Yerushalmi Sotah 5:2 ירושלמי סוטה ה׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: On the same day³³According to the Babli (Berakhot 28a), any Mishnah which starts “on the same day” was formulated on the day Rabban Gamliel was deposed. There is no proof that this ever was a Galilean tradition., Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.³⁴Lev. 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah.
The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material.” It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”³⁵Probably he reads יְטַמֵּא “it will defile” in place of יִטְמָא “it shall become impure”. Revocalization of the consonantal text is a technique accepted by R. Aqiba, rejected by R. Ismael.; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary.
Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since you were saying that a future generation would purify the tertiary loaf since there is nothing about it in the Torah³⁶He holds that the possibility of tertiary impurity for heave and sacrifices and quaternary for sacrifices is traditional rather than biblical.
The slightly enlarged text is also in Sifra Šemini Parasha 7(12)., but behold, your student Aqiba supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

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 food³⁷The question is whether profane pure food touched by something impure in the second degree remains pure or becomes impure in the third degree.. 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 reptile³⁸See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food.. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food³⁹The Babli, 29a, knows only that Rav holds that tertiary impurity does not exist for profane food. It does not mention any contrary opinion.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁴⁰Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1.“If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid⁴¹Solid food can become impure only if it was in contact with either water or human body fluids under certain circumstances; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141. and a ṭevul yom⁴²A person who was impure and cleansed himself by immersion in water during daytime. It is explained in Lev.22:6–7 that impurity is removed by immersion in water during daytime “and when the sun disappears he will be pure; afterwards, he may eat sanctified food.” (The Babli, Berakhot2a/b, discusses whether וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ means “the sun disappears” or “the sun rises”). The ṭevul yom therefore is no longer impure but before sundown he is not pure for sanctified food; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 138; Terumot Chapter 2, Note 51. Since he is forbidden only sanctified food, one may assume that he is pure for profane food. In rabbinical terms, the ṭevul yom after immersion but before sundown is treated as impure in the second degree. or unclean hands⁴³Unwashed hands, of an otherwise pure person, are always rabbinically impure in the second degree until washed with at least a revi‘it (135 cl) of water; cf. Bikkurim Chapter 2, Note 4; Demay Chapter 2, Note 160. touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary⁴⁴Tithe food in the hand of a Levite is totally profane. The Levite is required to give 10% of the tithe to the Cohen as heave of the tithe, which is sanctified food. While the tithe before the separation of the heave is forbidden as ṭevel, it is not sanctified and any impurity, even secondary, would eliminate the tithe as a source of heave (cf. Ḥallah, Chapter 3, Notes 43–44). If the ṭevul yom may touch tithe from which no heave was given it proves that tertiary impurity does not apply to profane food., 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 field⁴⁵A “broken field” is agricultural property of which it is known that it once contained a grave. The position of the grave is unknown; also it is unknown whether bones from the grave have been dispersed on the field by ploughing. Since there are doubts whether any impurity still exists or where it might be, and it is an open field (where a doubt of impurity is inactive, cf. Chapter 1, Notes 87–96), a person walking over the field is only rabbinically impure.. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”⁴⁶Lev. 11:32 has expressions of purity and impurity: “It shall be immersed in water, be impure until evening, and be pure”. This implies that a ṭevul yom vessel is both impure and pure; it is according to tradition that one decides in which domain it is pure and in which impure. In 22:6–7, the ṭevul yom person is only forbidden sanctified food in his intermediary state.. 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 eating⁴⁷Since the distinction of the influence of a ṭevul yom on profane or sanctified food is one of interpretation, could one not understand from the verses that the ṭevul yom contaminates any food but is free to touch?? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating⁴⁸The rules of purification in stages by immersion in water (Lev.11:32) deal with vessels, which are inedible.?

