Parallel
חגיגה 24
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
—
But R. Johanan said: Be it his [own] hand or the hand of his fellow; [and] with that hand he can [defile the other hand] so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean. Whence [is this deduced]? — From the fact that [the Mishnah] teaches in the second clause that the one hand defiles the other for hallowed things but not for terumah. Why am I told this again? Behold it has already been taught in the first clause! You must surely infer from this that it comes to include the hand of his fellow. And Resh Lakish, too, retracted; for R. Jonah said that R. Ammi said that Resh Lakish said: Be it his own hand or the hand of his fellow, with that hand [he can defile the other] so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean. Now [whether the second hand] renders [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean is [disputed by] Tannaim. For we have learnt: Whatsoever renders terumah invalid defiles the hands with uncleanness at the second remove, and one hand renders the other unclean: this is the view of R. Joshua. But the Sages say: the hands possess uncleanness at the second remove, and that which possesses uncleanness at the second remove cannot convey uncleanness at the second remove to anything else. Surely, [the meaning is], it cannot convey uncleanness at the second remove, but it can convey uncleanness at the third remove! — Perhaps, it does not convey uncleanness either at the second or the third remove! --Rather [is it disputed by] the following Tannaim. For it is taught: A dry [unclean] hand renders the other unclean so as to render unclean in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of terumah: this is the view of Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: That hand [can defile another] so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean. DRY FOODSTUFFS MAY BE EATEN WITH UNWASHED HANDS etc. It is taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonos said: Is there [a distinction in favour of] dryness in regard to hallowed things? Does not then the honour in which hallowed things are held render them fit [for uncleanness]? It refers only to a case where his companion inserted [the consecrated food] into his mouth, or he himself picked it up with a spindle or whorl, and he wanted to eat unconsecrated horseradish or onion with it, then in the case of hallowed things the Rabbis prohibited it, in the case of terumah the Rabbis did not prohibit it. A MOURNER [PRIOR TO THE BURIAL OF THE DECEASED] AND ONE WHO NEEDS TO BRING HIS ATONEMENT SACRIFICE [IN ORDER TO COMPLETE HIS PURIFICATION] etc. What is the reason? — Since up till now they were prohibited [from partaking of hallowed things], the Rabbis required them to take an immersion. MISHNAH. GREATER STRINGENCY APPLIES TO TERUMAH [THAN TO HALLOWED THINGS], FOR IN JUDEA THEY ARE TRUSTED IN REGARD TO THE PURITY OF [HALLOWED] WINE AND OIL THROUGHOUT THE YEAR; AND ONLY AT THE SEASON OF THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE-VATS IN REGARD TO TERUMAH. IF [THE SEASON OF] THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE-VATS WAS PASSED, AND ONE BROUGHT TO HIM A JAR OF WINE OF TERUMAH, THE LATTER MAY NOT ACCEPT IT FROM HIM. HOWEVER, [THE ‘AM HA-AREZ] MAY LEAVE IT FOR THE COMING [SEASON] OF THE WINE-PRESS. BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM, ‘I HAVE SET APART THEREIN A QUARTER LOG AS A HALLOWED THING’, HE IS TRUSTED [IN REGARD TO THE PURITY OF THE WHOLE]. IN REGARD TO JUGS OF WINE AND JUGS OF OIL
—