7/29/11

Talmud Bavli Hullin 34a-b - translation by Tzvee

S.             And why do we not support [the view that our Mishnah] refers to a case of [34a] unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering and is in accord with the view of R. Joshua? No, you cannot have concluded that. For it teaches regarding meat. And do we have any instance of meat subject to heave-offering?

T.            What then? [Mishnah must deal with unconsecrated things prepared in cleanness appropriate to] consecrated things. Do we have any instances of wild animals subject to use as consecrated things [i.e., for sacrifice]? [Nevertheless you could make the argument that this precaution of preparing meat of a wild animal in cleanness appropriate to consecrated things makes sense.] He might mix up this meat with other meat [so he would want all of it to meet the higher standards]. He will not mix up this meat with produce [subject to heave-offering. So it is not reasonable to say that the standards for heave-offering pertain in our case.]

U.            Said Ulla, “The associates say [the Mishnah refers to] unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things, and not in accord with the view of R. Joshua. And I believe it is in accord with the view of R. Joshua and he stated matters in the most efficient way.”

V.            It is most efficient to say: [the Mishnah refers to] unconsecrated things prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things because this is the most strict set of rules for it also contains a rule for the third remove of uncleanness. [And the reason Joshua stated matters in connection with heave-offering was to teach us] that even unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering also has a rule for the third remove of uncleanness.

W.           Who are the associates? It is [the view of] Rabbah bar bar Hannah. For said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said R. Yohanan, “What was the nature of the debate between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua? ”[It was as follows.]
X.            R. Eliezer [could have] said to R. Joshua, “We find an instance where the one who eats becomes more strictly unclean than the food he eats. [How so?] In the case of carrion of a clean [species of] bird by external contact it does not render a person unclean. Yet it renders unclean the clothing of one who swallows its flesh. And should we not render one who eats unclean food, unclean at least to the level of the food itself?”

Y.            And R. Joshua [could have replied], “From the rule regarding the carrion of a clean bird we cannot derive any inference. It is a novel rule [and pertains only to that instance]. But we find that the food is subject to a more strict rule than the one who eats it. [How so?] In the case of a food itself, it contracts uncleanness in the quantity of an egg's bulk. But a person who eats [unclean food] must eat half a loaf [i.e., two eggs' bulk]. And should we not render the one who eats unclean with the same measure as that which pertains to the food itself?”

Z.            And R. Eliezer [could have replied], “You cannot derive an argument about the rules for rendering things unclean by an analogy to the rules of minimum quantities for contracting uncleanness. And furthermore according to your argument you say that one who eats food unclean in the first remove becomes unclean in the second remove. That is logical. But why should one who eats food unclean in the second remove become unclean in the second remove?”

AA.        He [Joshua could have] said to him, “We find [an analogy] that something unclean in the second remove renders something else unclean in the second remove in the case of liquids. [When food unclean in the second remove that comes into contact with wet food, it renders the liquid unclean in the first remove, and that in turn renders the food unclean in the second remove].”

BB.          He [Eliezer could have] said to him, “But lo liquids also can become unclean in the first remove [when they come into contact with foods unclean in the second remove]. [They differ from solid foods in that respect.] As it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, Whatever spoils heave-offering renders the liquid unclean, to be in the first remove... (except for a tebul-yom) [M. Parah 8:7]. [Even though he renders heave-offering unclean, he does not render liquids unclean in the first remove (Rashi).] And furthermore, why should one who eats food unclean in the third remove become unclean in the second remove?”

CC.         He [Joshua could have] said to him, “Even I only said [one who eats food unclean in the third remove becomes unclean in the second remove] with regard to [food prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering] whose status of cleanness [in the third remove] [34b] is considered a status of uncleanness [in the second remove] with regard to consecrated things.” [Rabbah bar bar Hannah's understanding of the dispute leaves us with Joshua's view that there is no third remove of uncleanness in unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things. This outcome supports the statement back at U, where Ulla referred to the associates who said the Mishnah could not accord with R. Joshua (Cashdan, following Rashi).]

II.1
A.            Said R. Zira, said R. Assi, said R. Yohanan, said R. Yannai, “He who eats food unclean in the third remove from those unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things, his body becomes unclean in the second remove with regard to consecrated things.”

B.            R. Zira raised an objection to R. Assi, “That which is unclean in the third remove is deemed unclean in the second remove with regard to consecrated things and not in the second remove with regard to heave-offering. This pertains to unconsecrated things that are prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering but not to that prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to consecrated things.”

C.            He [Assi] said to him, “He stated matters in the most efficient way.” But has it not been stated [in Yohanan's name] that I only stated matters with regard to [unconsecrated things prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to] heave-offering? [Yohanan's view of Joshua is not clear.]

D.            The matter of R. Yohanan's view is disputed by Amoraic authorities.

II.2
A.            Said Ulla, “He who eats food unclean in the third remove from those unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering, his body becomes unfit to eat heave-offering.” What new point does this make? It was taught: [One who is unclean] in the third remove is deemed to be unclean in the second remove with regard to consecrated things and not deemed unclean in the second remove with regard to heave-offering. This pertains to unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions appropriate to heave-offering. He is not deemed unclean in the second remove. But he is deemed unclean in the third remove. [Ulla's statement is redundant.]

B.            Based on this I would have reasoned that he is neither unclean in the second remove nor unclean in the third remove. And because it says he is unclean in the second remove as far as unconsecrated things prepared in conditions appropriate to consecrated things are concerned, it says also that he is not deemed unclean in the second remove as far as unconsecrated things prepared in conditions appropriate to heave-offering are concerned. It comes to make the novel point [according to Ulla that he is unclean in the third remove].

II.3
A.            R. Hamnuna raised an objection to Ulla, Unconsecrated food: in the first remove is unclean and renders [heave-offering] unclean. In the second remove is unfit but does not convey uncleanness. And in the third remove is eaten in pottage of heave-offering [M. Toh. 2:3]. And if you say [II.1 A], [He who eats food unclean in the third remove from those unconsecrated things that were prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering], his body becomes unfit to eat heave-offering, would we provide him with something that renders his body unfit?


1 comment:

Tor Hershman said...

)))((((((
(*)...(*)
....U....
.[____].