QUESTION: The Gemara (33b) quotes the Mishnah in Taharos (2:2) in which Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua disagree about the status of a person who eats food that is Tamei. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a person becomes Tamei with the same degree of Tum'ah as the food that he eats, whether he eats food that is Tamei with Rishon, Sheni, or Shelishi l'Tum'ah. Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that when a person eats food that is Tamei with Rishon l'Tum'ah or Sheni l'Tum'ah, he becomes Tamei with Sheni l'Tum'ah. When he eats a Shelishi l'Tum'ah, he becomes Tamei with Sheni only with regard to eating Kodesh.

The Gemara here explains that Rebbi Yehoshua argues that the Torah usually treats the Tamei food more stringently than the person who eats it, such as with regard to the amounts necessary for Tum'ah. A food is Metamei when it is the size of a k'Beitzah, while a person becomes Tamei only when he eats a Chatzi Pras. Accordingly, a person who eats a food that is a Rishon becomes a Sheni.

Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that a person who eats a Sheni becomes a Sheni because of the law that a Sheni causes another object to become a Sheni when the Tum'ah is transferred through Mashkin (liquid; the liquid becomes a Rishon, and what it touches becomes a Sheni). This is the basis to decree that the person who eats a Sheni becomes a Sheni (see previous Insight).

This comparison is difficult to understand. A Sheni causes another object to become a Sheni only when the Tum'ah is transferred through Mashkin. Why should the Sheni make the one who eats it a Sheni when there is no Mashkin to transfer the Tum'ah?

(a) RASHI (DH Al Yedei) explains that the basis for Rebbi Yehoshua's comparison is that eating Tum'ah is a stronger form of transfer of Tum'ah than touching Tum'ah. Therefore, if the law is that a Sheni causes another object to become a Sheni by touching it when Mashkin is involved, then it stands to reason that a person who eats a Sheni can become a Sheni even though no Mashkin is involved.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Sheni) seems to take a different approach. Tosfos explains that, as mentioned earlier (see previous Insight), it was necessary to decree that the person who eats Tamei food becomes at least a Sheni l'Tum'ah, in order for the Gezeirah to be effective. Only by making the person a Sheni will the decree prevent him not only from eating Terumah, but also from touching Terumah. Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the Rabanan needed a precedent for a Sheni l'Tum'ah making another object become Tamei with Sheni l'Tum'ah, because without such a precedent they would not have been able to decree that a person who eats a Sheni becomes Tamei with Sheni l'Tum'ah. Such a decree would have looked unreasonable and illogical. Once there is a precedent for a Sheni making another object into a Sheni, then the Rabanan could decree that the person who eats a Sheni becomes Tamei with Sheni l'Tum'ah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Taharos (2:2) in which Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua disagree about the status of a person who eats food that is Tamei. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a person becomes Tamei with the same degree of Tum'ah as the food that he eats, whether he eats food that is Tamei with Rishon, Sheni, or Shelishi l'Tum'ah. Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that when a person eats food that is Tamei with Rishon l'Tum'ah or Sheni l'Tum'ah, he becomes Tamei with Sheni l'Tum'ah. When he eats a Shelishi l'Tum'ah, he becomes Tamei with Sheni only with regard to eating Kodesh.

Ula and Rabah bar bar Chanah disagree about Rebbi Yehoshua's intention. Ula maintains that when Rebbi Yehoshua states that the Shelishi that was eaten was Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, he does not mean that if the Chulin was Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh that it does not become a Shelishi. Rather, he means that even Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah can become a Shelishi.

Ula says that Rabah bar bar Chanah disagrees with him and maintains that Rebbi Yehoshua indeed means that only Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah becomes a Shelishi. Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh does not become a Shelishi, because the laws of Kodesh do not apply to it (it can become Tamei only with Rishon or Sheni, like normal Chulin).

Where is this opinion of Rabah bar bar Chanah expressed? The Gemara cites in the name of Rabah bar bar Chanah a discussion between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua. At the end of the discussion, Rebbi Eliezer asks Rebbi Yehoshua why he maintains that a Shelishi can make the person who eats it into a Sheni, since Rebbi Yehoshua himself maintains that a person cannot attain a Tum'ah that is more severe than the food that he ate. Rebbi Yehoshua claims that a person cannot attain even a Tum'ah equal to the Tum'ah of the food that he ate, unless there is a precedent for such a thing. Why, then, does eating a Shelishi make the person into a Sheni? Rebbi Yehoshua replies, "I said only that a Shelishi makes a person a Sheni when the Shelishi was Terumah (or Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah). This is because with regard to Kodshim, Terumah is always considered Tamei (since it is not guarded with the same degree of vigilance as Kodshim)."

