Chullin Daf 34 (חולין דף ל״ד)
Daf: 34 | Amudim: 34a – 34b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (34a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuing from daf 33: the proposed teruma-level reading of the mishna is rejected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי ״בָּשָׂר״, דְּאִי בִּתְרוּמָה – בָּשָׂר מִי אִיכָּא?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens mid-discussion, completing the objection begun at the end of daf 33. Someone proposed reinterpreting the Chullin mishna as חולין prepared at teruma’s purity level, following Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara rejects this: the mishna explicitly deals with meat (the slaughter of animals and birds), but no one prepares meat at teruma’s level — that practice exists only as training to handle actual teruma correctly, and teruma is taken only from ground produce, never from meat.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה = Non-sacred food prepared at teruma’s purity standard — done as practice in handling actual teruma
- לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ = “It should not enter your mind” — a firm rejection of a proposed interpretation
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara settles that the mishna deals with meat prepared at the kodashim-purity level.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי, בְּקָדָשִׁים? חַיָּה בְּקָדָשִׁים מִי אִיכָּא? בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר מִיחַלַּף, בָּשָׂר בְּפֵירֵי לָא מִיחַלַּף.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
If not teruma-level, then the mishna’s meat must be prepared at kodashim’s purity level. The Gemara raises a difficulty — the mishna lists a חיה, and an undomesticated animal can never be an actual offering. The resolution: people nonetheless adopt kodashim-level purity for חיה meat because it can be visually confused with domesticated (offerable) meat. There is no parallel reason for teruma-level meat, since meat is never confused with produce. This confirms that “חולין prepared at kodashim’s level” is a coherent category.
Key Terms:
- מִיחַלַּף = “Is interchanged/confused” — wild-animal meat looks like domestic-animal meat, motivating stricter handling
- בָּשָׂר בְּפֵירֵי לָא מִיחַלַּף = “Meat is not confused with produce” — hence no motive to prepare meat at teruma’s level
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Ulla reports his colleagues’ reading — the mishna opposes Rabbi Yehoshua.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר עוּלָּא: חַבְרַיָּא אָמְרִין בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla reports the position of his colleagues (חבריא), which is essentially Rabbi Hoshaya’s resolution from daf 33: the Chullin mishna deals with kodashim-level חולין and runs against Rabbi Yehoshua. On this reading, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that only teruma-level חולין contract a שלישי, while kodashim-level חולין do not — the opposite of what the Chullin mishna requires.
Key Terms:
- חַבְרַיָּא = “The colleagues” — a circle of fellow scholars whose collective view is being reported
- עוּלָּא = A leading Eretz Yisrael Amora who frequently transmitted teachings to Babylonia
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Ulla’s own view: the mishna can fit even Rabbi Yehoshua, read as a “lo mibaya” style.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ דַּחֲמִירִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי אִית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla disagrees with his colleagues and harmonizes the mishna with Rabbi Yehoshua. When Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned teruma-level חולין contracting a שלישי, he was using the rhetorical style of לא מיבעיא (“it is not necessary to say”): kodashim-level חולין, being more stringent, obviously contract a שלישי — and Rabbi Yehoshua was teaching the novel point that even the lighter teruma-level חולין do too. On this reading, Rabbi Yehoshua agrees kodashim-level חולין are susceptible, so the mishna need not contradict him.
Key Terms:
- לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר = “He speaks in the ‘it is not necessary’ style” — stating the less obvious case while the obvious one is assumed a fortiori
- דַּחֲמִירִי = “Which are stringent” — kodashim-level food, held to the highest purity standard
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Identifying “the colleagues” — Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who transmits the full Eliezer–Yehoshua debate.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן חַבְרַיָּא? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אַהְדַּרוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לַהֲדָדֵי?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the “colleagues” as Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who transmitted in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s name the full back-and-forth between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua over how much impurity one absorbs by eating impure food. The next several segments unfold that debate in detail, supplying the Tannaitic background to Ulla’s harmonization.
