Chagigah 24b — the Talmud in English

However

if his impure hand touched

his fellow’s hand

which was pure, it

does not

render his fellow’s hand impure, not even with regard to sacred things.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A. An impure hand that touched a pure hand—the second hand becomes impure!

Whether

the impure hand touched

his own

pure hand,

or whether

his hand touched

his fellow’s hand

which was pure. And it disqualifies sacred things.

B. And that which I said, that if his hand touched his fellow’s hand, his fellow’s hand became impure and disqualifies sacred things, this is only when

with that same hand

of his that was impure he touched his fellow’s hand.

However, if he first touched his other hand, the pure one, and afterward the other hand [which became impure through his first hand] touched his fellow’s hand—it does not have the power to render his fellow’s hand impure, and not even to disqualify sacred things.

C. And I said that a hand renders its fellow hand impure—whether his own or his fellow’s—only in order

to disqualify

sacred things,

but not to render impure,

for that sacred thing does not disqualify another sacred thing.

From where

do we have it to learn that a hand renders even his fellow’s hand impure?

As it was taught in the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“That the hand renders its fellow hand impure with regard to sacred things, but not with regard to teruma.”

And

this again [the same law twice, that the hand renders its fellow hand impure with regard to sacred things]—

the same law is stated twice: that one hand renders another impure with regard to sacred food]—

why is it necessary

for the tan­nay to repeat and say it? For

it was already taught to him

earlier, in the

first clause

of our Mishna, that with regard to sacred things he immerses both of them?!

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it: it comes to include [the latter clause of the Mishna comes to include], that even

the latter clause of the Mishna comes to include] that even

his fellow’s hand

his hand renders impure, and it disqualifies sacred things.

You have therefore learned from the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that his hand that touches his fellow’s hand renders it impure only if he touched it with that same impure hand; but if he touched it with his other hand, it does not render his fellow’s hand impure, for the reason is not the decree lest the impure hand touch sacred things, and only when they are joined.

For if you should say that the matter is speaking specifically of being joined, namely, that his impure hand is touching his pure hand, and his pure hand is touching his fellow’s hand, and his fellow is touching a sacred object with his hand—what difference is there if he touched his fellow’s hand with his impure hand, and what difference is there if he touched it with his pure hand? After all, the three hands are joined, and there is concern lest his impure hand touch sacred things at that moment [according to the Turei Even].

And Reish Lakish too recanted and acknowledged the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the hand renders his fellow’s hand impure:

and acknowledged Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that one hand renders another person’s hand impure:

For Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Ami said that Reish Lakish said:

A.

Both his hand and his fellow’s hand

become impure through contact with his impure hand.

B. Provided that the contact with his fellow occurs

with that same hand

that was impure. But his fellow’s hand does not become impure through contact with his pure hand that touched his impure hand.

You have therefore learned that Reish Lakish recanted and acknowledged the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

C. They said that a hand renders its fellow hand impure—whether his own or his fellow’s—only

to disqualify, but not to render impure

another sacred thing.

And

this law that we say, that a hand renders its fellow hand impure only

to disqualify but not to render impure—

it is a dispute among the tannaim

who disagreed about it.

As we learned: “Anything that disqualifies teruma,”

every source of impurity that, if it touches teruma, disqualifies it—

renders

the

hands ‘second degrees

with regard to impurity.’”

And a

impure hand

renders impure

its

fellow.

The words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

And the Sages say: The hands

are

second degrees

with regard to impurity,

and a second degree does not make a second degree!

Therefore, a hand that is a “second degree of impurity” does not render its fellow hand impure, making it also a “second degree of impurity.”

Is it not so that this is what the Sages said:

that this is what the Sages said:

It is a second degree that it does not make—the impure hand does not make the pure hand a second degree of impurity, since “a second degree does not make a second degree”;

the impure hand does not make the pure hand a second-degree source of impurity, since “a second degree cannot make another second degree”;

but a third degree

of impurity it does

make

the impure hand to the pure hand?!

And the explanation of their dispute is that Rabbi Yehoshua holds: An impure hand makes its pure fellow hand a “second degree” like itself, and it too “renders” sacred things impure, making them third-degree, and this sacred thing will disqualify another sacred thing.

Whereas the Rabbis hold: It is impossible for the impure hand, which itself is only a second degree of impurity, to make the pure hand a second degree like itself, because a second degree does not make a second degree. Rather, the pure hand becomes a third degree of impurity. And since it itself is only a third degree of impurity, the sacred thing that it touches is disqualified but not rendered impure, as is the law concerning a sacred thing that touched a third degree of impurity.

It follows that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that his pure hand becomes a second degree of impurity, it “renders” sacred things impure, like any second degree of impurity.

Whereas according to the Sages, the pure hand, which is a third degree of impurity, does not render sacred things impure, but only “disqualifies” sacred things, like any third degree of impurity.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the intention of the Sages is not to say that it does not make the other hand a second degree of impurity but rather a third degree. Rather:

An impure hand

does not make a second degree

for the pure hand

and does not make a third degree

for it!

And the Sages disputed the essential law of our Mishna, and do not hold of the elevated status that an impure hand renders its fellow hand impure; rather, in their view it does not render it impure at all. But one who holds that this elevated status exists may hold that it renders its fellow hand impure even to render sacred things impure, and therefore he said, “The hands are always second degrees,” and consequently a hand renders its fellow hand impure.

