Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 3, 2018 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 24

Study Guide Menachot 23. When sanctified items are placed in the same sanctified vessel they are considered combined. What is the meaning of this? To what extent? Do they need to be touching? Various other questions are asked regarding this principle.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืกื ื•ื ื’ืข ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื›ื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืœืงื“ืฉ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื’ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื ืฉื ื

and placed in a receptacle such that the flour of the measure was in two places, not in contact with each other, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched one of the portions of the meal offering, what is the halakha? Does he disqualify only the part of the meal offering that he touched, or the other part as well? When we learned in a mishna (แธคagiga 20b) that a vessel joins all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if some of the contents become impure all the contents become impure as well, does this matter apply only where the contents are touching each other, but where the contents are not touching each other the ritual impurity is not imparted to the other contents? Or perhaps there is no difference.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ื”ื• ืžื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื—ื‘ืจ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื• ื”ื•ืฉื™ื˜ ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื•

Rav Kahana said to the sons of Rabbi แธคiyya: Did we learn in the mishna that a vessel connects the contents within it? We learned that a vessel joins the contents within it, indicating that it does so in any case, whether or not the contents are in contact with one another. The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya then asked Rav Kahana: If one inserted another one half-tenth of an ephah between them, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day touched it, what is the halakha? Are the first two half-tenths rendered impure?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื›ืœื™ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืคื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื›ืœื™ ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืคื•

Rav Kahana said to them: Only when an item requires a vessel in order for it to be sanctified, e.g., in the case of the two half-tenths of an ephah of a meal offering, does the vessel join it together. In the case of an item that does not require a vessel, such as this half-tenth that was placed between them, the vessel does not join it.

ื”ื•ืฉื™ื˜ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ืืช ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืžื˜ืžื ืžืื•ื™ืจื• ืืœื ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya then asked: If one who immersed that day inserted his finger between the two half-tenths of the ephah that were placed in the receptacle, without touching either one, what is the halakha? Are the two half-tenths rendered impure? Rav Kahana said to them in response: The only item you have that transmits impurity through its airspace is an earthenware vessel alone.

ื”ื“ืจ ืื™ื”ื• ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืœืงืžื•ืฅ ืžื–ื” ืขืœ ื–ื” ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื• ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Rav Kahana himself then asked the sons of Rabbi แธคiyya: If two half-tenths of an ephah of a meal offering are placed in one vessel but are not in contact with each other, what is the halakha? Can one remove a handful from this half-tenth of an ephah on behalf of that half-tenth of an ephah? Is the joining of the contents of the vessel effective by Torah law or by rabbinic law? If it is effective by Torah law, then the removal of the handful is valid. If it is effective by rabbinic law, then the removal of the handful was not performed correctly, since it was not taken from the entire tenth of an ephah of the meal offering.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื–ื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื• ืฉืžืขื ื• ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืฉืœื ื ืงืžืฆื• ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื–ื• ื‘ื–ื• ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืงืžื•ืฅ ืžื–ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžื” ื•ืžื–ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช

They said to Rav Kahana: We did not hear the halakha with regard to this case explicitly, but we heard the halakha with regard to a case similar to this. As we learned in the mishna: In the case of two meal offerings from which a handful was not removed and which were intermingled with each other, if the priest can remove a handful from this meal offering by itself and from that meal offering by itself, they are fit meal offerings, but if not, they are unfit, as the handful of each meal offering must be taken from its original source.

ื›ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืงืžื•ืฅ ืžื™ื”ื ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ืืžืื™ ื”ืš ื“ืžืขืจื‘ ื”ื ืœื ื ื’ืข

They explain: In any event, the mishna teaches that in a case when he can remove a handful from each meal offering, the meal offerings are fit. Why is this considered a valid removal of the handful? But this part of the meal offering that is intermingled with the other meal offering does not touch the part of the meal offering from which the handful is removed. Evidently, the vessel joins the different parts of the meal offering together, and one can remove the handful from any part of its contents, even if they are not touching.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื’ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ืžื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืžืกืจืง

Rava said: This cannot be inferred from the mishna, as perhaps the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the clumps of the meal offering are divided like the teeth of a comb, so that although the handful is removed from a clump of the meal offering that is separate from the clump that is intermingled with the other offering, all parts of the meal offering are still in contact with one another. It may still be that in the case presented by Rav Kahana, where the parts are truly separated from one another, it is possible that one cannot remove the handful from one part on behalf of the other.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื”ืจื™ื ืžืžื ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžื—ื•ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื™ืงืžื•ืฅ ื”ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืงืžื™ืฅ