Key Terms:
- מַאי אַהְדַּרוּ… לַהֲדָדֵי = “What did they reply to one another?” — a request for the full course of a Tannaitic dispute
- רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה = A prominent Amora who frequently transmitted Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teachings to Babylonia
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Eliezer’s argument: the kosher-bird carcass shows the eater can be stricter than the food.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מָצִינוּ אוֹכֵל חָמוּר מִן הָאוֹכֶל, דְּאִילּוּ נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר בַּחוּץ – לֹא מְטַמֵּא, וְאִילּוּ אוֹכְלָהּ מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאָנוּ הֵיאַךְ לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹכֵל כַּמַּאֲכָל?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer defends his view that the eater absorbs the food’s full impurity level. His proof: the carcass of a kosher bird (נבלת עוף טהור) does not convey impurity by ordinary contact, yet one who eats it becomes impure enough to defile his garments while it is in his throat. If even there the eater is treated more stringently than the food, then surely, in general, one who eats impure food should be reckoned at least at the food’s own impurity level.
Key Terms:
- נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר = The carcass of a kosher bird — uniquely, it conveys impurity only when eaten, not by contact
- בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה = “The place of swallowing” — the throat; the carcass defiles garments while it is being swallowed
- אוֹכֵל חָמוּר מִן הָאוֹכֶל = “The eater is stricter than the food” — the person can carry a status more severe than the food itself
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehoshua’s rebuttal: the carcass is a chiddush, and measures show food is stricter than the eater.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִנִּבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר לָא גָּמְרִינַן, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא. אֶלָּא מָצִינוּ שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל חָמוּר מִן הָאוֹכֵל, דְּאִילּוּ מַאֲכָל בִּכְבֵיצָה, וְאוֹכֵל עַד דְּאָכֵיל כַּחֲצִי פְרָס, וְאָנוּ הֵיאַךְ נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹכֵל כַּמַּאֲכָל?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua counters on two fronts. First, the kosher-bird carcass is a חידוש — a unique, unparalleled ruling — so no general principle may be derived from it. Second, he offers his own proof in the opposite direction: food becomes impure at a mere egg-bulk (כביצה), but a person becomes impure only by eating a far larger half-loaf (חצי פרס). Since the food is “stricter” in requiring less to be affected, the eater cannot simply equal the food’s impurity level.
Key Terms:
- חִידּוּשׁ = A novel, anomalous ruling — by principle, one may not extrapolate from it to other cases
- כְּבֵיצָה = An egg-bulk — the minimum measure for food to contract impurity
- חֲצִי פְרָס = Half a peras (half of a half-loaf) — the larger measure of impure food one must eat to become impure oneself
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Eliezer rejects the measures proof and finds an internal flaw in Rabbi Yehoshua’s view.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: טוּמְאָה מִשִּׁיעוּרִין לָא גָּמְרִינַן, וְעוֹד – לִדְבָרֶיךָ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר עַל רִאשׁוֹן שֵׁנִי – יָפֶה אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֵׁנִי שֵׁנִי לְמָה?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer answers both ways. First, the size of a required measure is no index of stringency — one cannot infer the laws of impurity-degrees from quantities. Second, he turns Rabbi Yehoshua’s own ruling against him: if eating ראשון-food yields a שני (a one-level drop, which is sensible), then eating שני-food should yield a שלישי. Why does Rabbi Yehoshua say a שני-eater becomes only a שני? That violates Rabbi Yehoshua’s own logic of descent.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה מִשִּׁיעוּרִין לָא גָּמְרִינַן = “We do not derive impurity-law from measures” — quantity thresholds do not indicate relative stringency
- לִדְבָרֶיךָ = “According to your own words” — a refutation from within the opponent’s stated premises
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehoshua defends the שני-yields-שני ruling via the case of liquids.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: מָצִינוּ שֶׁהַשֵּׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שֵׁנִי עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua defends his ruling that eating שני-food yields only a שני, not a שלישי. He cites a precedent where impurity does not descend a rung: a שני-food, via intermediate liquids, transmits a שני (not a שלישי) to other food. So there is established ground for impurity transmitting at the same level rather than dropping — and the שני-eater becoming a שני fits that pattern.
