Previous Folio / Sotah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah

Folio 30a

then that which is unclean in the third degree through contact with what is unclean in the second degree — the second degree which is itself forbidden in the case of non-holy food1  — must all the more create a fourth degree with the holy!2  And should you reply [as stated above], 'It can, however, be objected.It applies to a tebul yom because he may be a primary source of defilement', behold he [R. Jose] derived his argument from one lacking atonement and [he] did not raise this objection.3

R. Assi said in the name of Rab — another version is Rabbah b. Issi said in the name of Rab, — R. Meir, R. Jose, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar and R. Eliezer all hold the view that what is unclean in the second degree does not create a third degree with non-holy food. R. Meir — for we have learnt: Everything that requires immersion in water according to the statement of the scribes4  defiles the holy, disqualifies the heave-offering, and is permitted with the non-holy and with the tithe. Such is the statement of R. Meir; but the Sages prohibit in the case of the tithe.5  R. Jose — as we have stated above; for if it were so,6  then let him derive a fourth degree with the heave-offering and a fifth with the sacrificial food.7  R. Joshua — for we have learnt: R. Eliezer Says: He who eats food unclean in the first degree is unclean in the first degree; [if he eats] food unclean in the second degree he is unclean in the second degree; and similarly with the third degree. R. Joshua Says: He who eats food unclean in the first or second degree is unclean in the second degree; [if he eats food unclean] in the third degree, he is unclean in the second degree as regards the sacrificial food but not unclean in the second degree as regards the heave-offering. This8  is said of non-holy food which was prepared in the purity of the heave-offering.9  [This means, does it not,] 'When it is in the purity of the heave-offering' but not when it is in the purity of the sacrificial food?10  Conclude, then, that he holds that [normally] what is unclean in the second degree does not create a third degree with the non-holy. R. Eleazar — for it has been taught: R. Eleazar says: The following three are alike: the first degree of defilement in the case of the sacrificial food, the non-holy and the heave-offering; it creates two further degrees of defilement and one of disqualification with the sacrificial food;11  it creates one further degree of defilement and one of disqualification with the heave-offering;12  and it creates one degree of disqualification with the non-holy.13  R. Eliezer-for we have learnt: R. Eliezer Says: Hallah14  may be taken from [dough] which is pure on account of that which is defiled. How is this? There are two portions of dough, one pure and the other defiled. He takes a quantity sufficient for hallah15  from the dough from which its hallah had not been removed,16  and places a piece less than the size of an egg17  in the centre [of the defiled dough] so that [it may be considered that hallah] had been taken from the mass [of the defiled dough].

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Non-holy food can become unclean in the second degree.
  2. [The advantage of this deduction consists in that it is more direct than that of R. Jose, which involves a second a fortiori reasoning to prove that there is a disqualification in the third degree in the case of the heave-offering (v. p. 145, n. 3) Tosaf.]
  3. I.e., that one lacking atonement is different since he may be a primary source of defilement. The reason R. Jose did not raise this objection is evidently because he is no longer regarded as unclean, and the same applies to a tebul yom. Consequently R. Jose cannot be said to agree with Abba Saul, but must agree with the Rabbis, hence the question of R. Johanan.
  4. Viz., things which, according to the Torah, are clean, but the Rabbis take a stricter view.
  5. To be eaten; v. Parah, XI, 5.
  6. That there was a third degree of defilement with the non-holy.
  7. From his own a fortiori reasoning cited above.
  8. That food in the third degree renders the one eating it unclean in respect of sacrificial food.
  9. I.e., when a priest took upon himself that even the non-holy food he ate should be in the same state of purity as the heave-offering. But ordinary non-holy food cannot become unclean in the third degree.
  10. [As non-holy food cannot be raised to the level of purity of sacrificial food. Rashi reads: 'but not when it is ordinary non-holy food'. This is also the reading of MS.M.]
  11. There is thus a fourth degree of defilement.
  12. There is then a third degree.
  13. And so there is no third degree with the non-holy.
  14. Part of the dough presented to the priest; v. Num. XV, 17-21.
  15. One twenty-fourth of the whole in the case of an individual and half of that proportion in the case of a baker.
  16. The pure dough.
  17. A quantity less than the size of an egg cannot communicate defilement.