How does this exchange prove that Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that only Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah can become a Shelishi (and not Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh)? Rebbi Yehoshua is quoted as saying only that a Shelishi that is Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah can make the person who eats it a Sheni, but a Shelishi that is Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh cannot make the person a Sheni. That does not mean that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh cannot become a Shelishi; it means merely that one who eats a Shelishi does not make a Sheni.

(a) RASHI (DH Mipnei) explains that the inference is from the fact that Rebbi Eliezer asked this question on the view of Rebbi Yehoshua in the first place. It is evident from the question that Rebbi Eliezer did not understand that Rebbi Yehoshua's reasoning was that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah is considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh. Why, then, would Rebbi Yehoshua have limited his statement to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah? It must be that Rebbi Eliezer understood that the reason why Rebbi Yehoshua limited his statement to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah was that Rebbi Yehoshua maintained that there is no other food that can be a Shelishi (since Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh cannot become a Shelishi).

The Rishonim and Acharonim ask a number of questions on Rashi's approach. What indication is there that Rebbi Yehoshua agreed with Rebbi Eliezer's analysis of his opinion? When Rebbi Yehoshua responded that he mentioned Terumah for a different reason (that is, because Terumah is considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh), perhaps he meant to say that this is the only reason he had for mentioning Terumah, and he maintains that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh indeed can become a Shelishi, but it cannot make the one who eats it become a Sheni. (MAHADURA BASRA; see TOSFOS HA'ROSH.)

The MAHADURA BASRA answers that the inference that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees with Rebbi Eliezer's analysis of his opinion is from his introductory words, "Af Ani Lo Amarti" -- "I, too, only said...." These words imply that he agrees with Rebbi Eliezer's analysis, but he is adding another point to answer Rebbi Eliezer's question. (The Mahadura Basra mentions that Rashi emphasizes that the proof is from these words, and not only from Rebbi Eliezer's question.)

The MAHARSHA asks another question on Rashi's explanation. Why does the Gemara assume that Rebbi Eliezer could have understood Rebbi Yehoshua's mention of Terumah only as a statement that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh cannot become a Shelishi? There is another way that Rebbi Eliezer may have understood the words of Rebbi Yehoshua (before Rebbi Yehoshua explained himself). Rebbi Eliezer may have understood that Rebbi Yehoshua mentioned Terumah because he wanted to teach that even Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah can become a Shelishi! This, in fact, is the way that Ula understands Rebbi Yehoshua's words, as the Gemara earlier explains.

Many Rishonim and Acharonim discuss this question. The MAHADURA BASRA answers this question with the same answer that he uses for the first question. The words, "Af Ani Lo Amarti," imply that Rebbi Eliezer understood the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua correctly. Rebbi Eliezer understood that Rebbi Yehoshua did not make a person who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh into a Sheni. This is true only if Rebbi Eliezer knew that -- according to Rebbi Yehoshua -- Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh cannot become a Shelishi, because otherwise Rebbi Eliezer would have had no reason to think that there is a distinction between eating a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, and eating a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah. (A similar answer is given by the RAMBAN, TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ as cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes, and the MAHARAM.)

(b) TOSFOS (DH Af) cites "Yesh Mefarshim" who explain that the inference is not from what Rebbi Eliezer said, but from what Rebbi Yehoshua did not say. From the fact that Rebbi Eliezer asked the question that he asked on Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion, it must be that Rebbi Yehoshua's original statement included no mention of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah. This is why Rebbi Eliezer thought that the statement was not related to the fact that Terumah is Tamei with regard to Kodesh. However, from Rebbi Yehoshua's answer it is evident that his ruling indeed applies only to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah. Why, then, did Rebbi Yehoshua not clarify his statement when he originally said it? Why did he wait for Rebbi Eliezer to ask a question before he explained that he was referring only to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah?

It must be that Rebbi Yehoshua considered it self-evident that his statement would be understood as referring only to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, since Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh cannot be a Shelishi.

(c) The RASHBA explains that Ula's inference from Rabah bar bar Chanah's words indeed is from the fact that according to Rabah bar bar Chanah, Rebbi Yehoshua distinguishes between eating a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, and eating a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh. Ula maintains that anything that is not true Kodesh, but is only Na'aseh Al Taharas ha'Kodesh (or Terumah), is considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh (as Rashi writes according to Ula, in his second explanation, end of 34a). Therefore, if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh can become a Shelishi, then it certainly will make the person who eats it become a Sheni with regard to Kodesh, just as a person who eats Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah becomes a Sheni with regard to Kodesh. (According to this explanation, when Rebbi Yehoshua says that the Taharah of Terumah is considered Tum'ah with regard to Kodesh, he really means that the Taharah of anything that is not genuine Kodesh is considered Tum'ah with regard to Kodesh.)