The Gemara asks: Since this question was not resolved, what halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rava said: Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall take up from it his handfulโ€ (Leviticus 6:8), meaning that he shall take the handful from the meal offering that is connected. This teaches that one shall not bring a tenth of an ephah divided in two vessels and remove the handful from one on behalf of the other. It can therefore be inferred that in the case of one vessel that is similar to two vessels, as the entirety of the meal offering is brought in one vessel although the different parts are not touching, one may remove the handful from one part on behalf of the other part.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืงืคื™ื–ื ื‘ืงื‘ื ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืขืจื™ื‘ื™ ืžืขื™ืœืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื™ืคืกืง ืžื—ื™ืฆืชื ื“ืงืคื™ื–ื ืžืชืชื

Abaye said to Rava: Perhaps one could say: What are the circumstances when the baraita states that one may not bring a tenth of an ephah in two vessels? The circumstances are, for example, if one hollowed out the area of a smaller kefiza measure within the area of a larger kav measure, so that within the one receptacle there were two cavities divided by a partition that did not reach the top of the receptacle. In this case, even though the two are intermingled on top, above the partition, since the partition of the kefiza measure divides them below, they are still separated and not joined together.

ื”ื ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืขืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืฉืœ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืคืกืงืŸ ืžื—ื™ืฆืชื ื”ื ื ื’ื™ืข ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื ื ื’ื™ืข ื›ืœืœ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš

Abaye continues: What are the circumstances of one vessel that is similar to two vessels, with regard to which you inferred that one may remove the handful from one part on behalf of the other part? The circumstances are, for example, a hen trough that is filled with water or fodder, and even though a partition divides the top of the trough, the contents are touching below. But here, in the case of two half-tenths of an ephah that are placed in a receptacle that are not touching each other at all, you should raise the dilemma as to whether the handful may be removed from one part on behalf of the other.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื›ืœื™ ื•ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ื ืžื”ื•

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a scenario where a vessel joins the two half-tenths of an ephah that are inside the vessel but not touching, and there is a connection by means of water between one of the half-tenths of the ephah inside the vessel and another half-tenth of an ephah that is outside the vessel, and one who immersed that day touched the other half-tenth of an ephah that is inside the vessel, what is the halakha? Does he also disqualify the half-tenth of an ephah that is outside the vessel?

ื›ื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืœืงื“ืฉ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื’ื•ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื“ื‘ืจืื™ ืœื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื—ื‘ืจ ืžื—ื‘ืจ

When we learned in a mishna (แธคagiga 20b) that a vessel joins all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if some of the contents become impure all the contents become impure as well, does this matter apply only to that which is inside the vessel, but not to that which is outside of it, despite the fact that the outer item is connected to an item inside the vessel? Or perhaps, since the half-tenth of an ephah found outside the vessel is connected to an impure item, it is connected and becomes impure.

ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื—ื‘ืจ ืžื—ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ื ื•ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื›ืœื™ ื•ื ื’ืข ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื”ื•

Rabbi Yirmeya continues: And if you say that since the half-tenth of an ephah found outside the vessel is connected to an impure item, it is connected and becomes impure, one can raise another dilemma. In a case where there is a connection by means of water between a half-tenth of an ephah outside a vessel and another half-tenth of an ephah that is inside the vessel, and the vessel joins two half-tenths of an ephah that are inside the vessel, and one who immersed that day touched the half-tenth of an ephah that is outside the vessel, what is the halakha?

