Chagigah — Daf 24a

לא נצרכא אלא לשירי מנחה דאורייתא צריך לכלי הכלי מצרפו שא"צ לכלי אין כלי מצרפו

ואתו רבנן וגזרו דאע"ג דאינו צריך לכלי כלי מצרפו

תינח סלת קטורת ולבונה מאי איכא למימר אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה כגון שצברן על גבי קרטבלא דאורייתא יש לו תוך מצרף אין לו תוך אינו מצרף ואתו רבנן ותיקנו דאע"ג דאין לו תוך מצרף

ופליגא דר' חנין אדר' חייא בר אבא דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מעדותו של רבי עקיבא נשנית משנה זו:

הרביעי בקדש פסול: תניא א"ר יוסי מנין לרביעי בקדש שהוא פסול ודין הוא ומה מחוסר כפורים שמותר בתרומה פסול בקדש שלישי שפסול בתרומה אינו דין שיעשה רביעי לקדש ולמדנו שלישי לקדש מן התורה ורביעי בק"ו

שלישי לקדש מן התורה מנין דכתיב (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל מי לא עסקינן דנגע בשני וקאמר רחמנא לא יאכל רביעי מקל וחומר הא דאמרן:

ובתרומה אם נטמאת כו': אמר רב שיזבי בחיבורין שנו אבל שלא בחיבורין לא

איתיביה אביי יד נגובה מטמא חבירתה לטמא לקדש אבל לא לתרומה דברי רבי ר' יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר לפסול אבל לא לטמא

אי אמרת בשלמא שלא בחיבורין היינו רבותיה דנגובה אלא אי אמרת בחיבורין אין שלא בחיבורין לא מאי רבותא דנגובה

איתמר נמי אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא ידו

: It1 refers only to the remains of the meal-offering,2 for according to the Torah that which requires the vessel,3 the vessel unites, that which does not require the vessel,4 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?5 — 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 inside6 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 Mishnah7 was taught as a resent of R. Akiba's testimony.8 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]9 is, whilst being permitted [to partake] of terumah, [nevertheless] disqualified for hallowed things,10 how much more so should uncleanness at the third remove, which renders terumah invalid,11 produce in the case of hallowed things uncleanness at the fourth remove.12 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;13 we are surely dealing [here with a case] where it may have touched something suffering from uncleanness [even] at the second remove,14 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,15 but not where they are not connect ed.16 Abaye put an objection to him: [It is taught]: A dry [unclean] hand renders the other unclean so as to render hallowed things unclean,17 but not terumah this is the view of Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: so as to render invalid,18 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’?19 It is also20 taught: Resh Lakish said: They taught [this only] of his [own hand], but not of the hand of his fellow.21 Hanin who derives our Mishnah teaching from the Bible, for R. Akiba refers only to the remains of the meal eaten by the Priests (v. Lev. II, 3 et passim) to which the Biblical law (as the Gemara goes on to explain) does not apply. R. Akiba's testimony, which refers only to Rabbinical enactments? principle of iusbf ,uhvk ihsv in tck uhs (‘It is quite sufficient that the law in respect of the thing inferred should be equivalent to that from which it is derived’) discussed ibid., does not apply here, for otherwise the ‘a fortiori’ argument becomes valueless, for we know from Scripture that uncleanness at the third remove invalidates hallowed things; and those, too, who hold the principle of ‘Dayyo’ even where the purpose of the ‘a fortiori’ argument is defeated, would nevertheless not apply it here, since we are dealing only with Rabbinical not Torah degrees of impurity. assumes here that the term ‘unclean thing,’ can include something suffering from second-grade uncleanness, because we find that an object possessing uncleanness at the second remove is termed ‘unclean’ by Scripture; v. Lev. XI, 33, where the vessel possesses uncleanness at the first remove and its contents, therefore, uncleanness at the second remove. a case where the unclean hand is actually touching the clean hand at the time when the latter is in contact with hallowed things, the reason for this Rabbinic enactment being the fear lest the unclean hand touch the hallowed things. But Tosaf. (s.v. ihruc h,c ) explains the case to be one where the clean hand is touching the unclean hand whilst the latter is in contact with a defiling object (e.g., a sacred Scroll), and we are afraid that the clean hand may also touch the defiling object. things. these would remain clean, for one hand cannot convey to the other uncleanness even at the third remove so as to render, in turn, hallowed things invalid. Unwashed hands are generally regarded as possessing uncleanness at the second remove. disqualifies them but does not enable them to defile. previously in contact with the dry unclean hand, is able to defile hallowed things constitutes a new point of Rabbinic law, viz., that one hand possessing uncleanness at the second remove can convey to the other hand, without the help of moisture, uncleanness of the same grade; were the unclean hand wet this would not, of course, be remarkable, for since second-grade uncleanness renders liquids, by Rabbinic enactment, unclean at the first remove, the moisture on the unclean hand would in turn convey to the other hand uncleanness at the second remove. But if the Mishnah refers only to a case where the hands are connected, the fact that the hand is dry is pointless. for the defilement of the hallowed things would in that in-stance perforce have to be accounted for as a preventive prohibition lest the unclean hand touch the hallowed things (v. p. 151, n. 6). and in that case it would make no difference whether the unclean hand were wet or dry, for since it possesses second-grade uncleanness, it can defile hallowed things with uncleanness at the third remove.