Menachot 24a — the Talmud in English

When Rav Kahana ascended

when he went up

Rav Kahana

to Eretz Yisrael,

he found

he encountered

the sons of Rabbi Hiyya sitting

who were seated

and saying: An issaron

of fine flour that they consecrated for a meal-offering,

which they divided

into two parts,

and placed in a bissa

a vessel in which the meal-offering is mixed, in such a manner that the two halves do not touch one another,

and a tebul yom touched one of them, what

would be the halakha? Would it render impure the other half, which he did not touch? [The question was specifically asked with regard to a tebul yom, because his impurity is not severe, and food rendered impure through contact with him does not have the power to render other things impure. But there is no question with regard to an impure person, because the oil in the meal-offering becomes impure through contact with him and renders the vessel impure, and the vessel renders everything inside it impure—Rashi, based on Olat Shlomo].

And the sides of the question are:

For we learned: A vessel combines what is inside it

to make it one unit, so that if an impure person touched one piece in a vessel, all the pieces found there become impure, if they are

sacred,

as though they were one piece.

This applies only where they touch

the pieces

one another; but where they do not touch one another, it does not

combine them, and only what the tebul yom touched becomes impure.

Or perhaps there is no difference?

He said to them

Rav Kahana:

Did we learn, “A vessel connects”!?

which would imply that specifically when they touch one another, the vessel connects them to make them one unit. Rather,

we learned, “A vessel combines,” which

implies

any amount,

even when they do not touch one another; the vessel combines them as though they were touching.

They raised another question before them:

If one extended

one half-issaron of fine flour

that

does not belong to the meal-offering

between them,

between these two halves, and the tebul yom touched it,

what

would be the halakha? Would it render both halves impure? Does the vessel combine even this half, which does not belong to the meal-offering, with the two halves, as though they were one unit?

Rav Kahana said to them:

The

portion that requires a vessel,

namely, the flour of the meal-offering—

the vessel combines it;

but the additional half-issaron, which

does not require a vessel, the vessel does not combine!

Consequently, the other two halves, which the tebul yom did not touch, did not become impure 99 .

They raised another question before them:

If a tebul yom extended his finger between them

into the air between the two halves, without touching them,

what

would be the halakha? Would he render impure what is inside it?

Rav Kahana said to them:

Rav Kahana:

There is nothing that becomes impure from

impurity found in

its air except an earthenware vessel alone,

but not other vessels!

Then

Rav Kahana

himself asked them

the sons of Rabbi Hiyya:

What is the halakha with regard to taking a kometz from

one half-issaron

of this

that is in the bissa, and will the kemitza also be effective

for

the other half

of this?

And the sides of the question are: Is this matter of

combining

—

by Torah law,

so that we say this even with regard to kemitza,

or

perhaps it is

by rabbinic law,

and this law was stated only as a stringency, such as with regard to impurity, but with regard to allowing the kemitza from one portion to apply to the other as though they were touching one another, it does not apply?

The sons of Rabbi Hiyya said to him:

The sons of Rabbi Hiyya:

We have not heard this,

but

we have heard a similar matter, as we learned:

in the Mishna:

With regard to two meal-offerings from which the kemitza had not been taken and which became intermingled with one another: If one can take a kometz from this one separately and from that one separately, they are fit; but if not, they are disqualified 102 .

And we inferred:

Since, at any rate, one can take a kometz

from each one, because a small amount of flour remains unmixed with the other meal-offering,

they are fit,

and the Gemara understood that this small amount of flour stands at the side of the vessel and does not touch the mixture. If so,

why

does the kemitza help for the mixture? After all,

that which is mixed did not touch

the kometz. Rather, it is certainly because the vessel combines everything inside it with regard to kemitza, and one can derive from here that there is combining even with regard to kemitza, meaning that the law of combining is by Torah law!

And we reject this:

Rava said: Perhaps

the Mishna is referring to a case in which the kometz does not stand by itself. Rather, the mixture is arranged

in

a manner in which the

lumps

of the meal-offering

are

делены

divided

on one side, where it is recognizable when one takes a kometz from each meal-offering separately, while on the other side the entire mixture is connected, and

they

are

made like a comb:

connected on one side, while on the other side its teeth are spread out. Consequently, the kometz is also connected to every portion of the meal-offering, and there is no need for the vessel to combine them.

What conclusion was reached

regarding this question—whether the combining of a vessel is effective with regard to kemitza [was it possible to resolve the question]?

