מנחות 24 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and put [the two halves] into the mixing vessel, and then a tebul yom touched one of them, what would be the law? Does the rule which we learnt that with consecrated things a vessel unites all that is therein, apply only when they are touching one another, but not when they do not touch one another; or perhaps this makes no difference? — Said he to them, Did we learn, ‘a vessel joins’? We learnt ‘a vessel unites’; that is, in all circumstances. If one placed another [half-tenth] between them, what is the law? — He replied to them, [The rule is:] What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel unites; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not unite. And what if a tebul yom inserted his finger between them? — He replied: There is nothing other than earthenware vessels that can convey uncleanness through its air-space. He then put to them this question: May the handful be taken from one [half] in respect of the other? Is the principle of ‘[the vessel] uniting [its contents]’ Biblical or only Rabbinical? — They answered him, We have not heard of that, but we have heard of a similar case; for we have learnt: IF TWO MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM WHICH THE HANDFULS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN WERE MIXED TOGETHER, BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE HANDFUL FROM EACH SEPARATELY, THEY ARE VALID; OTHERWISE THEY ARE INVALID. Now where it is possible to take the handful [from each separately, it states that] they are valid. But why? The rest that is mixed together surely does not touch [the handful]? — Raba, however, suggested that perhaps the masses were spread in the shape of a comb. What is then the ruling? Said Raba, Come and hear, for it has been taught: And he shall take up therefrom, that is, from the whole; one may not therefore bring the tenth [divided] in two vessels and have the handful taken. It follows, however, that from one vessel which is like two vessels the handful may be taken. Said Abaye to him, perhaps by ‘two vessels’ is meant, e.g., a kapiza-measure fixed in a kab-measure; for although on top the contents are united, since the sides of the kapiza-measure form a partition below, one may not [bring the meal-offering therein]. And by one vessel which is like two vessels’ is meant, e.g., a hen trough, in which the contents, although separated by a partition, are nevertheless in contact. But in this case where they are not in contact the question still remains. R. Jeremiah raised this question: How is it where the vessel unites [the two half-tenths within] and there is a connection by water [with another half-tenth lying outside]? Does the rule which we learnt that with consecrated things a vessel unites all that is therein, apply to what is inside but not to what is outside; or perhaps since there is a connection it is united thereby? And if you were to decide that since there is a connection it is united thereby, this further question will arise: How is it where there is a connection by water [with one of the halves inside the vessel] and the vessel unites [the halves that are therein], and then a tebul yom touched the part that was outside? Does the rule which tacles, since the sides of the inner receptacle separate the contents of the one we have learnt that with consecrated things a vessel unites all that is therein, apply only to the case where [the uncleanness] came into contact with what was inside but not where it came into contact with what was outside; or perhaps this makes no difference? — These questions remain undecided. Raba raised the following question: What is the position if a tenth was divided into halves and one of the halves became unclean; afterwards these two halves were placed in the mixing vessel and a tebul yom touched that [half] which was already unclean? Do we say that it is sated with uncleanness or not? Said Abaye to him, Do we then say that a thing can be sated with uncleanness? Surely we have learnt: If a sheet which had contracted midras uncleanness^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:ouh kucy, a person who, having been unclean, had immersed himself during the day and must await sunset before he is deemed fully clean. He suffers now only a slight degree of uncleanness; he is deemed to be unclean in the second degree and can affect with uncleanness terumah and consecrated things.
^ᵇnote:Would the other part, not touched by the tebul yom, be unclean or not?
^ᶜnote:And if only a part of the contents of the vessel becomes unclean, everything that is therein is unclean; v. Hag. III, 2; 20b.
^ᵈnote:Sc. the contents of the vessel.
^ᵉnote:R. Kahana.
^ᶠnote:Which would imply that the contents of the vessel were in contact.
^ᵍnote:Even when they are not in contact.
^ʰnote:I.e., after having divided a tenth into halves he added another half-tenth, placing it between the two previous halves, and then this extra half was touched by a tebul yom. The question is whether the other halves are affected with uncleanness or not.
^ⁱnote:This extra half-tenth has no need of this vessel, and indeed could not be used together with the other halves in this vessel; consequently the other halves are not affected with uncleanness.
^ʲnote:Without having touched either the vessel or its contents.
^ᵏnote:And therefore the contents of this vessel are clean.
^ˡnote:I.e., when taking the handful is it necessary to take some from each half, or may it be taken entirely from one half in respect of the whole vessel? It must be noted that there was no contact whatsoever between the two halves of the meal-offering.