(d) The RASHBA suggests another explanation, which he admits is somewhat forced. He says that perhaps Ula heard Rabah bar bar Chanah say more than is quoted in the Gemara. He heard Rabah bar bar Chanah state explicitly that Rebbi Yehoshua's response to Rebbi Eliezer was that the only thing that can become a Shelishi is Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, and not Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh.

(e) The VILNA GA'ON (in ELIYAHU RABAH to Taharos 2:2) presents a novel explanation that answers this question, as well as numerous other questions. The Vilna Ga'on points out that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that a Sheni can make the one who eats it become a Sheni, because of the precedent found elsewhere that a Sheni can make a Sheni. The law is that a Sheni causes another object to become a Sheni when the Tum'ah is transferred through Mashkin (liquid; the liquid becomes a Rishon, and what it touches becomes a Sheni). When Mashkin touches anything that makes Terumah become Pasul (that is, anything that is a Sheni l'Tum'ah), the Mashkin becomes a Rishon l'Tum'ah. The Mashkin can then make another food that it touches become a Sheni. In this manner, the Sheni has caused another food to become a Sheni. The Vilna Ga'on points out that a similar logic should apply with regard to a Shelishi. There is a rule that anything that can make Kodesh become Pasul (that is, anything that is a Shelishi l'Tum'ah) can cause water of Kodesh to become a Rishon, which in turn can cause another object of Kodesh to become a Sheni (Taharos 2:6). Therefore, based on Rebbi Yehoshua's logic, when a person eats a Shelishi he should become a Sheni, since the Shelishi can make water of Kodesh become a Rishon which will make another object of Kodesh become a Sheni.

Thus, according to Rabah bar bar Chanah who says that Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that a person does become a Sheni when he eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, it follows that there must be no such a thing as a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh. If there would be such a thing, then it certainly would make a person who eats it Tamei based on the abovementioned logic.

One may ask, according to the logic of the Vilna Ga'on, why does Rebbi Yehoshua find it necessary to explain that one who eats a Shelishi Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah becomes a Sheni with regard to Kodesh, because Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah is considered Tamei with regard to Kodesh? He should have presented a simpler argument: since the Shelishi can make water a Rishon with regard to Kodesh, it can also make the one who eats it a Sheni with regard to Kodesh!

The answer is that Rabah bar bar Chanah maintains that a Shelishi of Terumah cannot invalidate Kodesh (by making it Pasul as a Revi'i), and it also cannot make water of Kodesh into a Rishon (like the opinion of Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel on 35a). Therefore, Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah would not be able to make the person who eats it become a Sheni if not for the fact that it is considered Tamei (Sheni l'Tum'ah) with regard to Kodesh. However, Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh can make a person who eats it become a Sheni, because Kodesh which is a Shelishi can cause other food of Kodesh to become a Sheni (through contact with water). (M. KORNFELD; see also MISHNAH ACHARONAH's answer (in Taharos 2:2) to this last question.)

OPINIONS: Ula rules that when one eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, he becomes disqualified from eating Terumah because of his state of Tum'ah (he is considered a Shelishi l'Tum'ah). Rav Hamnuna challenges Ula's ruling from the Mishnah in Taharos (2:3). The Mishnah there states that Chulin that is a Rishon is Tamei and is Metamei food that it touches. Chulin that is a Sheni is Posel, but it does not make other things Tamei. Chulin that is a Shelishi may be eaten with Terumah mixed with it. If, as Ula says, one who is considered a Shelishi l'Tum'ah is prohibited from eating Terumah, then why may the Kohen eat Terumah that is mixed with Chulin that is a Shelishi?

The Gemara answers that a mixture is different, because there is so little Terumah mixed with the Chulin that one does not eat a k'Zayis of Terumah within the time span of "Kedei Achilas Pras." Therefore, the mixture is treated like ordinary Chulin, and not like Terumah.

There are different ways to understand the Gemara's question on Ula's ruling.

(a) RASHI gives two explanations for the Gemara's question on Ula's ruling. In his first explanation, Rashi says that the Mishnah in Taharos refers to a case in which Terumah fell into Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah that had become Tamei with Shelishi l'Tum'ah. The Gemara's question is that the Mishnah there implies that one who eats Shelishi (of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah) is permitted to eat Terumah, unlike Ula's ruling. The Gemara answers that although by eating the Shelishi he becomes forbidden to eat Terumah, he may eat this mixture because there is less than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras of Terumah in it.

