Study Niddah folio 47A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
it is subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla, the portion of the dough designated for the priest. And although teruma fell into it, that produce does not have the status of teruma, as the teruma was nullified by a majority of non-sacred produce. Consequently, it is not rendered unfit for con
The rabbis assumed that the one who said that teruma in the present applies by Torah law maintains that ḥalla likewise applies in the present by Torah law, whereas the one who said that teruma in the present applies by rabbinic law holds that ḥalla also applies by rabbinic law. If so, granted, if
But if you say that ḥalla in the present applies by Torah law, can a mixture that has the status of teruma by rabbinic law come and abrogate the mitzva of ḥalla which is by Torah law? Evidently, according to R' Yosei the obligation of separating ḥalla in the present is by rabbinic law, and therefo
The Talmud rejects this proof: But perhaps R' Yosei maintains that teruma in the present applies by Torah law and yet ḥalla applies by rabbinic law, and therefore the mixture discussed in the above baraita, which has the status of teruma by Torah law, abrogates the obligation of ḥalla, which is by
The Talmud adds: And this answer is as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, responded to the statement of the other rabbis. As Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I once found the rabbis of the study hall of Rav sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said that teruma in the present applies by