מנחות 24:1 — Soncino English Talmud

and 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.