tevul

Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests says: during all of the days of the priests they never refrained from burning [sacrificial] meat which had been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness with meat which had been defiled by a father of uncleanness, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva added and said: during [all] the days of the priests they did not refrain from lighting oil which had been rendered unclean by a tevul yom in a lamp which had been made unclean by one who had contracted corpse impurity, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness.

Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, testified concerning four matters: Through all their days the priests never refrained from burning meat which had been defiled by an “offspring” of impurity with meat which had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. Rabbi Akiba added: “Through all their days the priests never shrank from lighting oil which had been rendered unfit by a tevul yom in a lamp made impure by one who was made impure by a corpse, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity.”

Rabbi Joshua ben. Bathyra testified concerning the blood of carcasses that it was pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification, that if a defiled person had touched part of them he had defiled the whole of them. Rabbi Akiva added in regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals, that if a tevul yom had touched part of them he had made the whole of them unfit.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication. With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

The law of sacrilege applies to the olah of a bird from the moment of its dedication. With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been squeezed out [onto the walls of the altar] it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement; And the law of sacrilege applies to it until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the bullocks which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes so long as the flesh has not been charred.

The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication. When it is slaughtered it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement; And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to it flesh until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication. Once they have formed a crust in the oven they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the [festival] offerings can then be slaughtered. Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled they [the loaves] are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.

The law of sacrilege applies to the showbread from the moment of its dedication. Once it has formed a crust in the oven it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and it may be arranged upon the table [of the Sanctuary]. Once the dishes of incense have been offered it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

The law of sacrilege applies to menahot (grain offerings) from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel [of service] they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once the handful has been offered they are subject to [the law of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to the remnants, but it applies to the handful until its ashes have been removed to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them. This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.

There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person: A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.

The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.

On the seventh day he shaves off his hair a second time in the manner of the first shaving, he washes his garments and immerses himself. He is clean in so far as not to convey uncleanness as a sheretz, but he was still like a tevul yom. He may eat second tithe. After sunset he may eat terumah. After he had brought his offering of atonement, he may also eat sacred things. Thus there are three grades in the purification of a metzora and three grades in the purification of a woman after child birth.

Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected pieces of hallah without the intention of separating them afterwards, or a batter-cake that had been baked on another after a crust had formed in the oven, or froth had appeared in the water prior to its bubbling up, or the second scum that appeared in the boiling of groats of beans, or the scum of old wine, or that of oil of all kinds, or of lentils, Rabbi Judah says: also that of beans; All these are defiled when touched by a tevul yom. And there is no need to say, [this is the case if touched] by other sources of uncleanness.

The nail shaped knob on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt, or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom]. And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things.

A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity; And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement. With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor or major [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity. Except for liquid that is a "father of impurity."

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.

If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.

If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil. If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified.

Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.

Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.

A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective.

If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean. If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.

If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean. If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer. But if it was arranged like a cap it does not serve as a connective.

The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective. Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective]. The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin.

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.

HALAKHAH: Is hand-washing required for profane food? But it must follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, hand-washing is required for profane food. It is everybody’s opinion, so he should separate from heave. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follow Rebbi Aqiba, as we have stated there, “if somebody puts his hands into a leprous house, his hands are impure in the first degree, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages are saying, his hands are impure in the second degree”? There, it follows the rabbis; what is their reason here? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave. But did they not decide about them because of fluids; then they should be impure in the first degree? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since the Tevul Yom, which is a word from the Torah, only disqualifies, impure hands, which are from their words, not so much more? Another explanation: Did they not decide about hands only that he should separate from heave? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony. As we have stated there, “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals. One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up. But [not] about every day’s coals. As we have stated there, “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler. Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?