Chagigah 24a — the Talmud in English

He said:

he explained:

Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

The testimony of Rabbi Akiva does not need to be understood—

his testimony, which is indeed only rabbinic—

except with regard to the remainder of a meal-offering, after its handful had been removed and the handful had been burned on the altar, since in that case the vessel combines the remainder only by rabbinic law [and not by Torah law, as the Gemara goes on to explain the reason; and shortly afterward the Gemara asks: This explanation works for fine flour, but what can be said regarding frankincense and coals?!].

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 are the remnants of a meal-offering different from other sacred items, for which the vessel combines the contents by Torah law? It is because:

Из

According to Torah law, only sacred material that

only consecrated matter that

requires a vessel—

whose sanctification is accomplished by the vessel, similar to the incense in the pan of the princes, which the pan sanctified [Turei Even]—is the material that

the vessel combines.

But sacred material

that does not require a vessel—

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

is not combined by a vessel.

The Sages then came and decreed that although the material does not require a vessel—

as with the remnants of a meal-offering—

a vessel combines it.

And we still ask

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

This works for the remnants of a meal-offering when they are

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

fine flour,

for in their case the combining effect of the vessel is indeed only rabbinic.

But

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”],

что можно сказать о мнении Рав Ханина, считающего, что соединение сосудом установлено Торой? Ведь они нуждаются в сосуде!

what can be said, according to Rav Ḥanin, who holds that the combining effect of a vessel is by Torah law? These items do require a vessel!

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

Rav Naḥman said:

he explained:

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: The Mishna in tractate Eduyot is speaking of a case

in which

one piled the ingredients—

the ingredients of the incense and the grains of frankincense—

on a kartavla [a tanned hide],

which has no receptacle, and the combining effect of a vessel in such a case is only rabbinic. This is because:

подобно чаше для благовония, — тот

According to Torah law, only a vessel that

has

has a receptacle—

similar to the pan of the incense—

combines what is inside it so that it is considered one entity with regard to ritual impurity.

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

But a vessel that

has no receptacle

does not combine what is upon it so that it is considered one entity.

what is upon it into one entity.

The Sages then came

and

enacted that although the vessel has no receptacle,

the vessel nevertheless

combines what is upon it.

what is upon it.

And this disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanin,

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

and disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba.

в которой мы учили: сосуд соединяет находящееся в нём с посвящённым. Итак, ты узнал из мнения рабби Йоханана, что всё установление о соединении сосудом является лишь постановлением мудрецов! Мы учили в Мишне: четвёртый относительно посвящённого непригоден:

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From Rabbi Akiva’s testimony—

which is rabbinic, as the Mishna states: “He added”—

this Mishna was taught, namely, the statement: The vessel combines whatever is inside it with regard to sacred material.

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

You have therefore learned from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion that the entire law of a vessel combining material is only rabbinic. We learned in the Mishna:

The fourth degree of ritual impurity with regard to sacred material is disqualified:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: From where do we know that the fourth degree with regard to sacred material is disqualified?

It follows by an a-fortiori inference

it is derived through an a-fortiori inference]:

And just as one who lacks atonement

for example, a man with a discharge or a woman after childbirth who immersed and waited until sunset, but must still bring a sacrifice for atonement the following day; until they bring their atonement sacrifice, they are called “those lacking atonement”],

who is fit with regard to teruma

Rashi], and is permitted to eat teruma, nevertheless is

disqualified with regard to sacred material,

and is forbidden to eat sacred food.

And just as one who is third-degree

with regard to ritual impurity, who is more stringent than one who lacks atonement in that

is already

he is

disqualified

he

with regard to teruma.

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.

Should it not certainly make

a third-degree object in ritual impurity when it touches sacred material—

a fourth-degree object with regard to sacred material,

and thereby disqualify the sacred material?

Perhaps you will say: The subject derived through the inference should be limited to the same degree as the source.

Since you are deriving this from the third degree with regard to teruma, when you derive from it the law concerning sacred material, you should derive only that sacred material can become third-degree in ritual impurity, but you should not derive the fourth degree.

