Parallel
חגיגה 24:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
: It refers only to the remains of the meal-offering, for according to the Torah that which requires the vessel, the vessel unites, that which does not require the vessel, the vessel does not unite; and the Rabbis came and decreed that even though it does not require the vessel, the vessel should unite it. Granted with regard to the fine flour, but how are the incense and the frankincense to be explained? — R. Nahman answered that Rabbah b. Abbuha said: For instance, if he heaped them upon a leather spread: according to the Torah, that which has an inside can unite [its contents], that which has no inside, cannot unite [them]; and the Rabbis came and enacted that even that which has no inside should unite [its contents]. Now R. Hanin's teaching win conflict with that of R. Hiyya b. Abba, for R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: This Mishnah was taught as a resent of R. Akiba's testimony. HALLOWED THINGS BECOME INVALID [BY UNCLEANNESS] AT THE FOURTH REMOVE. It is taught: R. Jose said: Whence [is it deduced] that hallowed things become invalid [by uncleanness even] at the fourth remove? Now it is [to be deduced by] conclusion ad majus: if one who [only] needs to bring his atonement sacrifice [in order to complete his purification] is, whilst being permitted [to partake] of terumah, [nevertheless] disqualified for hallowed things, how much more so should uncleanness at the third remove, which renders terumah invalid, produce in the case of hallowed things uncleanness at the fourth remove. Thus, we learn uncleanness at the third remove in respect of hallowed things from the Torah, and uncleanness at the fourth remove by means of an a fortiori argument. Whence [do we deduce] from the Torah uncleanness at the third remove in respect of hallowed things? It is written: And the flesh that toucheth a thing unclean thing shall not be eaten; we are surely dealing [here with a case] where it may have touched something suffering from uncleanness [even] at the second remove, yet the Divine Law says it ‘shall not be eaten ‘Uncleanness at the fourth remove by means of? an a fortiori argument’; as we have said [above]. IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH, IF [ONE HAND OF A MAN] BECAME etc. R. Shezbi said: They taught [this only] of a case where [the hands] are connected, but not where they are not connect ed. Abaye put an objection to him: [It is taught]: A dry [unclean] hand renders the other unclean so as to render hallowed things unclean, but not terumah this is the view of Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: so as to render invalid, but not unclean. Now granted, if you say that [it refers also to] a case where [the hands] are not connected, [then the fact that the hand is] ‘dry’ is in that case remarkable; but if you say that [it refers only to] a case where [the hands] are connected, but not where they are not connected, what is there remarkable about [the hand being] ‘dry’? It is also taught: Resh Lakish said: They taught [this only] of his [own hand], but not of the hand of his fellow.21
—