Rather—a hand renders its fellow hand impure to disqualify but not to render impure—

as these tannaim, these tannaim are the ones who disagreed about it:

who disagreed about this matter:

As it was taught: A hand, even if it is

even if it is

dry [and there are no liquids that became first-degree upon it], nevertheless

with no liquid upon it that had first become impure], nevertheless

renders its fellow hand impure in order

in order

“to render sacred things impure, but not teruma; the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: That hand, when dry, renders its fellow hand impure only

which is dry, renders its fellow hand impure only

to disqualify

sacred things,

but not to render impure

that sacred thing.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They eat dry foods with impure hands

with teruma, but not with sacred things”:

It was taught: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antignos said:

What novelty is there in our Mishna, that one may not eat sacred food with impure hands even when the sacred food is “dry”?

But is there a ‘dry’ condition with regard to sacred food?!

And is sacred food not rendered fit to receive impurity by virtue of its being dry?!

But surely the affection for sacred things renders them fit,

all sacred foods to receive impurity even when they were not rendered fit through the arrival of water upon them, and it is no novelty that it is forbidden to eat sacred food that was not rendered fit to receive impurity through water. Rather, since his impure hands touched the sacred food, they certainly rendered it impure.

It is necessary [the continuation of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antignos’s words, Tosafot]: the mention of drying in our Mishna has nothing to do with rendering the food fit to receive impurity.

these are the continuation of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus’s words, as explained by Tosafot]: The mention of drying in our Mishna does not concern the food’s susceptibility to impurity.

Rather, it concerns only the liquids on the food, so that they should not become impure through the hands and become first-degree impurity [according to the law: anything that disqualifies teruma renders liquids first-degree].

And our Mishna is dealing with this matter:

For example, when his fellow inserted

his hands, which were pure,

into his mouth,

teruma or sacred food,

or when he inserted—

when his hands were impure—

for himself, by means of

a

spindle or distaff

teruma or sacred food, and his hands did not touch the food, so that the teruma or sacred food remained pure and permitted for eating—

And he wished to eat

more, with his impure hands,

radish and onion of non-sacred produce—

which had no liquids

with them,

together with the teruma or sacred food that was in his mouth.

And the meaning of “They eat dry non-sacred foods with impure hands, with teruma” is that he is permitted to eat this non-sacred food together with the teruma or sacred food that is in his mouth.

Since there were no liquids upon the non-sacred food, it did not become impure, and therefore it does not render the teruma or sacred food in his mouth impure, and he is permitted to eat them together.

[For if there had been liquids upon them, they would have become impure through his hands, become first-degree impurity, and then return and make the non-sacred food second-degree; the non-sacred food would then render the teruma in his mouth impure. Rashi].

And the novelty is that with regard to teruma we are not concerned lest, when he puts the non-sacred food into his mouth, he then come to touch the teruma in his mouth with his impure hands.

But to eat non-sacred food with impure hands together with sacred food is forbidden, even if there were no liquids upon the non-sacred food, because:

With regard to sacred things,

the Sages established an elevated status, and

the Rabbis decreed concerning them,

lest he touch sacred things with his impure hands and render them impure.

But

with regard to teruma—

the Rabbis did not decree concerning them.

Rather, they rely upon him to take care that his impure hands should not touch the teruma.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who is in acute mourning and one lacking atonement

require immersion with regard to sacred things, but not with regard to teruma”:

What is the reason

that the Sages required them to immerse? After all, the mourner was not impure, and even one lacking atonement had already completed his purification?

And we explain:

Since until now they had been forbidden [until now they had been forbidden]—whether because of mourning or because he was lacking atonement—

until now they had been prohibited—whether because of mourning or because they lacked atonement]—

the Rabbis required them to immerse,

since there is concern lest, during the time that he was forbidden from sacred offerings, he diverted his attention from guarding his purity and became impure [Meiri].

Mishna:

There is greater stringency with teruma

than with sacred things:

In Judea [the Gemara explains why Judea was mentioned]

the Gemara explains why Judea is mentioned],

the amei ha-aretz are trusted

are trusted

with regard to the purity of wine

for libations,

and oil

for meal-offerings, which they bring

throughout all the days of the year,

and not only during the time when people tread the grapes and olives. , As the reason was explained in the Gemara above, 22a: the Sages instituted that these offerings should be accepted from them and that they should be trusted—even though an am ha-aretz is not trusted with regard to purity—so that each person should not build a private altar for himself and offer to Heaven; but concerning teruma, it does not matter to an am ha-aretz if we do not accept it from him, since he can give it to his fellow, a koen.

But with regard to teruma, they are not trusted concerning its purity during the rest of the days of the year.

And

however,

at the time of the winepresses [at the time of treading the grapes]

the time when the grapes are trodden]

and the olive presses [treading the olives],

they are trusted

even with regard to teruma,

because at that time they purify themselves and their vessels according to the direction of ḥaverim, in order to separate teruma in purity.

The time of the winepresses and olive presses passed, and they brought him

the am ha-aretz to the ḥaver

a barrel of teruma wine; he may not accept it from him,

because at this time they are not trusted with regard to its purity.

But he may leave it

the am ha-aretz in his possession

until

the time of the

next winepress,

and then the ḥaver may accept it from him.

And if he said to him

an am ha-aretz to a haver, when he brought him a barrel of teruma during the rest of the year:

“I separated into it

of the teruma barrel

a revi’it

of a log [Rashi] of

sacred matter—

behold, he is

trustworthy

even regarding the teruma. And the reason: since he is trustworthy regarding the sacred matter within it, he is trustworthy even regarding the teruma.