Pesachim — Daf 19a

בכל טמא לא יאכל מי לא עסקינן דנגע בשני רביעי מקל וחומר כדאמרינן

ואי ס"ד סבר כר"ע ניתני נמי רביעי בתרומה וחמישי בקודש

אלא ר"ע לא סבר כר' יוסי מנלן

א"ל דלא לישתמיט תנא וליתני רביעי בתרומה וחמישי בקודש ונימא ר"ע היא ואנן אהכי ניקום ונסמוך

נפק רב אשי ואי תימא רב כהנא דק ואשכח הא דתנן הכלי מצרף את מה שבתוכו לקודש אבל לא לתרומה והרביעי בקודש פסול והשלישי בתרומה

ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מעדותו של ר"ע נשנית משנה זו (דתניא) הוסיף ר"ע הסולת והקטורת והלבונה והגחלים שאם נגע טבול יום במקצתן פסל את כולן

רביעי אין חמישי לא שלישי אין רביעי לא

אלמא קסבר צירוף דרבנן ופליגא דרבי חנין דאמר צירוף דאורייתא שנאמר (במדבר ז, יד) כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטרת הכתוב עשה כל מה שבכף אחת

תנן התם על מחט שנמצאת בבשר שהסכין והידים טהורות והבשר טמא נמצאת בפרש הכל טהור אמר רבי עקיבא זכינו שאין טומאת ידים במקדש

shall not be eaten:1 do we not treat even [of a case] where it touched a second?2 ‘While a fourth [is learned] ‘a minori, as we have stated. Now, if you should think that he holds as R. Akiba, let him also state a fourth in the case of terumah and a fifth in the case of sacred food.3 But how do we know that R. Akiba does not agree with R. Jose?4 — Said he to him, Because a Tanna could not completely refrain from teaching [that there is] a fourth in the case of terumah and a fifth in the case of sacred food, and we would say that it agrees with R. Akiba.5 And shall we arise and rely upon this?6 [Thereupon] R. Ashi — others say, R. Kahana — went out, searched, and found the following which we learned: A utensil unites its contents in the case of sacred food,7 but not in the case of terumah, and a fourth degree is unfit in the case of sacred food, but not in the case of terumah — Whereon R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: This Mishnah was learned as a result of R. Akiba's testimony. For we learned, R. Akiba added8 the fine meal, incense, frankincense, and the burning coals, that if a tebul yom touches part thereof he renders all unfit.9 Thus there is a fourth [in sacred food], but not a fifth; a third [in the case of terumah]. but not a fourth.10 This proves that he holds that [the power of] uniting is Rabbinical.11 Now he differs from R. Hanin who maintained: [The power of] uniting is Biblical, for it is said, one golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense:12 the Writ rendered everything in the pan one. We learned elsewhere: [He testified] concerning an [unclean] needle which is found in the flesh [of a sacrifice], that the knife13 and the hands14 are clean, while the flesh is unclean; if found in the excrements,15 it is all clean — R. Akiba said: We have been favoured in that there is no uncleanness of the hands in the Temple.16 though permitted to eat hullin, is unfit to eat terumah, then surely a third, which is unfit in the case of hullin, creates a fourth in the case of terumah. And we cannot defile this by the principle that it is sufficient for what is learned a minori to be like its premise, for in that case the deduction is superfluous, for a third in the case of terumah is learned direct from Scripture from the same source whence we learn a third in the case of hullin (v. supra 18a). Hence the deduction a minori must be in respect of a fourth, while a fifth would then follow on the same lines from one who lacks atonement. the other is defiled too, because the vessel makes them, both as one. each other, for in that case we would have to go in order to render all the particles unfit even beyond a fifth. V. ‘Ed., Sonc. ed. p. 47 notes. and sacred food respectively. frankincense and live coals, is only Rabbinical, for they are subject to defilement only by Rabbinical, not by Scriptural law (Rashi). Tosaf. offers another explanation. applied to the