^ᵐnote:If the principle is Biblical then it is to be applied to all cases, even though the result would be one of leniency, as here with the taking of the handful. On the other hand, were it only Rabbinical, it would be applied only to such cases as would result in a stringent ruling, as in the case of uncleanness.
^ⁿnote:For only the quantities sufficient for the taking of the handfuls stand apart by themselves, the remainders of each meal-offering being mixed together, so that the remainder of one meal-offering is entirely separate from the handful of that same meal-offering. Nevertheless the offering is valid, presumably because all parts are united by the vessel; thus proving that the principle of ‘uniting’ is Biblical.
^ᵒnote:Like the teeth of a comb, joined at one end and separate at the other. In our Mishnah, the two meal-offerings were lying side by side and separated only at the ends wherefrom the handfuls might be taken. Where, however, the two halves were quite apart the question still remains.
^ᵖnote:Lev. VI, 8.
^ᵠnote:I.e., where the flour is divided into halves in the one vessel and there is no contact at all between them.
^ʳnote:I.e., the kab vessel was constructed with a kapiza vessel fixed in its hollow, the two forming in fact only one vessel but with two separate receptacles. The result is that when both receptacles are filled to the brim with the flour of a meal-offering there is no contact between the contents of the two recepfrom the other. And even if the flour was heaped up to cover the sides of the kapiza or inner vessel, so that ostensibly there is contact between the contents of both receptacles, it is still invalid, for the contact between the contents is not made in the vessel, but outside the vessel. Kapiza is a small measure; for kab v. Glos.
^ˢnote:I.e., a vessel separated into two divisions by a low bar placed at the bottom of the vessel (Rashi). According to Maim. the division of the bar is at the top only, so that the contents, although appearing divided, are really united below; v. Yad. Pesule ha-Mukdashim, XI, 22.
^ᵗnote:There were two half-tenths in the vessel not in contact, and another half-tenth lying outside the vessel was connected by water (i.e., a pipe or conduit running from the vessel to the place where the outside half-tenth lay) with one of the halves inside the vessel. Now the other half-tenth that lay in the vessel and which was in no wise connected with the outside half-tenth was rendered unclean; and the question is whether or not the uncleanness can be passed on to the half-tenth that is lying outside in the following stages: first the uncleanness is passed on by reason of the uniting force of the vessel to the other half-tenth that is with it in the vessel, and then the latter passes on the uncleanness to what is lying outside by reason of the water connection.
^ᵘnote:Hag. III, 2.
^ᵛnote:And the half-tenth that is outside becomes unclean too,
^ʷnote:The question is whether in the reverse process, where the uncleanness is to be brought in from the outside into the vessel, the connection mentioned would serve as a link so as to convey the uncleanness within.
^ˣnote:And there was no contact between them. At this stage there is no doubt at all that the other half-tenth is not unclean, since at the time when one half-tenth contracted uncleanness it was not in the vessel with the other half-tenth.
^ʸnote:I.e., once it has been rendered unclean it cannot suffer any further uncleanness, so that the other half-tenth that is now with it in the vessel remains clean.
^ᶻnote:Kel. XXVII, 9.
^ᵃᵃnote:Heb. xrsn. That degree of uncleanness arising when an unclean person, of those mentioned in Lev. XV, 4 and 25, lies or sits or treads upon or leans with the body against an object, provided that such object was fit and generally used for one of the above purposes.

