Menachot 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

Abaye said to Rava:

From the latter clause

one can prove that we do not say, “It has had its fill of impurity.” For it is written:

“Rabbi Yosei agrees”

that the sheet is impure through contact with midras—

in the case of two sheets folded and placed one upon the other, with a zav sitting upon them

[without touching them, for example, if an object separated him from the sheets],

so that the upper one is impure with midras, and the lower one is impure with midras

since everything beneath the zav, even beneath ten mattresses, is impure with midras.

And

the lower sheet is also impure

through contact with midras,

because the lower sheet touches the upper one, which has midras status. If the lower sheet is made into a curtain, it becomes pure from midras, but its impurity through contact with midras remains upon it. [Tosafot on page 25a, beginning with the words “In the case of two,” explain why the upper sheet is not impure through contact with midras, since it too touches the lower sheet?]

Abaye infers:

And why

is the lower sheet impure through contact with midras?

Let us say

that it has had its fill of

impurity

of midras, and the lesser impurity of contact has not taken effect upon it!? Rather, this proves that we do not say, “It has had its fill of impurity.” And Rava answered:

There,

in the latter clause of the Mishna, it is

simultaneously

that the two impurities come upon it. The contact of the lower sheet with the upper occurs at the same moment that the zav bears down upon the lower sheet, rendering it impure through midras. Therefore, both impurities take effect simultaneously. 111 .

But

here,

in the case of the half-issaron, they come

one after the other,

and therefore the uncertainty remains: Perhaps the second impurity does not take effect, since the first impurity has already had its fill. [Rava’s uncertainty remains unresolved!]

Rava said: If a tenth of an ephah was divided

into two portions,

and one of them was lost, and another was consecrated in its place, and

afterward

the

first portion

was found, and all three are lying in a vessel,

with each one recognizable separately, their law is as follows:

If

the

portion that had been

lost

now becomes

impure,

this

lost

portion and the

first

portion that had originally been with it

combine

in the vessel, making them one entity by virtue of the vessel’s combining function, and the first portion becomes impure on account of the lost portion, since from the outset these two portions were intended to combine and become one meal-offering. But the portion that had been

consecrated

in place of the lost one

does not combine

with it and thus does not become impure as well, since it is not connected with the lost portion: It was not consecrated in order to combine with it, but came in its place. 112 .

And if

the

portion that had been

consecrated

[in place of the lost one] becomes impure, then

the replacement and the first portion

[that is, the portion that was not lost]

combine,

and the first portion that was not lost also becomes impure by virtue of the vessel’s combining function, because these two portions likewise were intended to become one meal-offering had the lost portion not been found. But

the lost one does not combine

with the replacement, as stated, because the lost and replacement portions were never intended to be together.

And if

the

part

first portion becomes impure, both

the lost and the replacement portions

combine

with the first portion, since each of them was intended to be together with the first portion as one meal-offering—the lost one before it was lost, and the replacement after the loss. Therefore, they combine with it.

Abaye said: Even if one of them becomes impure,

that is, the replacement or the lost portion,

both of them also combine. What is the reason? They are all members of the same household,

that is, they all come by virtue of and for the purpose of one meal-offering; therefore, they combine with one another. 113 .

And likewise,

Rava said

with regard to the taking of the handful

If he took the handful from the lost portion—

its remainder and

the remainder of the

first portion are eaten,

since the handful is offered on behalf of these two, which constitute one meal-offering, and permits them to be eaten; but

the replacement portion is not eaten,

since it does not belong with the lost portion, and the handful was not offered on its behalf.

If he took the handful from the replacement portion—

its remainder and

the remainder of the

first portion

may be eaten,

since these two belong together. 115 .

But the

lost portion may not be eaten,

since it is not connected with the replacement.

If he took the handful from

the

first portion,

both

the replacement and lost portions

may not be eaten!

Because the handful can permit only one tenth, and since it is unknown for which of the two additional halves, besides the first, the handful was offered, neither of them may be eaten.

Abaye said: Even if he took the handful from one of them,

from the replacement or the lost portion,

neither may be eaten. What is the reason? They too are all members of the same household,

as they are all connected with one another. Consequently, the handful taken from one of them could have been offered on behalf of either of the portions that remain, and it is unknown on behalf of which one it was offered. Therefore, with regard to each of the two, there is uncertainty whether the handful was offered on its behalf.

Rav Pappa raised an objection to this:

And

at least, its own remainder

of the portion from which the handful was taken

may be eaten,

even though the other two may not be eaten [according to Rava, when the handful was taken from the first portion, and according to Abaye, in every case]. Why may it be eaten?

There is

after all

a third

of

the handful that was not offered,

since the handful was offered on behalf of all three portions, and because it permits only two portions, one third of it remains that does not have the status of a handful. If so, this is an incomplete handful, and how can it permit the remainder?

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharsheya, raised an objection to this:

Before you challenge the remainder, asking how it may be eaten, one can challenge

the handful itself: How can it be offered

upon the altar?

There is

after all

a third

of it that is

ordinary חולין?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

This is not a difficulty, because the taking of

the handful depends upon the kohen’s intention

[the matter depends upon the kohen’s intention],

and when the kohen takes the handful

[when the kohen takes the handful]

from one tenth

alone

he takes it!

That is, he intends one additional half besides the half from which he takes the handful; consequently, this handful lacks nothing. Rather, since it is unknown which of them he intended to take, neither may be eaten.

[below, the Gemara explains whether the inadvertence concerned the sprinkling or the impurity]

[the difference between unwittingness and duress is that unwittingness means that he believes offerings do not contract impurity, whereas duress is that it became impure against his will; and between intentionality and willingness there is no difference] !(pamud.bmp "Exact page location")