Key Terms:
- עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקִין = “By means of liquids” — liquids serve as the conduit through which the impurity passes
- הַשֵּׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שֵׁנִי = “A second-degree produces a second-degree” — transmission without the usual descent of a level
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Eliezer dismantles the liquids proof — liquids are upgraded to first-degree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: וְהָא מַשְׁקִין נָמֵי תְּחִלָּה הָווּ, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַפּוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקִין לִהְיוֹת תְּחִלָּה, חוּץ מִטְּבוּל יוֹם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer dismantles the liquids proof. Liquids are subject to a special rabbinic stringency: any item that disqualifies teruma turns liquids into a תחילה (first-degree). So a שני-food does not pass a שני to other food “as is” — it first upgrades the liquid to a ראשון, and only then does the liquid transmit a שני. The one exception is a טבול יום, whose liquids follow the normal descent. The liquids case therefore proves nothing about impurity transmitting at the same level.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל הַפּוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה = “Anything that disqualifies teruma” — i.e., any item of second-degree impurity
- מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקִין לִהְיוֹת תְּחִלָּה = “Renders liquids impure to be first-degree” — a special rabbinic upgrade applied to liquids
- טְבוּל יוֹם = One who immersed that day and awaits nightfall to complete purification — excepted from the liquid-upgrade rule
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Eliezer presses a second internal flaw: why does eating שלישי-food yield a שני?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד, שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לָמָה?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer raises a second internal difficulty. Rabbi Yehoshua ruled that one who eats שלישי-level food becomes a שני vis-à-vis kodashim. But on Rabbi Yehoshua’s own descent-logic, eating a שלישי should yield a רביעי, or at least not a level higher than the food. Becoming a שני — a step more severe than the food eaten — seems to contradict Rabbi Yehoshua’s whole approach. The next segment is his answer.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לָמָה = “Why does third-degree [food yield] second-degree?” — the eater ending up at a more severe level than the food
- וְעוֹד = “And furthermore” — introducing an additional, separate objection
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yehoshua’s answer begins — and the daf breaks off mid-sentence.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ
English Translation:
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
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua begins his answer: his “שלישי yields a שני” ruling applies only to one specific case — teruma-level חולין — and the reason is that such food’s “purity” is itself reckoned as impurity relative to kodashim. The amud ends mid-clause; the conclusion of the thought (שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ … “its purity [is impurity vis-à-vis kodashim]”) opens daf 34b.
Key Terms:
- אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה = “I too said it only regarding teruma[-level]” — Rabbi Yehoshua restricts his ruling to a single case
- שֶׁטׇּהֳרָתָהּ = “Whose purity…” — the clause is completed on 34b
Amud Bet (34b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The completion of Rabbi Yehoshua’s answer — teruma’s purity is impurity relative to kodashim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud completes the sentence cut off on 34a. Rabbi Yehoshua’s answer to Rabbi Eliezer’s “why שני?” objection: teruma’s very state of purity counts as impurity relative to kodashim. By rabbinic decree, even a person scrupulously pure for teruma is treated as impure when sacrificial food is at stake. So one who eats teruma-level חולין bearing a שלישי is not really jumping a level — relative to kodashim, his “teruma purity” was already a deficit, and the result is a שני for kodashim.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה הִיא אֵצֶל הֶקְדֵּשׁ = “It is impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food” — teruma-grade purity is reckoned as impurity when measured against the higher standard of kodashim
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ = Consecrated/sacrificial food, held to the strictest purity standard
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
A four-link Amoraic tradition: eating kodashim-level שלישי-food makes the body a שני for kodashim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – נַעֲשָׂה גּוּפוֹ שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A four-link chain of transmission (Rabbi Zeira → Rabbi Asi → Rabbi Yoḥanan → Rabbi Yannai) delivers a ruling: one who eats kodashim-level חולין bearing a שלישי becomes a שני vis-à-vis kodashim. His body then conveys a שלישי to sacrificial food, and that food in turn disqualifies further kodashim. This extends to kodashim-level food the very kind of statement Rabbi Yehoshua made about teruma-level food.