A Mishnah⁴⁹Ṭahorot 2:3. supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates⁵⁰Food whose impurity is contagious is called טמא “impure"; if it cannot be used for any purpose but is not contagious it is called פסול “invalid”. Secondarily impure profane food invalidates heave by its touch. but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.⁵¹The Cohen who eats heave can cook his meal with profane spices that have touched secondarily impure food since secondarily impure profane food is inactive if it touches other profane food.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave⁵²Since it is only permitted to spice heave broth with spices that have touched secondarily impure food, it is implied that the potentially tertiary cannot itself be dedicated as heave.. And it is said⁵³In parallel with the later text, אסור is read as a misspelling for אמור, following all commentators. after that⁵⁴Ṭahorot 2:4. The Babli, 30a, quotes Mishnah Tahorot 2:2 in which R. Joshua disagrees.: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple⁵⁵Cf. Note 38. It is clear that Lev. knows of a status of invalid sacrificial food induced by touching impurity since v. 7:19 requires that sacrificial meat which touched impurity must be burned but is not labelled “impure”. In Chapter 11, vessels which touched a dead reptile are called “impure”. Therefore, it is established that for sacrifices, anything declared impure in v. 11:33 invalidates sacrifices by its touch. This means that for R. Aqiba in Rav’s interpretation, the fourth degree of impurity in the Temple is biblical, but for the rabbis (and for R. Aqiba in Samuel’s interpretation) only tertiary invalidity is biblical. (Babli 29b).! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents⁵⁶It is a positive commandment for the Cohen to consume his heave (Num. 18:11). Therefore, it is forbidden to expose heave to situations where it could no longer be consumed. But sacrificial food can become invalidated in many ways (such as leaving the Temple precinct, being left overnight, etc.) that would not invalidate heave. Therefore, mixing heave with sacrificial food exposes the Cohen to sinning.! And it was said after that⁵⁷Ṭahorot 2:5.: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices⁵⁸Since sacrificial food touching invalid food of the fourth degree remains pure by the definition of invalidity, there can be no reason why profane food prepared by the standards of sacrificial purity could not be dedicated as a valid sacrifice. Therefore, the argument that the Mishnah permits only the addition of profane food one step removed from invalidity to heave but not turning it into heave has no basis in the text and the Mishnah does not support Rav’s position.? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile³⁸See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food. but it is (forbidden) [permitted]³⁹The Babli, 29a, knows only that Rav holds that tertiary impurity does not exist for profane food. It does not mention any contrary opinion. to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave⁴²A person who was impure and cleansed himself by immersion in water during daytime. It is explained in Lev.22:6–7 that impurity is removed by immersion in water during daytime “and when the sun disappears he will be pure; afterwards, he may eat sanctified food.” (The Babli, Berakhot2a/b, discusses whether וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ means “the sun disappears” or “the sun rises”). The ṭevul yom therefore is no longer impure but before sundown he is not pure for sanctified food; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 138; Terumot Chapter 2, Note 51. Since he is forbidden only sanctified food, one may assume that he is pure for profane food. In rabbinical terms, the ṭevul yom after immersion but before sundown is treated as impure in the second degree., so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile³⁸See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food., and it is (forbidden) [permitted]⁵⁹While both mss. read אסור, the following argument shows that it must read מותר. to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden]⁶⁰If the first term reads “permitted”, this one must read “prohibited”, against the testimony of both mss. While a point could be made here to read “permitted”, it would involve some twisting of the following argument. to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so⁶¹Since tertiary impurity induces one of the fourth degree, what is the point in stating that one may not turn tertiary food into sacrifices? It is implied that vegetable sacrifices (flour, wine, oil, and incense) must be prepared by the standards of sacrificial food from the moment they become susceptible to impurity.? He said to him, because of the distinction⁶²Except for R. Aqiba in the interpretation of Rav, invalidity of sacrifices of fourth degree impurity is purely rabbinic, to elevate sacrifices one step over heave which has no connection with the Temple; cf. Note 55.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction⁶³This student of Rav and Rav Huna agrees with R. Yasa (Assi), student of Samuel and R. Joḥanan, that impurity of the fourth degree is purely rabbinical.. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality⁶⁴That two fifth-generation Amoraïm have to confirm the consensus of the third generation shows that this purely theoretical statement, almost 300 years after the destruction of the Temple, failed to be accepted popularly. It is defended at length in the Babli, Ḥagigah 22a/b.?

