Chagigah 24a (כד.) — the Talmud in English

He said:

resolved

Reish Lakish in the name of Bar Kappara:

Exact page location")

It was necessary

that Rabbi Akiva’s testimony—which is indeed only rabbinic—

only with regard to the remnants of a meal-offering,

after they were scooped, and the handful was burned, for with regard to them the vessel combines them only by rabbinic decree, but not by Torah law, as the reason will be explained below; and shortly the Gemara asks: This works well with regard to fine flour, but what is there to say with regard to frankincense and coals?!].

And why do the remnants of a meal-offering differ from other consecrated items, for which the vessel combines them by Torah law? Because:

from

By Torah law,

only consecrated matter that

requires a vessel—

whose sanctification is performed by means of the vessel, analogous to the incense in the pan of the princes, which the pan sanctified [Turei Even]—is that which

the vessel combines.

But consecrated matter

that does not require a vessel—

such as the remnants of a meal-offering, which are designated for the kohanim to eat—

is not combined by a vessel.

And the Rabbis came and decreed: Even though it does not require a vessel,

like the remnants of a meal-offering,

a vessel combines it.

And we still ask

:

Granted

that the remnants of a meal-offering, when they are

fine flour,

the vessel’s combining them is indeed only rabbinic.

But

incense and frankincense [and coals placed in a firepan for the incense, Meiri], with regard to which Rabbi Akiva likewise said that they become disqualified, implying that this is merely rabbinic [since we learned: “He added”],

with regard to incense and frankincense [and coals placed in a pan for the incense, Meiri], to which Rabbi Akiva also said that they become disqualified—and this apparently means only by rabbinic law [since the Mishna states “he added”],

what is there to say,

according to Rav Ḥanin, who maintains that the combining of a vessel is by Torah law? For these items do require a vessel!

He said:

explained

Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

The Mishna in Eduyot is speaking of

a case where he piled them—

the ingredients of the incense and the grains of frankincense—

on a kartavla [a tanned hide],

which has no interior, and combining in such a vessel is only rabbinic, because:

from

By Torah law, only a vessel that

has

an interior—

similar to the pan of the incense—

combines

what is inside it, rendering it one entity with regard to impurity.

But a vessel that

has no interior

does not combine

what is upon it into one entity.

And they came

and enacted

the Rabbis: Even though the vessel has no interior,

it too

combines

what is upon it.

And this disagrees with Rabbi Ḥanin,

who said that the combining of a vessel is by Torah law,

with regard to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba.

a. In the Gemara of tractate Menahot 24a, Rav Kahana said: “If it requires a vessel, the vessel combines it; if it does not require a vessel, the vessel does not combine it.” Tosafot asked there: Did the Gemara not say above that the Sages decreed that even when the material does not require a vessel, the vessel combines it? They answered in their first explanation: Perhaps Rav Kahana follows the Gemara’s explanation concerning frankincense and coals. Their explanation is as follows: The same explanation given by the Gemara for frankincense and coals can also explain the “fine flour” mentioned in the Mishna, and there is no need for bar Kappara’s explanation. Indeed, according to Rabba bar Avuha, sacred material that “does not require a vessel” is not combined even by rabbinic law. According to this explanation, Rabba bar Avuha’s statement was not intended to complete the Gemara’s preceding explanation; rather, it is a different explanation that disagrees with the preceding one, even though the Gemara did not say “rather.” According to this, however, it requires explanation what bar Kappara accomplished by explaining that the fine flour refers to the remnants of a meal-offering, since the difficulty concerning the incense, frankincense, and coals still remains. Nor can one say that bar Kappara agrees with their explanation, for if so, how did Tosafot know that Rabba bar Avuha disagreed with bar Kappara on this point? In their second explanation, Tosafot answered: The Sages decreed only with regard to the remnants of a meal-offering, because they required a vessel before the handful was removed from the meal-offering. But the discussion in Menahot concerns material that never requires a vessel at all, and in such a case even the Sages did not decree. According to this explanation, Rabba bar Avuha’s statement should be understood as completing bar Kappara’s statement: bar Kappara explained only the case of fine flour, whereas Rabba bar Avuha explained also the case of frankincense and coals. Although this explanation could also explain the fine flour, nevertheless the Mishna remains in its place, and the first explanation is also valid. b. Turei Even, in his commentary beginning “that does not require a vessel,” raised the following difficulty: Since, even according to rabbinic law, a vessel sanctifies material that does not require it only in the case of the remnants of a meal-offering, how could the Mishna say that this stringency applies to sacred material but not to teruma? Teruma does not require a vessel, and sacred material comparable to it is not sanctified by a vessel either. See there what he answered. c. The first explanation of Tosafot, which states according to Rabba bar Avuha that when material does not require a vessel it is not prohibited even by rabbinic law, disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimshon at the end of the first chapter of tractate Tohorot. He proved from Rabba bar Avuha’s own words that when material does not require a vessel, the vessel combines it by rabbinic law. For a vessel that has no receptacle does not sanctify material; therefore, it is material that “does not require a vessel,” and nevertheless it is subject to a rabbinic prohibition. Turei Even already raised this difficulty against Tosafot’s words in his commentary beginning “according to Torah law.” d. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimshon’s position also requires explanation. He wrote that Rabba bar Avuha agrees with bar Kappara that anything that does not require a vessel is not sanctified by Torah law, and only by rabbinic law does the vessel combine it. Since a vessel without a receptacle is considered a vessel that “does not require a vessel,” it follows that by Torah law it is not called “requiring a vessel.” Why, then, did the Gemara say that it does not sanctify by Torah law because of a new rule requiring a vessel with a receptacle? e. See what Turei Even wrote in his commentary beginning “according to Torah law” concerning the words of Tosafot and Rabbi Shimshon. f. Tosafot asked: Why did the Gemara not answer that by Torah law only a service vessel combines material, similar to the pan of the incense, but an ordinary vessel does not, and then the Sages came and decreed that even an ordinary vessel combines it? They did not resolve this.