Sotah 30b

 The Sages, however, forbid this. And it has also been taught: [The quantity1  may be] equal to the size of an egg. — [Now the schoolmen] held that both [these teachings]2  refer to dough which is unclean in the first degree, and that non-holy food from which hallah had not yet been taken is not like hallah.3  Is it not, then, to be supposed that they differ on this point: One4  holds that a second degree of defilement does not create a third with the non-holy,5  whereas the others hold that it does create a third degree with the non-holy?6  R. Mari b. R. Kahana said: All agree that a second degree of defilement does not create a third with the non-holy; but here they differ with regard to non-holy food from which hallah had yet to be taken. One holds that it is like hallah;7  the other holds that it is not like hallah. If you like I can say that all agree that non-holy food from which hallah had yet to be taken is not like hallah and a second degree of defilement does not create a third with the non-holy; and here they differ on whether it is permitted to apply the laws of defilement to non-holy food in the land of Israel.8  One9  holds that it is permitted to apply the laws of defilement to non-holy food in the land of Israel, the others hold that it is prohibited.10

ON THAT DAY R. AKIBA EXPOUNDED, [AND YE SHALL MEASURE] etc. On what do they11  differ? — One holds that the regulations concerning the Sabbath-limit are an institution of the Torah,12  whereas the other holds they are an institution of the Rabbis.

Our Rabbis taught: On that day R. Akiba expounded: At the time the Israelites ascended from the Red Sea, they desired to utter a Song; and how did they render the song? Like an adult who reads the Hallel [for a congregation]13  and they respond after him with the leading word.14  [According to this explanation] Moses said: 'I will sing unto the Lord' and they responded, 'I will sing unto the Lord'; Moses said: 'For He hath triumphed gloriously' and they responded, 'I will sing unto the Lord'. R. Eliezer son of R. Jose the Galilean declares, Like a minor who reads the Hallel [for a congregation], and they repeat after him all that he Says.15  [According to this explanation] Moses said: 'I will sing unto the Lord' and they responded, 'I will sing unto the Lord'; Moses said: 'For He hath triumphed gloriously' and they responded, 'For He hath triumphed gloriously'. R. Nehemiah declares: Like a school-teacher16  who recites17  the Shema' in the Synagogue, viz., he begins first and they respond after him.18  On what do they differ? — R. Akiba holds that the word 'saying'19  refers to the first clause;20  R. Eliezer son of R. Jose the Galilean holds that 'saying' refers to every clause; and R. Nehemiah holds that 'and spake' indicates that they sang all together 'and saying' that Moses began first.

Our Rabbis taught: R. Jose the Galilean expounded: At the time the Israelites ascended from the Red Sea, they desired to utter a Song; and how did they render the song? The babe lay upon his mother's knees and the suckling sucked at his mother's breast; when they beheld the Shechinah, the babe raised his neck and the suckling released the nipple from his mouth, and they exclaimed: This is my God and I will Praise Him;21  as it is said: Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou established strength.22  R. Meir used to say: Whence is it that even the embryos in their mothers' womb uttered a song? As it is said,

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. [According to R. Eliezer.]
  2. [The one that holds that the quantity should be less than the size of an egg as well as the other, that it may be the size of an egg.]
  3. I.e., like heave-offering in respect of the law of defilement. [But is treated like non-holy, both on the view of R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. For this reason even if the quantity placed between the two doughs is of the size of an egg it does not communicate the defilement in the second degree, which it contracts from the defiled dough to the pure one, since there is no third degree with non-holy.]
  4. R. Eliezer.
  5. [For this reason he allows in the second teaching a quantity of the size of an egg; and the reservation in the first teaching is merely as a precaution lest the piece of dough may come in contact with impure dough after the hallah has been designated.]
  6. This shews that R. Eliezer holds that there is no third degree with non-holy food.
  7. The Rabbis consider that it can create a third degree.
  8. In Ber. 47b R. Meir defines an 'Am ha-arez (v. supra p. 110) as one who does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity; but the Rabbis give a different definition.
  9. R. Eliezer.
  10. [And their concern is with the piece of dough placed between the two doughs which, though less than the size of an egg, can yet contract defilement.]
  11. R. Akiba and R. Eliezer, son of R. Jose of Galilee.
  12. R. Akiba takes this view; and therefore, according to him, the Torah had to make provision for the Sabbath-limit in the cities of refuge.
  13. He acts as precentor and his rendering is on their behalf so that they may thereby fulfil their duty to recite it.
  14. Lit., 'heads of chapters'. According to a statement in Suk. 38a, the response consisted of the word Hallelujah.
  15. Since he was a minor, his rendering would not exempt them from saying every word.
  16. Whose class was usually in the Synagogue and so he acted as Precentor.
  17. The word pores is lit., 'divide', and its exact meaning is disputed. V. Elbogen. Der judische Gottesdienst, pp. 514ff and the references cited there.
  18. Elbogen takes this to mean that the Precentor and Congregation read the verses alternately. Rashi's explanation is: he reads the benedictions preceding the Shema' which they repeat after him and then they read the Shema in unison. According to this explanation, Moses and the Israelites were divinely inspired so that they independently sang the same words in unison.
  19. In Ex. XV, 1.
  20. 'I will sing unto the Lord', and that only was the Israelite's. response.
  21. Ibid. 3.
  22. Ps. VIII, 3. E.V. 2.