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes⁶⁶This refers to the Second Tithe, food that the farmer retains for himself and his family, to be eaten in purity in Jerusalem. On that occasion, he has to declare in the Temple that he “did not separate it while impure” (Deut. 26:14; Bikkurim 2:2). This implies that Second Tithe becomes desecrated by impurity and must be redeemed. The question is whether eating Second Tithe in any state of impurity is a criminal offense, for which the punishment is whipping. The thesis advanced here is that Second Tithe has a status equal to heave, so that tertiary impurity makes that tithe unusable.
The Babli certainly agrees that the statement of R. Joshua is not an endorsement of the practice since it quotes Mishnah Tahorot 2:2 in which R. Joshua disagrees with R. Eliezer whom R. Aqiba follows.
It is always held that first tithe after separation of the heave of the tithe is totally profane in the hand of the Levite, even if consumption is restricted to Levites of good standing., even⁶⁷he meaning of this word is unclear; possibly this is a reflection from “even” in the next sentence. according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food⁶⁸This means that as far as the status of purity is concerned, the touch of a ṭevul yom is totally irrelevant., also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food⁶⁹Since Second Tithe is eaten by the farmer’s family, without anything being given to Cohanim or Levites, it cannot have the status of sanctified food.. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes⁷⁰Since for profane food one has only primary and secondary impurity, not tertiary, the same holds for tithes. This contradicts the statement quoted earlier in the name of R. Eleazar.. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate⁷¹Reading בָּכַל as contraction of בְּאָכַל. profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe⁷²Chapter 2 of Ṭahorot, which was quoted in the previous paragraph and which details the stages of impurity, mentions only profane, heave, and sacrificial foods. Since the tithes are not mentioned and First Tithe is profane, it is clear that tithes are classified with profane food.. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.”⁷³Deut. 26:14. It is clear that if the farmer ate some Second Tithe in impurity, he cannot make the declaration in the Temple. But this does not imply that eating in impurity is forbidden as a criminal act. Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear⁷⁴Since the verse classifies all that is mentioned there as God’s commandments, necessarily the infractions which bar the farmer from making the declaration are criminal acts.?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana⁷⁶R. Mana I.: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids⁷⁷It is a general principle that impure fluids are always primarily impure (cf. Mishnah Parah 8:7, Berakhot Chapter 5, Note 46; Demay Chapter 2, Note 137). This implies that fluids are never just invalid; if they were in contact with impurity, they are always active polluters. This is a rabbinic rule. The sources are discussed in detail in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale 1995), pp. 230–231.? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more⁷⁸By rabbinic rule, unwashed hands are always secondarily impure. Washed hands remain pure as long as one does not forget about them. The argument here is that the rabbinic institution of impure hands would be incomplete and inconsistent if biblically impure foods did not have the same effect. There is no claim that secondarily impure food defiles fluids to be primarily impure by biblical standards.? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity⁷⁹This statement parallels the formulation everywhere in the Babli that impure fluids of any degree act as if impure in the first degree.
The entire argument is not relevant for practice, as noted at the end of the paragraph, since Mishnah Tahorot 4:2 declares the food that might have been touched by secondarily impure food as pure. This is a sure sign that the argument here follows R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure⁸⁰Profane food cannot become impure by secondary impurity. Heave can become impure, but in a public place a doubtful impurity is inactive.! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana⁸¹He seems to be R. Ḥanania of Sepphoris arguing before R. Mana II.: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure”³⁵Probably he reads יְטַמֵּא “it will defile” in place of יִטְמָא “it shall become impure”. Revocalization of the consonantal text is a technique accepted by R. Aqiba, rejected by R. Ismael. as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba⁸²If secondary impurity is active, it must follow R. Aqiba who equates profane and heave foods in their stages of impurity. For everybody else, the arguments are irrelevant.?

