׳ — יפה אתה אומר; אבל שאכל ׳שני׳ ונעשה ׳שני׳ — למה? (הרי לפי שיטתך ראוי שיֵרד דרגה.)

And Rabbi Eliezer responded: We do not derive the relative stringency of ritual impurity from the relative size of halakhic measures, as measures are not indicative of stringency or leniency. And furthermore, according to your statement, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with first-degree ritual impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, what you say is well. But that which you say with regard to one who eats food with second-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity, why is that the case? It contradicts your reasoning.

אמר לו רבי יהושע: מצינו שהשני עושה שני על ידי משקין — משקים הנוגעים באוכל שני, מטמאים אוכל אחר ועושים אותו שני.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: We found that food with second-degree impurity renders other food impure with second-degree impurity by means of liquids. Liquids that come into contact with food with second-degree impurity render other food with which they come into contact impure with second-degree impurity.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר: והרי המשקים עצמם נעשים ׳תחילה׳ (ראשונים) ממגע השני, כמו ששנינו: כל הפוסל בתרומה מטמא משקים להיות תחילה (חוץ מטבול יום)? (ואם כן אין ראיה מהמשקים.)

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But aren’t those liquids also impure with first-degree ritual impurity through contact with an item impure with second-degree impurity? As we learned in a mishna (Para 8:7): Any item with second-degree ritual impurity that disqualifies teruma renders liquids impure with first-degree ritual impurity. These liquids assume a degree of impurity greater than that of the item that rendered them impure. This rabbinic decree applies to all people and items with second-degree impurity except for one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. Liquids with which he comes into contact follow the standard course of transmitted impurity and assume third-degree impurity, one level below his own impurity.

ועוד שאל רבי אליעזר: ׳השלישי (האוכל אוכל שלישי) נעשה שני׳ — למה? (אף זה סותר את כללך.)

Rabbi Eliezer questioned the next segment in the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua: And furthermore, that which you say with regard to one who eats food with third-degree impurity, that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, why is that the halakha? It contradicts your reasoning.

אמר לו רבי יהושע: אף אני לא אמרתי ׳שני׳ אלא בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה, שטהרתה…

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: I too stated that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food only with regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, as its state of purity

…טומאה היא אצל הקודש: גזרו חכמים שאף הנזהר בתרומתו בטהרה נחשב טמא לעניין הקודש; לפיכך האוכל אוכל (שנעשה על טהרת תרומה) שנטמא בשלישי — נעשה שני ומטמא קודש.

is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. The Sages issued a decree that even one who is vigilant to partake of his teruma in a state of ritual purity is considered impure vis-à-vis one partaking of sacrificial food. Therefore, one who ate a food item that was prepared on the level of purity of teruma that had become impure with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity, and he renders sacrificial food impure.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי ינאי: האוכל שלישי של חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקודש — נעשה גופו שני לקודש (מטמא קודש בשלישי, וזה פוסל קודש אחר).

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yannai says: With regard to one who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, and these items had become impure with third-degree impurity, his body becomes impure with second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food. He renders sacrificial food with which he comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity, and that food in turn disqualifies sacrificial food with which it comes into contact.

איתיביה רבי זירא לרבי אסי מדברי רבי יהושע: ׳שלישי — שני לקודש ואין שני לתרומה׳ — בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה; הא על טהרת תרומה אין, על טהרת הקודש לא (שאין בהם שלישי כלל)!

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua: One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. This is stated in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma. The Gemara infers: Yes, one is able to prepare items on the level of purity of teruma, but one is not able to prepare items on the level of purity of sacrificial food, as in the latter case the non-sacred food does not become impure at all.

אמר לו רבי אסי: דיוק זה אינו, שהרי רבי יהושע בלשון ׳לא מיבעיא׳ אמר — לא מיבעיא חולין שעל טהרת קודש החמורים שיש בהם שלישי, אלא אף שעל טהרת תרומה יש בהם שלישי.

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: That inference is incorrect, as Rabbi Yehoshua is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua teaches that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.

ומקשים: והרי לפי רבה בר בר חנה משום רבי יוחנן אמר רבי יהושע ׳אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בתרומה׳ (משמע שעל טהרת קודש אין בהם שלישי)! ומשיבים: אמוראים הם וחלוקים בדעת רבי יוחנן — אם דברי רבי יהושע נאמרו דווקא בחולין שעל טהרת תרומה, או אף שעל טהרת הקודש.

The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua say to Rabbi Eliezer according to the explanation that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I too stated this only with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, indicating that he was not referring to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar bar Ḥana and Rabbi Asi are amora’im, and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and they disagree about whether the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua was stated specifically with regard to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma, or whether it includes even those prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food.