פסחים 19:1 — Soncino English Talmud

shall not be eaten: do we not treat even [of a case] where it touched a second? ‘While a fourth [is learned] ‘a minori, as we have stated. Now, if you should think that he holds as R. Akiba, let him also state a fourth in the case of terumah and a fifth in the case of sacred food. But how do we know that R. Akiba does not agree with R. Jose? — Said he to him, Because a Tanna could not completely refrain from teaching [that there is] a fourth in the case of terumah and a fifth in the case of sacred food, and we would say that it agrees with R. Akiba. And shall we arise and rely upon this? [Thereupon] R. Ashi — others say, R. Kahana — went out, searched, and found the following which we learned: A utensil unites its contents in the case of sacred food, but not in the case of terumah, and a fourth degree is unfit in the case of sacred food, but not in the case of terumah — Whereon R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: This Mishnah was learned as a result of R. Akiba's testimony. For we learned, R. Akiba added the fine meal, incense, frankincense, and the burning coals, that if a tebul yom touches part thereof he renders all unfit. Thus there is a fourth [in sacred food], but not a fifth; a third [in the case of terumah]. but not a fourth. This proves that he holds that [the power of] uniting is Rabbinical. Now he differs from R. Hanin who maintained: [The power of] uniting is Biblical, for it is said, one golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense: the Writ rendered everything in the pan one. We learned elsewhere: [He testified] concerning an [unclean] needle which is found in the flesh [of a sacrifice], that the knife and the hands are clean, while the flesh is unclean; if found in the excrements, it is all clean — R. Akiba said: We have been favoured in that there is no uncleanness of the hands in the Temple.16^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:Lev. VII, 19.
^ᵇnote:For a ‘second’ is called unclean; thus Scripture intimates that a second makes a third in sacred food.
^ᶜnote:For if he holds that there is a third in the case of hullin, he can deduce these a minori. Thus: if a tebul yom (v. Glos.). though permitted to eat hullin, is unfit to eat terumah, then surely a third, which is unfit in the case of hullin, creates a fourth in the case of terumah. And we cannot defile this by the principle that it is sufficient for what is learned a minori to be like its premise, for in that case the deduction is superfluous, for a third in the case of terumah is learned direct from Scripture from the same source whence we learn a third in the case of hullin (v. supra 18a). Hence the deduction a minori must be in respect of a fourth, while a fifth would then follow on the same lines from one who lacks atonement.
^ᵈnote:In the validity of this argument.
^ᵉnote:For R. Akiba must hold thus if he
^ᶠnote:This is merely a negative argument?
^ᵍnote:If two pieces of sacred food are lying in a vessel, not touching each other, and an unclean object touches one piece, the other is defiled too, because the vessel makes them, both as one.
^ʰnote:In his testimony on ‘that day’, v. p. 71, n. 3.
^ⁱnote:This must be because the vessel which contains them makes the various particles one, and not just because they touch each other, for in that case we would have to go in order to render all the particles unfit even beyond a fifth. V. ‘Ed., Sonc. ed. p. 47 notes.
^ʲnote:Thus we have a positive proof that R. Akiba does not hold that there are a fourth and a fifth in the case of terumah and sacred food respectively.
^ᵏnote:Since R. Johanan states that this Mishnah was taught as a result of R. Akiba's testimony, referring as it does to frankincense and live coals, is only Rabbinical, for they are subject to defilement only by Rabbinical, not by Scriptural law (Rashi). Tosaf. offers another explanation.
^ˡnote:Num. VII, 14.
^ᵐnote:Wherewith the animal was slaughtered.
^ⁿnote:Of the priest who touched the animal.
^ᵒnote:Inside the animal.
^ᵖnote:The uncleanness of the hands in general is only Rabbinical, and R. Akiba maintains that this enactment never applied to the