Key Terms:
- נַעֲשָׂה גּוּפוֹ שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ = “His body becomes a second-degree vis-à-vis sacrificial food” — he can transmit impurity onward to kodashim
- רַבִּי יַנַּאי = An early Eretz Yisrael Amora; teacher of Rabbi Yoḥanan
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Zeira objects to the very tradition he transmitted, from Rabbi Yehoshua’s wording.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין, עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira challenges the very ruling he just transmitted. Rabbi Yehoshua framed his “שלישי yields a שני for kodashim” statement specifically with teruma-level חולין. By implication: teruma-level — yes, susceptible; kodashim-level — no. That directly contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s ruling, which assumes kodashim-level חולין can bear a שלישי.
Key Terms:
- אֵיתִיבֵיהּ = “He raised an objection against him” — a formal challenge from a Tannaitic source
- עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין… הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא = “Teruma-level — yes; kodashim-level — no” — the inference Rabbi Zeira draws against Rabbi Yannai’s ruling
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Asi answers with the same “lo mibaya” reading Ulla used.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Asi rebuts Rabbi Zeira’s inference using exactly the harmonization Ulla offered on 34a. Rabbi Yehoshua’s mention of teruma-level חולין is לא מיבעיא: kodashim-level חולין obviously contract a שלישי, and his point was the less obvious one — that even teruma-level חולין do. So there is no inference excluding kodashim-level food, and Rabbi Yannai’s ruling stands unchallenged.
Key Terms:
- לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר = “He speaks in the ‘it is not necessary’ style” — the statement names the less obvious case, the obvious one understood a fortiori
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara resolves a clash between two transmissions of Rabbi Yoḥanan as an Amoraic dispute.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא ״אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה״ קָאָמַר, אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a tension: Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s version of Rabbi Yoḥanan has Rabbi Yehoshua saying “I too said it only regarding teruma” — explicitly excluding kodashim-level food, against Rabbi Asi. The resolution: Rabba bar bar Ḥana and Rabbi Asi are both Amoraim transmitting Rabbi Yoḥanan, and they simply disagree about what Rabbi Yoḥanan held — whether Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement was restrictive or expansive. The two readings are a genuine Amoraic dispute, not a contradiction in one source.
Key Terms:
- אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = “They are Amoraim, and [disagree] according to Rabbi Yoḥanan” — two Amoraic transmissions of one master genuinely diverge
- אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה = “I too said it only regarding teruma” — Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s restrictive version of Rabbi Yehoshua
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Ulla rules that eating teruma-level שלישי-food disqualifies the eater from teruma.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הָאוֹכֵל שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – נִפְסַל גּוּפוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה.
English Translation:
§ Ulla says: One who eats non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma and that are impure with third-degree impurity, his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla introduces a parallel ruling for the teruma side. One who eats teruma-level חולין bearing a שלישי has his body disqualified from eating teruma. He himself becomes a שלישי vis-à-vis teruma — not impure enough to defile teruma by contact, but impure enough that he may no longer partake of it. The next segment asks what is novel here.
Key Terms:
- נִפְסַל גּוּפוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה = “His body is disqualified from eating teruma” — he becomes a שלישי for teruma, barred from partaking but not transmitting impurity to it
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
The Gemara asks what Ulla adds — isn’t this already implied by the Teharot mishna?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: שְׁלִישִׁי שֵׁנִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה. שֵׁנִי הוּא דְּלָא הָוֵי, הָא שְׁלִישִׁי הָוֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is Ulla teaching us? We already learn in the mishna cited earlier (33b) from tractate Teharot: 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: It is second-degree impurity that he does not assume, but third-degree impurity he assumes, and he is therefore disqualified from partaking of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the novelty of Ulla’s ruling. The Teharot mishna already says that such an eater is “not a שני vis-à-vis teruma” — and the precise wording “not a שני” implies he is at least a שלישי, which is exactly disqualification from teruma. So what has Ulla added?