Rava said: Come and hear, as it is taught:

The procedure for taking the kemitza of the meal-offering is described in the verse,

“And he shall take from it

with his handful,” and the word “from it” is expounded:

from that which is connected,

meaning that the kometz must be connected to the meal-offering.

He may not bring an issaron

of flour

in two vessels and take a kometz

from one vessel for the other.

And we inferred: The entire deficiency is specifically because he divided it between two vessels.

But

if the two portions are

in one vessel analogous to two vessels,

meaning that they do not touch one another, as in a meal-offering in two vessels, where one portion does not touch the other,

he may take a kometz

from one for the other! This indicates that there is combining by a vessel even with regard to kemitza.

And we reject this:

Abaye said to him: Perhaps

what is excluded by the phrase

“two vessels”

is a case in which they do touch one another.

And what are the circumstances? For example, a kefiza within a kava,

one vessel containing two receptacles, with a partition separating them along the entire height of the vessel,

for although they are mixed

the two portions of the issaron

above,

in the heap above the rim of the vessel,

since the partition of the kefiza is interrupting below

inside the vessel along its entire height, this is considered like two vessels, and one may not take a kometz from one for the other 104 .

And regarding what we inferred,

“But one vessel analogous to two

vessels,”

it is possible to take a kometz; this too refers to a case in which they touch one another.

And what are the circumstances? For example, a chicken trough,

which contains a partition separating the water from the bran.

And although the partition interrupts,

it is not considered two vessels, because

they do touch

the two portions of the issaron when they are inside the airspace of the vessel, since that partition is low and does not extend along the entire height of the vessel, and above the partition they are mixed.

But here,

in the case of an issaron that was divided and placed in a bissa side by side,

where they do not touch at all,

the portions of the issaron

you should raise the question

whether there is combining by a vessel with regard to kemitza. [The Gemara left the matter unresolved.]

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

With regard to two half-issarons that do not touch one another, but between which there is

the combining of a vessel

because they are in one vessel,

and

another half-issaron is outside the vessel and connected to one of the halves inside the vessel through

a liquid connection

between them, and a tebul yom touched that other half inside the vessel [which is not connected to the one outside through liquid], and the other half inside the vessel became impure because of the vessel’s combining,

what

would be the halakha? Would it render impure the half [the third half] outside the vessel as well?

And the sides of the question are:

For we learned

what we learned in the Mishna, that

a vessel combines what is inside it with regard to sacred property; this applies

specifically

to what is inside,

for the combining is effective with regard to that which is inside the vessel.

But with regard to what is outside,

the external portion,

no,

it is not considered connected to the first half, since it is neither with it in the vessel nor connected to it by liquid .

Or perhaps, since it connects

the external portion to the other half through liquid, it

also connects

it to the first half, and they are all considered connected to one another?

And if you would say: Since it connects, it connects,

there is still a question:

a liquid connection and the combining of a vessel,

that is, as in the preceding case,

and a tebul yom touched

that half which is

outside,

and consequently the half inside the vessel that is connected to it by liquid became impure,

what

would be the halakha? Would it also render impure the third half inside the vessel through the combining of the vessel?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

For we learned

what we learned in the Mishna, that

a vessel combines; this applies when

impurity

from within

inside the vessel,

but

impurity that occurred

from outside

outside the vessel,

does not

benefit from the combining of the vessel,

or perhaps there is no difference?

And we conclude:

[teiku].

Rava raised a question: [concerning] a tenth-measure

of a meal-offering

that he divided

into two halves,

and one of them became impure and

afterward

he placed it

with the one that became impure, if the second half was

in a vessel

in such a manner that they did not touch one another, so that the impure half does not render the second half impure, [and even though they are in one vessel, it is not appropriate to say “the vessel combines,” for the law of the combining of a vessel was stated only if, at the time of receiving the impurity, they were together in the vessel, and not in a case where they were combined afterward] ,

and one who immersed that day returned and touched that

impure

half—what is the ruling

that it should receive impurity from it, even though it is already impure, so as to disqualify the second half by the law of the combining of the vessel?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say

that the impure half has already

had its fill of impurity [

an expression of being filled, like a person who is satiated and cannot eat any more; so too, the half that became impure is already full of the first impurity that it received], and it does not receive any additional impurity, and consequently the second half found with it in the vessel did not become impure ,

or

perhaps

not

do we say that it has had its fill of impurity, and it again becomes impure in order to disqualify the second one by the law of the combining of the vessel?

Abaye said to him: And do we say, “It has had its fill of impurity”?