This is not so. Whenever applying this limitation would cause the a-fortiori inference to teach nothing further, because you have no need for the inference, you derive from it even more than the source case.

we have already

For we have already

learned from the Torah that sacred material can become third-degree

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

if so, you learn

And

you therefore derive the fourth degree through an a-fortiori inference,

since the third degree itself does not need to be derived [as explained according to Rashi in Pesaḥim 18b].

The Gemara explains this:

The third degree with regard to sacred material is from Torah law—

from where do we know this?

As it is written: “And the flesh [of a sacred offering]

that touches any impure thing

that touches any impure thing—

shall not be eaten!”

,

Is it so that

we are not dealing with a case in which

the sacred flesh

touched an object that is second-degree

in ritual impurity, which is also called “impure,”

and the Torah says: ‘It shall not be eaten’?

The fourth degree follows through an a-fortiori inference—

that is what we said.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

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

the other hand remains pure.

But with regard to sacred material, if one of his hands becomes impure, he must immerse both hands. If he does not immerse both hands and touches sacred material even with his pure hand, the sacred material becomes impure.

Rav Shizevi said:

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

they taught our Mishna only with regard to a state of contact.

.

That is, the Sages decreed that he must also immerse the second hand when he comes to touch sacred material with his pure hand while his impure hand is touching his pure hand [this is the meaning of “in a state of contact”].

For in such a situation, there is concern that the impure hand itself might touch the sacred material 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 hand, and while it is touching it the pure hand touches sacred material, then each of the hands—even the pure hand—renders the sacred material impure, by rabbinic decree.

,

But when they are not in a state of contact, such as when the pure hand first touches the impure hand, then separates from it, and the pure hand touches sacred material,

the sacred material does not become impure.

The sacred material does not become impure, because the impure hand does not have the power to render the other, pure hand impure.

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

That is, anything that disqualifies teruma—for example, hands that are second-degree in ritual impurity and disqualify teruma through contact—if those hands touch liquids, they make the liquids first-degree in ritual impurity.

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

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

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Shizevi from the following beraita:

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 in ritual impurity, and render the second hand that touches them impure [as is the rabbinic law concerning liquids that render hands impure]—the hand itself

renders impure

the hand

of the other,

which touched it, and the hand that became impure through contact with the other has the power to

“render impure”

further

with regard to sacred material.

That is, the sacred material touched by the pure hand [after it touched the impure hand] is considered “impure,” rather than merely “disqualified.” Therefore, it has the power to render other sacred material impure.

The impure hand has the status of a second-degree object in ritual impurity, and the first sacred material it touches becomes third-degree in ritual impurity. That material disqualifies other sacred material, which thereby becomes fourth-degree in ritual impurity.

But it does not

render the impure hand’s companion impure with regard to

teruma;

even merely to disqualify teruma, the second hand does not disqualify it.

These are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

The pure hand has the power only

to disqualify

the sacred material that it touches.

But it does not render it impure

so that it could disqualify other sacred material.

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

And the following difficulty arises:

,

Granted, if you say that one hand renders the other impure with regard to sacred material

, when they are not in a state of contact,

meaning that the second hand becomes impure from the first hand—

this is the novelty of the statement concerning a “dry” hand!

That is, the novelty of the beraita 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 applies only

when there is

when they are in a state of contact,

only when the impure hand touches the pure hand while the pure hand is touching sacred material,

then

the sacred material becomes impure through the touch of the pure hand.

But

when they are not in a state of contact,

when the impure hand is not touching the pure hand,

the sacred material does not

become impure through the touch of the pure hand, because the pure hand remains pure. The Sages did not decree impurity upon it except when there is contact, because of the concern that at the time of contact the impure hand itself might also touch the sacred material.

If so,

what is the significance of

what is the novelty of the hand

“dry”

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

For since we are concerned that the impure hand itself, which is second-degree in ritual impurity, might touch the sacred material at the time of contact, it is obvious that the impure hand itself renders the sacred material impure; it does not need liquids upon it in order to render it impure?!

,

It was also stated that the second, pure hand, which touched the impure hand, renders sacred material impure even when the hands are not in a state of contact, since the second hand itself becomes impure [Turei Even].

It was stated:

Reish Lakish said: They taught this

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

only

when the impure hand touched

his hand

the pure one, his own.