Menachot

was used as a curtain, it becomes free of midras uncleanness1 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,2 it would be unclean by reason of contact with one that had an issue.3 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?4 — 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.5 Here, however, since at each [contact] there is only a light uncleanness, it is not so!6 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 they7 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,8 but not with the substituted half-tenth.9 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.10 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. 11 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 eaten12 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.13 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!14 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.15 [ to midras uncleanness. uncleanness from contact with one that had an issue. contact with one that had an issue. 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). light uncleanness it cannot suffer a further similar uncleanness. should together make up the tenth. 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. 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. 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, 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.