Chagigah

They rendered it as though defiled by a [dead] reptile.1 — If so. it should not render a person unclean;2 why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion? — [You must say], therefore, They rendered it as though defiled by a corpse.If so, it should require sprinkling on the third and seventh day; why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion? [implying only] immersion, but not sprinkling on the third and seventh day! — [You must say], therefore, They rendered it as though in its seventh day after defilement by a corpse.3 But surely it is taught: They never introduced any innovation in connection with the [red heifer!4 — Abaye answered: [It means] that they never said that a spade. [for instance]. should be rendered unclean as a seat [on which a gonorrhoeist sat].5 As it is taught: And he that sitteth on any thing:6 I might [have thought] that if [the gonorrhoeist] inverted a se'ah [measure] and sat upon it, [or] a Tarkab7 [measure] and sat upon it, it should become un clean, therefore the text teaches us: And he that sitteth on any thing whereon, [he that hath the issue] Sat ... shall become unclean;8 [meaning] that which is appointed for sitting;9 but that is excluded In regard to which we can say, Stand up that we may do our work.10 A VESSEL UNITES ALL ITS CONTENTS [FOR DEFILEMENT] IN THE CASE OF HALLOWED THINGS, BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH. Whence is this deduced? R. Hanin said: Scripture says: One golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense:11 thus, the verse made an the contents of the pan one. R. Kahana raised an objection: [We have learnt], R. Akiba added12 [with regard to] the fine flour13 and the incense, the frankincense and the coals,14 that if one who had taken an immersion that day [but had not yet awaited sunset]15 touched a part thereof, he renders the whole in valid.16 Now this is [an enactment] of the Rabbis!17 Whence [is this proven]? — Since it teaches in the first clause: R. Simeon b. Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification that if an unclean person touched a part thereof, he rendered the whole unclean; and then it teaches: R. Akiba added:18 — Resh Lakish answered in the name of Bar Kappara not require sunset for vessels finished in purity, for here the vessel is made to assume the uncleanness of an object defiled by a (dead) reptile (in respect of communicating defilement), which object in all other cases requires sunset. Thus a distinction is made, which clearly rejects the Sadducean view. of uncleanness’. attribution of corpse-defilement to the reed cut in purity represents a complete Innovation. Baraitha explains) it is an object appointed for sitting. Now the Rabbis never enacted a new law in connection with the red heifer, whereby an object on susceptible to a given type of uncleanness should become susceptible to it, e.g.. that a spade should become defiled as the seat of a gonorrhoeist: in this sense they introduced no innovations. But they did not refrain from attributing to a vessel the kind of uncleanness to which it was susceptible, even though it had not actually been defiled. Thus the reed pipe, though clean, could be regarded as though defiled by a corpse, since it could be subject to corpse-defilement. ( cah ), can imply repeated action i.e., that it did not just happen on this one occasion that someone sat on it, but that it was customary to use it as a seat (v. Rashi here and to Lev. XV, 4). B. Epstein in Torah Temimah (ibid. N. 20) explains the deduction to be drawn from the world hkf (E.V. ‘thing but really ‘vessel, article’) i.e., an article appointed for sitting. 12); this rule of defilement did not apply to the coals gathered every day by ordinary priests. It should be noted that though frankincense and coal are ordinarily not susceptible to uncleanness, they are rendered so in this case on account of their sanctity. does not defile) Terumah and hallowed things. its contents even for invalidation and not for defilement only (Bertinoro); or (b) that even flat vessels, not hollowed like a receptacle, can unite their contents (Maim. following our Gemara; v. p. 150). deduce that the rule applied to offerings on the altar, but not to the ashes of the red heifer. Since R. Akiba's statement is an addition to a Rabbinic rule, it follows that it must itself be a Rabbinic enactment.