ื›ื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื ื’ืข ืžื’ื•ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื‘ืจืื™ ืœื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื ืฉื ื ืชื™ืงื•

When we learned in a mishna that a vessel joins all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if some of the contents become impure all the contents become impure as well, does this matter apply only in a case where the one who immersed that day touched that which is inside the vessel, thereby transmitting impurity to all of the contents of the vessel, and due to the connection by means of water the impurity is then transmitted to that which is outside the vessel, but it does not apply in a case where the one who immersed that day touched that which is outside of the vessel, and only the half-tenth of an ephah that is connected to the outer item becomes impure? Or perhaps this case is no different, and the vessel joins all of its contents with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉื—ืœืงื• ื•ื ื˜ืžื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืกื ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื ื’ืข ื‘ืื•ืชื• ื˜ืžื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืื• ืœื

ยง It has been demonstrated that a vessel joins the contents that are found in it, even if they are not touching one another, with regard to ritual impurity, such that if some of the contents become impure, all of the contents are rendered impure. Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to a tenth of an ephah of a meal offering that one divided and then placed the two halves in different vessels, and one of them became impure and afterward he placed it in a receptacle along with the second half-tenth of an ephah, and then one who immersed that day touched that one that was already rendered impure, what is the halakha? Do we say that the item is already saturated with impurity and cannot be rendered impure a second time, and therefore the second half-tenth of the ephah is not rendered impure even though it is joined in the same receptacle, or not?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืกื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ืžื

Abaye said to him: And do we say that an item that is already saturated with impurity cannot be rendered impure a second time? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 27:9): With regard to a sheet that is impure due to ritual impurity

ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืขืฉืื• ื•ื™ืœื•ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื“ืจืก ืื‘ืœ ื˜ืžื ืžื’ืข ืžื“ืจืก

imparted by treading, e.g., if a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] lay down on it and transferred to it this severe impurity, and afterward one made a curtain [villon] of it, it is pure with regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading, as it is no longer fit for sitting or lying down. But it is impure due to having been in contact with an item that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading, as it is viewed as having been in contact with itself, and therefore it can impart impurity to food and drink.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืื™ื–ื” ืžื“ืจืก ื ื’ืข ื–ื” ืืœื ืฉืื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ื˜ืžื ืžื’ืข ื”ื–ื‘

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yosei said: What source of impurity imparted by treading did this curtain touch? Rather, the halakha is that if a zav touched the sheet itself before it was made into a curtain, and did not only lie on it without touching it directly, then although the curtain is pure with regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading, it is nevertheless impure due to contact with a zav. This is because the impurity transmitted by contact with a zav applies in the case of a curtain, which is not the halakha with regard to impurity imparted by treading.

ื›ื™ ื ื’ืข ื‘ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ืžื™ื”ื ื˜ืžื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื›ื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžื’ืข ื”ื–ื‘ ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื”

Abaye comments: When a zav touched the sheet, in any event it was rendered impure, even if he touched it after he lay on the sheet, thereby rendering it impure with impurity imparted by treading. In this manner, it was rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading, and afterward it was again rendered impure due to contact with a zav. According to the statement of Rava, why would this be the halakha? Let us say that the item is already saturated with impurity and cannot be rendered impure a second time.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉืื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ืœื‘ืชืจ ืžื“ืจืก ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืงืžื™ ืžื“ืจืก ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื”

Rava said to him in response: And from where do you know that this statement of Rabbi Yosei: That if a zav touched the sheet it is nevertheless impure due to contact with a zav, is referring to a case where a zav touched the sheet after it was rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading? Perhaps he was referring to a case where a zav touched the sheet, rendering it impure due to contact with a zav, before he lay on it and rendered it impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading. In that case, the severe form of ritual impurity imparted by the treading of the zav, which is a primary source of ritual impurity that imparts impurity to all people and items, takes effect in addition to the lesser form of impurity imparted by contact with a zav, which imparts impurity only to food and drink.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ืœื

But here, in the case of part of a meal offering that was touched by one who immersed that day after having already become impure due to the touch of one who immersed that day, where both this and that are lesser forms of impurity, perhaps the impurity does not take effect a second time, as it is already impure.

ืืœื ืžืกื™ืคื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืžืงื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขืœ ื–ื” ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ื–ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ื•ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืžื’ืข ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara suggests: Rather, the proof against the existence of a principle that an item can be saturated with impurity and not susceptible to becoming impure a second time is from the last clause of a baraita that corresponds to the mishna: Rabbi Yosei concedes that in a case of two sheets that are folded and placed on top of one another, and a zav sat upon them, the top sheet is rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading, and the bottom sheet is rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading and due to contact with the top sheet that has become ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading. The Gemara explains: But according to the opinion advanced in Ravaโ€™s dilemma, why would this be the case? Let us say that the bottom sheet is already saturated with impurity and cannot be rendered impure a second time.