There⁸³In Babylonia. However, in the Babli, Pesaḥim 17a, only one verse is discussed and Rav thinks that the question was about fourth degree impurity and the Cohen’s answer was wrong but Samuel thinks that the question was about fifth degree and the answer was correct. Modern commentaries on Ḥaggai 2:12–13 do not contribute to the understanding of the verses., they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. ⁸⁴Ḥag. 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food⁸⁵This argument gives biblical status to impurity of the fourth degree but rabbinical to the primary impurity of all impure fluids. Therefore, it belongs to the tradition of R. Aqiba.. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead⁸⁶In that case, the garment of the mourner would have original impurity and the sacrificial meat would be impure in the first degree. and touched these. Would it be impure? “The Cohanim answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree [impurity] for sanctified food⁸⁷In that case, both answers were correct.. Then why did he curse them⁸⁸He really did not curse them but needed the answer “impure” as a starting point of his sermon.? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure⁸⁹Ḥag. 2:14.”? That is what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite⁹⁰A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 163. under the altar.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: They were expert in pushings⁹⁰A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 163. but not expert in slight impurities. ⁸⁴Ḥag. 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat,” he asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts impurity by pushing. “The Cohanim answered, and said: No;” they answered him correctly. He asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts slight impurity⁹¹A person with gonorrhea imparts original impurity to anything he sits on (Lev. 15:10) directly or indirectly. Anything which is above the person becomes impure rabbinically in a “slight impurity”; cf. Mishnah Zavim 4:6, Demay Chapter 2, Note 162 and J. Levy’s long explanation in his Dictionary, vol. 3, s. v. מדף, with H. L. Fleischer’s long etymological note, p. 305.. “The Cohanim answered and said: It will be impure.” They did not answer correctly, for the impurity of the dead does not impart slight impurity⁹²Both kinds of impurity are restricted to persons whose own body is the source of the impurity..

Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Phineas, in the name of Rebbi Levi: He asked them about the fifth degree of sanctified food. ⁸⁴Ḥag. 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup third, wine and oil fourth, and the food of the fifth degree. Does there exist fifth degree impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did answer correctly, since there is no fifth degree impurity for sanctified food⁸⁵This argument gives biblical status to impurity of the fourth degree but rabbinical to the primary impurity of all impure fluids. Therefore, it belongs to the tradition of R. Aqiba.. Then why did he curse them⁸⁸He really did not curse them but needed the answer “impure” as a starting point of his sermon.? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Ornan the Jebusite⁹⁰A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 163. under the altar.

It was stated⁹⁴Sifra Ṣaw Parasha 9:2, quoted in Ḥagigah 3:2, fol. 79b; Babli 29b, Pesaḥim 18b/19a, Ḥagigah 24a.: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation⁹⁵If a person whose body was an original source of impurity is healed, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30; for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure at any place other than the Sanctuary. is not disabled for heave⁹⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:17. but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse⁹⁷In the Mishnah, following R. Aqiba. and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food⁹⁸Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:16; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(8).
It is proved that sanctified food is not in all respects more restrictive than sacrificial meat. It is remarkable that the Babli does not argue against the thesis of R. Yose since it clearly violates the rule דַּיּוֹ לָבוֹא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כְּנָדוּן “it is enough if inference drawn from an argument be equal to the premiss” (Baba Qama 25a). According to this rule, a passive impurity in the minor cannot become an active one in the major. The Yerushalmi knows no such rule; it needs the counter-example of R. Joḥanan. The difference between the Talmudim is that for the Yerushalmi, de minore ad majus is a rhetorical device but for the Babli it is part of a meta-logical system (cf. the author’s Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966; pp. 171–196.). Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes 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 bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse⁹⁹A similar interpretation is given as an additional baraita in the Babli, cf. Note 94. The authorship of the baraita is not indicated in the Babli. The verse quoted is Lev. 7:19, the subject of Sifra Ṣaw Parasha 9.: “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 cannot be eaten.

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel³⁴Lev. 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah.
The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material. which had become impure by a reptile¹⁰¹A dead reptile from the 8 kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.. 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 reptile¹⁰²Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grandfather” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, fol. 27d, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that 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: ¹⁰³Lev. 7:19.“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 ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables 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 expiation⁹⁵If a person whose body was an original source of impurity is healed, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30; for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure at any place other than the Sanctuary. who does not disable heave disables sanctified food⁹⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:17., it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables¹⁰⁴Everywhere here, פוסל “disables” should read פסול “is disabled”, except the second occurrence (which infringes on the rules of דַּיּוֹ, Note 98). 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 argument¹⁰⁵It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zebaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices¹⁰⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical..