Chagigah

But R. Johanan said: Be it his [own] hand or the hand of his fellow; [and] with that1 hand he can [defile the other hand]2 so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean.3 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!4 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 invalid5 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.6 Surely, [the meaning is], it cannot convey uncleanness at the second remove, but it can convey uncleanness at the third remove!7 — Perhaps, it does not convey uncleanness either at the second or the third remove!8 --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?9 Does not then the honour10 in which hallowed things are held render them fit [for uncleanness]?11 It refers only to a case where his companion12 inserted [the consecrated food] into his mouth,13 or he himself picked it up with a spindle14 or whorl,15 and he wanted to eat unconsecrated horseradish or onion with it,16 then in the case of hallowed things the Rabbis prohibited it,17 in the case of terumah the Rabbis did not prohibit it.18 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],19 the Rabbis required them to take an immersion. MISHNAH. GREATER STRINGENCY APPLIES TO TERUMAH [THAN TO HALLOWED THINGS], FOR IN JUDEA20 THEY21 ARE TRUSTED IN REGARD TO THE PURITY OF [HALLOWED] WINE AND OIL THROUGHOUT THE YEAR;22 AND ONLY AT THE SEASON OF THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE-VATS23 IN REGARD TO TERUMAH. IF [THE SEASON OF] THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE-VATS WAS PASSED, AND ONE24 BROUGHT TO HIM25 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.26 BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM,27 ‘I HAVE SET APART THEREIN A QUARTER LOG28 AS A HALLOWED THING’,29 HE IS TRUSTED [IN REGARD TO THE PURITY OF THE WHOLE].30 IN REGARD TO JUGS OF WINE AND JUGS OF OIL own hand or the hand of his fellow (that hand can defile) so as to render invalid etc.’] ‘Infra (v. Tosaf. ibid.). view. The text in the Mishnah, apart from minor differences, omits the words ‘the hands possess uncleanness at the second remove’. other hand at an, so that, unlike our own mishnah, they would not accept any distinction in this respect between terumah and hallowed things. In other words, possibly the Tannaim do not differ as to whether the second hand invalidates or defiles hallowed things, but as to whether the second hand does or does not become defiled at all; on the view however that it does, an may agree with R. Joshua that it is rendered unclean at the second remove. it has been once wetted (cf. p. 124, nn. 6f). R. Hanina b. Antigonos assumes that the Mishnah refers to consecrated foods and that their ‘dryness’ means that they have not yet been fitted for uncleanness. distinction in favour of) dry things in regard to hallowed things? (It must refer to a case), therefore, where he picks up the cake with a spindle or a chip of wood and he eats with it an (unconsecrated) olive or onion; (it is permitted) in the case of terumah but not in the case of hallowed things’. The version of the Tosefta quoted by Tosaf. (s.v. tk ) corresponds more nearly to our own, but likewise omits the sentence, ‘Does not then the honour in which hallowed things are held render them fit for (uncleanness)?’, and makes the answer appear to be part of R. H. b. A.’s statement instead of a reply by others to his question. wood, do not come within the category of ‘Kelim’ (vessels or articles), and consequently are not susceptible to defilement. not susceptible to uncleanness at the third remove (V. p. 155, n. 2). imposed no prohibition in this case. According to the Gemara's explanation, therefore, the Mishnah does not refer to consecrated but to unconsecrated food; and ‘dry’ does not mean that the food had not become susceptible to uncleanness, but simply that it was dry at the moment for were it wet, then the hands would convey to the liquid uncleanness at the first remove (cf. P. 152, n. 4), which would render the unconsecrated food unclean at the second remove, and the latter in turn would disqualify the terumah by conveying to it uncleanness at the third remove (so Rashi here). Another view (refuted by Rashi here, although accepted by him apparently in his note to the Mishnah) takes ‘dry’ to mean that the unconsecrated food had not yet been fitted for uncleanness. seasons of the winepresses and olive-vats, he may be trusted in regard to their purity throughout the year (for another explanation v. Tosaf. s.v. vsuvhca ). For though an ‘am ha-arez, could not be trusted in respect to terumah, he could be relied up on strictly to observe the laws of purity in respect to hallowed things. terumah.