ื”ืชื ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื”ื›ื ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื”

The Gemara rejects this proof: There, with regard to the bottom sheet, the two types of impurity take effect simultaneously, whereas here, with regard to the impure meal offering, the two forms of impurity take effect one after the other. It is only in the latter case that Rava suggests that the second type of impurity does not take effect. Therefore, there is no conclusive proof, and the question raised by Rava remains unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉื—ืœืงื• ื•ืื‘ื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื•ื ืžืฆื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืฉืชืŸ ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืกื ื ื˜ืžื ืื‘ื•ื“ ืื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ

ยง Rava says: In a case where one divided a tenth of an ephah of a meal offering into two halves, and one half was lost and he separated another half in its stead, and afterward the first lost half was found, and all three are placed in a receptacle together, if the one that had been lost became impure, the previously lost half-tenth of an ephah and the first half-tenth of an ephah join together and become impure, in accordance with the mishna cited earlier (แธคagiga 20b) that a vessel joins the two together with regard to ritual impurity. But the half-tenth of an ephah that was separated to replace the lost half-tenth does not join together with the other half-tenths, and it remains pure.

ื ื˜ืžื ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืื‘ื•ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ื ื˜ืžื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ

If the one that had been separated to replace the lost half-tenth became impure, then the separated half-tenth and the first half-tenth join together and become impure, since the former was separated in order to complete the tenth together with the first half-tenth, while the previously lost half-tenth does not join together with them. If the first half-tenth became impure, then both the previously lost half-tenth as well as the half-tenth that was separated as its replacement join together and become ritually impure, as each of them had at one point been part of the same tenth as the first half-tenth.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื ื˜ืžื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืงืชื ื“ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Abaye says: Even if any one of the half-tenths became impure, both remaining half-tenths join together and become impure as well. What is the reason? They are all residents of one cabin, i.e., they were meant to be part of the same meal offering.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ืฆื” ืงืžืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืื‘ื•ื“ ืฉื™ืจื™ื• ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืงืžืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืฉื™ืจื™ื• ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืื‘ื•ื“ ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ

And similarly, according to Rava, with regard to the removal of the handful, if one removed the handful from the previously lost half-tenth, its remainder and the remainder of the first half-tenth of an ephah are eaten by the priests, while the half-tenth of an ephah that was separated in its stead is not eaten. Since it was not meant to join together with this other half-tenth, the removal of the handful does not permit its consumption. If one removed the handful from the one that had been separated in place of the lost half-tenth, then its remainder and the first half-tenth of an ephah are eaten, while the previously lost half-tenth is not eaten.

ืงืžืฅ ืžืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ

If one removed the handful from the first half-tenth, then both the previously lost half-tenth as well as the half-tenth that had been separated in its stead are not eaten. This is because the removal of the handful allows the remainder of only one tenth to be eaten, and it is not known whether the consumption of the previously lost half-tenth or the replacement half-tenth has now been permitted.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืžืฅ ืžืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืงืชื ื“ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Abaye says: Even if one removed the handful from any one of them, both remaining half-tenths are not eaten. What is the reason? They are all residents of one cabin, and it is not possible to know whether the consumption of one or of the other has been permitted.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ื”ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื“ื ืงื ื“ืงื•ืžืฅ ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื‘

Rav Pappa objects to this ruling of Abaye: And is that to say that in any event the remainder of the half-tenth itself from which the handful was taken is eaten? But one-sixth [danka] of the handful that was removed was not sacrificed to permit this remainder. The handful was removed to permit the consumption of the remainders of all three half-tenths of an ephah in the receptacle. Since the handful included one-third that was removed to account for the half-tenth that is not needed, it turns out that each of the two actual half-tenths should have had an additional one-sixth removed to render them permitted.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื•ืงื•ืžืฅ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืงืจื™ื‘ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืชืœืชื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Yitzแธฅak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, also objects to this ruling of Abaye: And with regard to the handful itself, how can it be sacrificed? But one-third of it, i.e., the portion separated to permit the extraneous half-tenth of an ephah, is non-sacred.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื‘ื“ืขืชื ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืชืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ืฅ ืืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืงื ืงืžื™ืฅ

Rav Ashi said: These questions present no difficulty, since with regard to the removal of the handful, the matter is dependent on the intention of the priest. And when the priest removes the handful, he removes it to permit the remainder of the tenth of an ephah, and not the remainder of the extraneous half-tenth. Still, the other two halves may not be eaten because it is not possible to know whether the consumption of one or of the other has been permitted.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 24

ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืกื ื•ื ื’ืข ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื‘ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื›ื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืœืงื“ืฉ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื’ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื ื’ืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื ืฉื ื

and placed in a receptacle such that the flour of the measure was in two places, not in contact with each other, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched one of the portions of the meal offering, what is the halakha? Does he disqualify only the part of the meal offering that he touched, or the other part as well? When we learned in a mishna (แธคagiga 20b) that a vessel joins all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if some of the contents become impure all the contents become impure as well, does this matter apply only where the contents are touching each other, but where the contents are not touching each other the ritual impurity is not imparted to the other contents? Or perhaps there is no difference.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ื”ื• ืžื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื—ื‘ืจ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื• ื”ื•ืฉื™ื˜ ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื•

Rav Kahana said to the sons of Rabbi แธคiyya: Did we learn in the mishna that a vessel connects the contents within it? We learned that a vessel joins the contents within it, indicating that it does so in any case, whether or not the contents are in contact with one another. The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya then asked Rav Kahana: If one inserted another one half-tenth of an ephah between them, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day touched it, what is the halakha? Are the first two half-tenths rendered impure?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื›ืœื™ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืคื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื›ืœื™ ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืคื•

Rav Kahana said to them: Only when an item requires a vessel in order for it to be sanctified, e.g., in the case of the two half-tenths of an ephah of a meal offering, does the vessel join it together. In the case of an item that does not require a vessel, such as this half-tenth that was placed between them, the vessel does not join it.

ื”ื•ืฉื™ื˜ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ืืช ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืžื˜ืžื ืžืื•ื™ืจื• ืืœื ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื‘ืœื‘ื“

The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya then asked: If one who immersed that day inserted his finger between the two half-tenths of the ephah that were placed in the receptacle, without touching either one, what is the halakha? Are the two half-tenths rendered impure? Rav Kahana said to them in response: The only item you have that transmits impurity through its airspace is an earthenware vessel alone.

ื”ื“ืจ ืื™ื”ื• ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืœืงืžื•ืฅ ืžื–ื” ืขืœ ื–ื” ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื• ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Rav Kahana himself then asked the sons of Rabbi แธคiyya: If two half-tenths of an ephah of a meal offering are placed in one vessel but are not in contact with each other, what is the halakha? Can one remove a handful from this half-tenth of an ephah on behalf of that half-tenth of an ephah? Is the joining of the contents of the vessel effective by Torah law or by rabbinic law? If it is effective by Torah law, then the removal of the handful is valid. If it is effective by rabbinic law, then the removal of the handful was not performed correctly, since it was not taken from the entire tenth of an ephah of the meal offering.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื–ื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื• ืฉืžืขื ื• ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืฉืœื ื ืงืžืฆื• ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื–ื• ื‘ื–ื• ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืงืžื•ืฅ ืžื–ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžื” ื•ืžื–ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืื ืœืื• ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช

They said to Rav Kahana: We did not hear the halakha with regard to this case explicitly, but we heard the halakha with regard to a case similar to this. As we learned in the mishna: In the case of two meal offerings from which a handful was not removed and which were intermingled with each other, if the priest can remove a handful from this meal offering by itself and from that meal offering by itself, they are fit meal offerings, but if not, they are unfit, as the handful of each meal offering must be taken from its original source.

ื›ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืงืžื•ืฅ ืžื™ื”ื ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ืืžืื™ ื”ืš ื“ืžืขืจื‘ ื”ื ืœื ื ื’ืข

They explain: In any event, the mishna teaches that in a case when he can remove a handful from each meal offering, the meal offerings are fit. Why is this considered a valid removal of the handful? But this part of the meal offering that is intermingled with the other meal offering does not touch the part of the meal offering from which the handful is removed. Evidently, the vessel joins the different parts of the meal offering together, and one can remove the handful from any part of its contents, even if they are not touching.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื’ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ืžื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืžืกืจืง

Rava said: This cannot be inferred from the mishna, as perhaps the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the clumps of the meal offering are divided like the teeth of a comb, so that although the handful is removed from a clump of the meal offering that is separate from the clump that is intermingled with the other offering, all parts of the meal offering are still in contact with one another. It may still be that in the case presented by Rav Kahana, where the parts are truly separated from one another, it is possible that one cannot remove the handful from one part on behalf of the other.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื”ืจื™ื ืžืžื ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžื—ื•ื‘ืจ ืฉืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื™ืงืžื•ืฅ ื”ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืงืžื™ืฅ

The Gemara asks: Since this question was not resolved, what halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rava said: Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall take up from it his handfulโ€ (Leviticus 6:8), meaning that he shall take the handful from the meal offering that is connected. This teaches that one shall not bring a tenth of an ephah divided in two vessels and remove the handful from one on behalf of the other. It can therefore be inferred that in the case of one vessel that is similar to two vessels, as the entirety of the meal offering is brought in one vessel although the different parts are not touching, one may remove the handful from one part on behalf of the other part.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืงืคื™ื–ื ื‘ืงื‘ื ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืขืจื™ื‘ื™ ืžืขื™ืœืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื™ืคืกืง ืžื—ื™ืฆืชื ื“ืงืคื™ื–ื ืžืชืชื

Abaye said to Rava: Perhaps one could say: What are the circumstances when the baraita states that one may not bring a tenth of an ephah in two vessels? The circumstances are, for example, if one hollowed out the area of a smaller kefiza measure within the area of a larger kav measure, so that within the one receptacle there were two cavities divided by a partition that did not reach the top of the receptacle. In this case, even though the two are intermingled on top, above the partition, since the partition of the kefiza measure divides them below, they are still separated and not joined together.

ื”ื ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืขืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืฉืœ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืคืกืงืŸ ืžื—ื™ืฆืชื ื”ื ื ื’ื™ืข ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื ื ื’ื™ืข ื›ืœืœ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš

Abaye continues: What are the circumstances of one vessel that is similar to two vessels, with regard to which you inferred that one may remove the handful from one part on behalf of the other part? The circumstances are, for example, a hen trough that is filled with water or fodder, and even though a partition divides the top of the trough, the contents are touching below. But here, in the case of two half-tenths of an ephah that are placed in a receptacle that are not touching each other at all, you should raise the dilemma as to whether the handful may be removed from one part on behalf of the other.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื›ืœื™ ื•ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ื ืžื”ื•

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a scenario where a vessel joins the two half-tenths of an ephah that are inside the vessel but not touching, and there is a connection by means of water between one of the half-tenths of the ephah inside the vessel and another half-tenth of an ephah that is outside the vessel, and one who immersed that day touched the other half-tenth of an ephah that is inside the vessel, what is the halakha? Does he also disqualify the half-tenth of an ephah that is outside the vessel?

ื›ื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืœืงื“ืฉ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื’ื•ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื“ื‘ืจืื™ ืœื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื—ื‘ืจ ืžื—ื‘ืจ

When we learned in a mishna (แธคagiga 20b) that a vessel joins all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if some of the contents become impure all the contents become impure as well, does this matter apply only to that which is inside the vessel, but not to that which is outside of it, despite the fact that the outer item is connected to an item inside the vessel? Or perhaps, since the half-tenth of an ephah found outside the vessel is connected to an impure item, it is connected and becomes impure.

ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื—ื‘ืจ ืžื—ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ื ื•ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื›ืœื™ ื•ื ื’ืข ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื”ื•

Rabbi Yirmeya continues: And if you say that since the half-tenth of an ephah found outside the vessel is connected to an impure item, it is connected and becomes impure, one can raise another dilemma. In a case where there is a connection by means of water between a half-tenth of an ephah outside a vessel and another half-tenth of an ephah that is inside the vessel, and the vessel joins two half-tenths of an ephah that are inside the vessel, and one who immersed that day touched the half-tenth of an ephah that is outside the vessel, what is the halakha?