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was on the basis of Rabbi Akiva’s testimony—

which is rabbinic, as it teaches: “He added”—

that this Mishna was taught,

in which we learned: A vessel combines what is inside it with regard to consecrated matter.

You have therefore learned from Rabbi Yoḥanan that the entire law of the combining of a vessel is only rabbinic! We learned in the Mishna:

The fourth degree with regard to consecrated matter is disqualified:

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived that the fourth degree with regard to consecrated matter is disqualified?

And it is a logical inference [it is derived by means of a kal va-chomer]:

And if one who lacks atonement

[such as a zav or a woman who gave birth, who immersed and whose sun has set, but who must still bring an offering for their atonement the following day; until they bring their atonement-offering, they are called “lacking atonement”],

who is fit with regard to teruma [Rashi],

is permitted to eat teruma, nevertheless he is

disqualified with regard to consecrated matter,

and is forbidden to eat consecrated items.

The third degree

of impurity, which is more stringent than one who lacks atonement, in that

it

is already

disqualified

with regard to

teruma.

That is, if one who is second-degree impure—even with regard to non-sacred matter—touches teruma, he renders it third-degree impure and disqualifies it.

Is it not logical that it should render

That is, if an object that is second-degree in ritual impurity—even unconsecrated material—touches teruma, it makes it third-degree in ritual impurity and disqualifies it.

a third degree of impurity upon touching consecrated matter—

a fourth degree with regard to consecrated matter—

and thereby disqualify the consecrated matter?

You might say: The subject derived from the inference should be limited to the same status as the source.

Since you are deriving this from the third degree with regard to teruma, when you derive from it with regard to consecrated matter, you should derive only that consecrated matter has a third degree of impurity, but you should not derive a fourth degree.

That is not so. Whenever applying the limitation “dayyo” would cause the kal va-chomer no longer to teach anything, because you have no need for it, you derive from it even more than from the subject serving as the source—

and

we have already

learned the third degree with regard to consecrated matter from the Torah,

as will be explained below.

And

if so, you learn

the fourth degree by means of a kal va-chomer,

since the third degree in itself is unnecessary [explained according to Rashi, Pesaḥim 18b].

And we explain it:

The third degree with regard to consecrated matter from the Torah—

from where?

As it is written: “And the flesh

[of consecrated matter]

that touches any impure thing

—

it shall not be eaten!”

Who—

that is, are we not speaking of a case in which

it touched

the flesh of consecrated matter

with a second-degree impurity,

which is also called “impure,” and

the Merciful One said: “It shall not be eaten”?

The fourth degree by means of a kal va-chomer—

this is what we said.