TOSFOS (DH ha'Shelishi) adds that although there is a rule that eating a partial amount of Isur is also prohibited ("Chatzi Shi'ur Asur"), since the Isur of eating Terumah in this case is only a Gezeirah d'Rabanan the Rabanan were not so stringent to prohibit a Chatzi Shi'ur of Terumah.

(b) In his second explanation, RASHI (35a, DH d'Leika) explains that the Mishnah in Taharos is discussing ordinary Chulin, and not Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah. The Chulin into which the Terumah fell had touched a Sheni; ordinary Chulin does not become Tamei as a Shelishi. However, when Terumah falls into it, it must be treated with Taharah, like Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, and it can become Tamei with Shelishi. (Tosfos adds that even before the Terumah falls into the Chulin, if the person expects to mix a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras of Terumah into the Chulin, then he must treat the Chulin like Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah so that it will not be Metamei the Terumah.) The Gemara is asking how we can allow a Kohen to be Metamei himself by eating Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah which is a Shelishi, and will make him a Shelishi. The Gemara answers that since only a small amount of Terumah is in the mixture (less than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras), the Chulin does not need to be treated like Terumah. Rather, it is ordinary Chulin which cannot become a Shelishi. (Tosfos points out that the Mishnah in Taharos refers to it as a "Shelishi" only because it touched a Sheni. Alternatively, if more than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras of Terumah falls into the mixture, then it would have the status of a Shelishi.)

The RAMBAN questions this explanation. If a Sheni touched the mixture of Chulin that contains a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras of Terumah, then the Terumah in the mixture should become Pasul and should be prohibited to eat! Why, then, does the Gemara ask that the mixture should be prohibited because the person who eats it becomes a Shelishi? Even if he is Tahor, it should be prohibited, because the Terumah in the mixture is Tamei! (Tosfos avoids this question by explaining that the Chulin touched a Sheni before it was mixed with the Terumah, as mentioned above.)

The Ramban answers that if a Sheni touches only the Chulin in the mixture, then the Terumah in the mixture does not become Tamei.

(c) The RAMBAN suggests an explanation that is the opposite of Rashi's second explanation. The Mishnah in Taharos is discussing Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah. When it says that it is eaten with "Nezid ha'Dema," it means that one may eat a dish of Terumah that contains spices of Chulin that is a Shelishi. The Gemara initially thought that there is a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras of this Chulin in the mixture, and thus it will make the person who eats it into a Shelishi, and he should become prohibited to eat the Terumah. The Gemara answers that there is less than a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras of this Shelishi, and therefore it will not make the person who eats it into a Shelishi. (The Ramban concludes that the second explanation of Rashi is correct, based on his understanding of the Mishnah in Taharos.)

The TIFERES YAKOV suggests an explanation similar to that of the Ramban.

QUESTION: Ula rules that when one eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah, he becomes disqualified from eating Terumah because of his state of Tum'ah (he is considered a Shelishi l'Tum'ah). Rav Hamnuna challenges Ula's ruling from the Mishnah in Taharos (2:3). The Mishnah there states that Chulin that is a Rishon is Tamei, and it is Metamei food that it touches. Chulin that is a Sheni is Posel, but it does not make other things Tamei. Chulin that is a Shelishi may be eaten with Terumah mixed with it. If, as Ula says, one who is considered a Shelishi l'Tum'ah is prohibited from eating Terumah, then why may the Kohen eat Terumah that is mixed with Chulin that is a Shelishi?

Even without Ula's ruling, the Mishnah in Taharos is difficult to understand. The Mishnah states that one may eat a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah. Why should one be permitted to eat such a Shelishi? It should be considered the same as Terumah that became a Shelishi, which is prohibited to eat! (TIFERES YAKOV)

ANSWER: The MIKDASH DAVID (Taharos 40:1) proves from here that there is no prohibition against eating Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah that is a Shelishi. The laws of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah only give Chulin the ability to become a Shelishi (or a Revi'i for Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh), but they do not prohibit the food from being eaten. (With regard to the practical implication of becoming a Shelishi, see Insights to Chulin 35:1.)

This is also evident from RASHI (35a, DH d'Leika, "d'Afilu b'Chulin Mehani Sheni," according to the BACH #1, 36b DH va'Afilu; see RASHASH there). The ME'IRI in Sotah (30a, v'Zeh she'Bi'arnu) and the GILYON TOSFOS (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes here) prove this from the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua (33b), in which he limits the case of a person who eats a Shelishi to one who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah. The reason why he does not discuss a person who eats actual Terumah that is a Shelishi is that he is discussing a case of a person who does a permitted act, and not one who does a prohibited act. (The VILNA GA'ON in ELIYAHU RABAH to Taharos 2:2 also makes this inference from the Mishnah.)