²was used as a curtain, it becomes free of midras uncleanness but remains unclean by reason of contact with midras uncleanness. R. Jose said, What midras uncleanness has it touched? If, however, one that had an issue had touched it, it would be unclean by reason of contact with one that had an issue. At any rate, it says, if one that had an issue had touched it, it would be unclean, presumably even though [this contact was] subsequent [to the midras uncleanness], that is to say, it first had contracted midras uncleanness and then further uncleanness by reason of contact with one that had an issue. Now why is this? Should we not say it was sated with uncleanness? — He replied, Whence do you know to say that this contact by one that had an issue was subsequent [to the midras uncleanness]? Perhaps it was prior to the midras uncleanness, so that it was a case of a graver uncleanness being imposed upon a lighter uncleanness. Here, however, since at each [contact] there is only a light uncleanness, it is not so! One might prove it, however, from the subsequent [Mishnah] which reads: R. Jose agrees that where two sheets lay folded one above the other and one that had an issue sat upon them, the upper has contracted midras uncleanness, and the lower has contracted midras uncleanness and also uncleanness by reason of contact with midras uncleanness. Now why is this? Should we not say it was sated with uncleanness? — There they come simultaneously, whilst here they come one after another. Raba said, Where a tenth was divided [into halves] and one [half] was lost so that another was brought as a substitute, and then it was found again, and now all three [half-tenths] are in the mixing vessel — if that which had been lost became unclean, then it is united with the first half-tenth, but not with the substituted half-tenth. If the substituted half-tenth became unclean, then it is united with the first half-tenth but not with the lost half-tenth. If the first half-tenth became unclean, then it is united with each of the others. Abaye said, Even if any one of the half-tenths became unclean, it is united with each of the others, since they all belong together. And so it is with regard to the taking of the handful. If the handful was taken from the half-tenth which had been lost, then what was left of it and the first half-tenth may be eaten but not the substituted half-tenth. If it was taken from the substituted half-tenth, then what was left of it and the first half-tenth may be eaten but not the half-tenth which had been lost. If it was taken from the first half-tenth, then [what was left of it may be eaten but] the others may not be eaten. Abaye said, Even though the handful was taken from any one half-tenth, the other two may not be eaten, since they all belong together. R. Papa demurred, [You say that] what was left of it may be eaten, but one third of the handful has not been offered! R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya also demurred, How may the handful be offered, is not one third thereof unhallowed? — R. Ashi answered, The taking of the handful rests with the mind of the priest, and clearly when the priest takes the handful he does so only in respect of a tenth. [^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ

^ᵃᵇnote:Since it is no longer intended to be used for any of the purposes (specified in the prec. n.) which make it susceptible to midras uncleanness.
^ᵃᶜnote:Before it was used as a curtain. At this stage the sheet bears two kinds of uncleanness: midras uncleanness and the uncleanness from contact with one that had an issue.
^ᵃᵈnote:For as soon as it is used as a curtain the midras uncleanness vanishes and there remains now the uncleanness from contact with one that had an issue.
^ᵃᵉnote:And once it has contracted midras uncleanness it was no more susceptible to any further uncleanness.
^ᵃᶠnote:And it is admitted by all that a thing which had contracted a lighter uncleanness (i.e., one which can only convey uncleanness to foodstuffs and liquids) cannot be so sated with uncleanness as to preclude any graver uncleanness (i.e., one which can convey uncleanness even to men and vessels).
^ᵃᵍnote:For foodstuffs can only suffer light uncleanness. In our case, therefore, since the half-tenth has already contracted a light uncleanness it cannot suffer a further similar uncleanness.
^ᵃʰnote:The two kinds of uncleanness.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., the half-tenth which had not been lost will also be unclean for these two originally formed the tenth.
^ᵃʲnote:And this half remains clean; for at no time was it contemplated that what was lost and what was substituted for it should together make up the tenth.
^ᵃᵏnote:For the first half-tenth was intended to be taken in the first place together with what was lost, and subsequently with what was substituted for it, so that a relation was set up between the first half-tenth and each of the others, and therefore all are unclean.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘members of the same narrow house’; i.e., they all were intended to be used for the one meal-offering.
^ᵃᵐnote:Since originally these two made up the tenth for the meal-offering.
^ᵃⁿnote:The first half-tenth was intended to go with each of the other half-tenths and, inasmuch as the handful can serve only in respect of one tenth, there is one half-tenth which has not been rendered permissible by the handful; and as it is not known which it is, both may not be eaten.
^ᵃᵒnote:Presumably when the handful was taken out and offered up it was intended to serve everything that was in the vessel, so that one third of the handful should not have been offered, since that represented the superfluous half-tenth. Consequently the handful must be regarded as having been incomplete so that what was left of it cannot be permitted to be eaten. The reading ‘one third’ in the text is supported by MS.M. and Sh. Mek. In cur. edd. the text states ‘one sixth’; the meaning, however, is identical with the foregoing explanation, and is arrived at in this way. Since it is not known which of the two remaining half-tenths is the superfluous one which causes one third of the handful to be nullified, this result is therefore attributed in equal shares to each of the half-tenths, so that each is responsible for the nullification of one sixth of the handful,
^ᵃᵖnote:The third half-tenth is disregarded by the priest when he takes the handful; therefore, the residue of that half-tenth from which the handful was taken may be eaten, whilst the two remaining half-tenths may not, since we do not know which was the half-tenth disregarded by the priest. Quaere: where the priest expressly declared which half-tenth he disregarded and which he took account of, would the latter be permitted to be eaten? V. Likkute Halakoth. a.l.