We learned in the Mishna:

And with regard to teruma, if one of his hands became impure,

the other remains pure.

But with regard to consecrated matter, if one of his hands became impure, he must immerse both; and if he does not immerse both and touches consecrated matter even with the pure hand, he renders the consecrated matter impure.

Rav Shizvi said:

This stringency that the Sages stated does not mean that the first hand has the power to render the second hand impure. Rather,

they taught our Mishna with regard to contact

[beḥibburin]

.

That is, it is a decree enacted by the Sages requiring him to immerse the second hand as well when he is about to touch consecrated matter with his pure hand while his impure hand is touching the pure hand [and this is the meaning of “with regard to contact”].

For in such a situation there is concern that the impure hand itself might touch the consecrated matter and render it impure.

Therefore they required him to immerse both hands. If he does not immerse them, and his impure hand touches the pure one, and while they are touching one another the pure hand touches consecrated matter, then each of the hands—even the pure hand—renders the consecrated matter impure, by rabbinic decree.

But when there is no contact,

for example, when the pure hand first touched the impure hand, then withdrew from it, and the pure hand touched consecrated matter,

no,

the consecrated matter does not become impure, because the impure hand does not have the power to render the other hand impure.

The Sages decreed that anything that disqualifies teruma renders liquids impure, making them “primary.”

That is, anything that disqualifies teruma—for example, hands that are second-degree impure and disqualify teruma through contact—if the hands touch liquids, they render the liquids first-degree impure.

An “impure” object is one that can transmit impurity further.

A “disqualified” object [with regard to the laws of purity] is one that itself became impure but does not have the power to transmit impurity further.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Shizvi from the following baraita:

A hand

that is impure, even when it was

dry—

with no liquids upon it that could become impure from the hand, become first-degree impure, and render the second hand that touches them impure [as is the law with liquids that render hands impure by rabbinic decree]—the hand itself

renders

the hand

that is its fellow impure,

the hand that touched it; thus the hand that became impure through the other has the power

“to render impure”

further,

with regard to consecrated matter.

That is, the consecrated matter touched by the pure hand [after it touched the impure hand] is “impure,” rather than merely “disqualified,” and therefore it has the power to render other consecrated matter impure.

The impure hand has the status of second-degree impurity, and the first consecrated matter touched by the hand becomes third-degree impure and disqualifies other consecrated matter, which becomes fourth-degree impure.

But not

does the impure hand render its fellow hand impure with regard

to teruma;

it will not even disqualify the second hand with regard merely to teruma.

These are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

The pure hand has the power only

to disqualify

the consecrated matter that it touches,

but not to render it impure,

so that it could disqualify other consecrated matter.

Therefore, if this consecrated matter, which is merely disqualified and not impure, touches other consecrated matter, it does not disqualify it.

And raise a difficulty:

Granted, if you say

that one hand renders the other impure with regard to consecrated matter

when there is no contact,

meaning that the second hand becomes impure from the first—

this is the significance of “dry”!

That is, the novelty of the baraita is understandable: Even a dry hand, which has no liquids upon it to render the second hand impure, causes the impure hand itself to render the pure hand impure.

But if you say that this occurs only

when there is

contact,

only when the impure hand is touching the pure hand at the moment when the pure hand touches consecrated matter,

no,

then the consecrated matter becomes impure through contact with the pure hand.

But

when there is no contact,

when the impure hand is not touching the pure hand,

no,

the consecrated matter does not become impure through contact with the pure hand, because it remains pure, since the Sages did not decree impurity upon it except when there is contact, due to the concern that at the time of contact the impure hand might also touch the consecrated matter.

If so,

what is the significance of

the hand being

“dry” what novelty is there in a dry hand that it renders consecrated matter impure]?

What novelty is there in saying that a dry hand renders sacred material impure?

After all, since we are concerned that the impure hand itself, which is second-degree impure, will touch the consecrated matter at the time of contact, it is obvious that an impure hand renders consecrated matter impure on its own, and it does not require the liquids upon it in order to render it impure?!

It was also stated

that the second, pure hand, which touched the impure hand, renders consecrated matter impure even when there is no contact, since it itself became impure [Turei Even]:

It was stated:

Reish Lakish said: They taught this

that a person's impure hand, which touches a pure hand, renders it impure,

only

when the impure hand touched his

hand

that is pure and belongs to him himself.