Key Terms:
- מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = “What is he teaching us?” — a challenge to the novelty of a stated ruling
- תְּנֵינָא = “We have [already] learned it” — the point appears to be a known mishna
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The Gemara defends Ulla’s novelty — the mishna alone might have meant total purity for teruma.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָא שֵׁנִי הָוֵי וְלָא שְׁלִישִׁי הָוֵי, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּאָמַר ״שֵׁנִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״ – אָמַר נָמֵי ״אֵין שֵׁנִי בִּתְרוּמָה״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Ulla to teach this halakha, as if it was learned from that mishna, I would say that vis-à-vis teruma he assumes neither second-degree nor third-degree impurity, as there is no reason to deem the status of one who eats like that of the food that he ate. And perhaps it was only since Rabbi Yehoshua said that he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food that he also said that he does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that he assumes third-degree impurity and is disqualified from partaking of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defends Ulla’s contribution. From the mishna alone, one might read “not a שני for teruma” as merely a stylistic counterpart to “a שני for kodashim” — Rabbi Yehoshua paired the two clauses, but really meant the eater is fully pure regarding teruma, neither שני nor שלישי. Ulla rules out that reading: he affirmatively teaches that the eater is a שלישי for teruma and therefore disqualified from partaking of it.
Key Terms:
- אַיְּידֵי דְּאָמַר = “Since he [already] said” — a clause appended only for parallel phrasing, carrying no independent legal content
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = “He teaches us [this novelty]” — identifying the genuinely new point of a ruling
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Hamnuna objects to Ulla from a Teharot mishna allowing שלישי-food in a teruma stew.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְעוּלָּא: הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין טָמֵא וּמְטַמֵּא, וְהַשֵּׁנִי פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי נֶאֱכָל בִּנְזִיד הַדֶּמַע.
English Translation:
Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to the statement of Ulla from a mishna (Teharot 2:3): Non-sacred food that is impure with first-degree impurity is impure and renders teruma impure in the sense that this teruma disqualifies other teruma with which it comes into contact. Non-sacred food that is impure with second-degree impurity disqualifies teruma, but it does not render teruma impure, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And food that is impure with third-degree impurity may be eaten by a priest in a stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Hamnuna challenges Ulla from a Teharot mishna grading non-sacred food: a ראשון defiles teruma, a שני disqualifies it, and a שלישי “may be eaten in נזיד הדמע” — a teruma-spiced stew. The mishna thus permits a kohen to eat שלישי-level food mixed with teruma spices. The difficulty is spelled out in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- נְזִיד הַדֶּמַע = A stew containing teruma spices — a mixture of non-sacred food with a small teruma component
- פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא = “Disqualifies but does not [further] defile” — invalidates teruma without giving it the power to defile onward
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The objection sharpened; Ulla begins his reply as the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נִפְסַל גּוּפוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה, סָפֵינַן לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דְּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִנְזִיד הַדֶּמַע,
English Translation:
And if you say that by partaking of food that is impure with third-degree impurity his body is disqualified from the right to partake of teruma, do we feed him a matter that invalidates his body from the right to partake of teruma? According to this, when eating the stew that contains food that is impure with third-degree impurity, he is disqualified from partaking of the spices of teruma that the mishna permits him to add to the stew. Ulla said to him: Leave the matter of stew that is a mixture containing spices of teruma,
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is sharpened: if eating שלישי-level food disqualifies the body from teruma, as Ulla holds, how could the mishna let a kohen eat that very food in a teruma-spiced stew? He would be disqualifying himself from the teruma spices in his own bowl. Ulla begins his reply — “Leave aside the case of נזיד הדמע” — and the daf ends mid-sentence, with the resolution opening daf 35.
Key Terms:
- סָפֵינַן לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דְּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ = “Do we feed him something that disqualifies his body?” — the objection: the mishna would not permit self-disqualifying food
- הַנַּח לִנְזִיד הַדֶּמַע = “Leave aside the teruma-spiced stew” — Ulla’s reply, set apart as a special case; completed on daf 35