ื›ื™ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืฆืจืฃ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื ื’ืข ืžื’ื•ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื‘ืจืื™ ืœื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื ืฉื ื ืชื™ืงื•

When we learned in a mishna that a vessel joins all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if some of the contents become impure all the contents become impure as well, does this matter apply only in a case where the one who immersed that day touched that which is inside the vessel, thereby transmitting impurity to all of the contents of the vessel, and due to the connection by means of water the impurity is then transmitted to that which is outside the vessel, but it does not apply in a case where the one who immersed that day touched that which is outside of the vessel, and only the half-tenth of an ephah that is connected to the outer item becomes impure? Or perhaps this case is no different, and the vessel joins all of its contents with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉื—ืœืงื• ื•ื ื˜ืžื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืกื ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื ื’ืข ื‘ืื•ืชื• ื˜ืžื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืื• ืœื

ยง It has been demonstrated that a vessel joins the contents that are found in it, even if they are not touching one another, with regard to ritual impurity, such that if some of the contents become impure, all of the contents are rendered impure. Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to a tenth of an ephah of a meal offering that one divided and then placed the two halves in different vessels, and one of them became impure and afterward he placed it in a receptacle along with the second half-tenth of an ephah, and then one who immersed that day touched that one that was already rendered impure, what is the halakha? Do we say that the item is already saturated with impurity and cannot be rendered impure a second time, and therefore the second half-tenth of the ephah is not rendered impure even though it is joined in the same receptacle, or not?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืกื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ืžื

Abaye said to him: And do we say that an item that is already saturated with impurity cannot be rendered impure a second time? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 27:9): With regard to a sheet that is impure due to ritual impurity

ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืขืฉืื• ื•ื™ืœื•ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื“ืจืก ืื‘ืœ ื˜ืžื ืžื’ืข ืžื“ืจืก

imparted by treading, e.g., if a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] lay down on it and transferred to it this severe impurity, and afterward one made a curtain [villon] of it, it is pure with regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading, as it is no longer fit for sitting or lying down. But it is impure due to having been in contact with an item that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading, as it is viewed as having been in contact with itself, and therefore it can impart impurity to food and drink.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืื™ื–ื” ืžื“ืจืก ื ื’ืข ื–ื” ืืœื ืฉืื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ื˜ืžื ืžื’ืข ื”ื–ื‘

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yosei said: What source of impurity imparted by treading did this curtain touch? Rather, the halakha is that if a zav touched the sheet itself before it was made into a curtain, and did not only lie on it without touching it directly, then although the curtain is pure with regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading, it is nevertheless impure due to contact with a zav. This is because the impurity transmitted by contact with a zav applies in the case of a curtain, which is not the halakha with regard to impurity imparted by treading.

ื›ื™ ื ื’ืข ื‘ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ืžื™ื”ื ื˜ืžื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื›ื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžื’ืข ื”ื–ื‘ ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื”

Abaye comments: When a zav touched the sheet, in any event it was rendered impure, even if he touched it after he lay on the sheet, thereby rendering it impure with impurity imparted by treading. In this manner, it was rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading, and afterward it was again rendered impure due to contact with a zav. According to the statement of Rava, why would this be the halakha? Let us say that the item is already saturated with impurity and cannot be rendered impure a second time.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉืื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ืœื‘ืชืจ ืžื“ืจืก ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืงืžื™ ืžื“ืจืก ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื”

Rava said to him in response: And from where do you know that this statement of Rabbi Yosei: That if a zav touched the sheet it is nevertheless impure due to contact with a zav, is referring to a case where a zav touched the sheet after it was rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading? Perhaps he was referring to a case where a zav touched the sheet, rendering it impure due to contact with a zav, before he lay on it and rendered it impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading. In that case, the severe form of ritual impurity imparted by the treading of the zav, which is a primary source of ritual impurity that imparts impurity to all people and items, takes effect in addition to the lesser form of impurity imparted by contact with a zav, which imparts impurity only to food and drink.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืงืœื” ืœื

But here, in the case of part of a meal offering that was touched by one who immersed that day after having already become impure due to the touch of one who immersed that day, where both this and that are lesser forms of impurity, perhaps the impurity does not take effect a second time, as it is already impure.

ืืœื ืžืกื™ืคื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืžืงื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขืœ ื–ื” ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ื–ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ื•ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืžื’ืข ืžื“ืจืก ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara suggests: Rather, the proof against the existence of a principle that an item can be saturated with impurity and not susceptible to becoming impure a second time is from the last clause of a baraita that corresponds to the mishna: Rabbi Yosei concedes that in a case of two sheets that are folded and placed on top of one another, and a zav sat upon them, the top sheet is rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading, and the bottom sheet is rendered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by treading and due to contact with the top sheet that has become ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading. The Gemara explains: But according to the opinion advanced in Ravaโ€™s dilemma, why would this be the case? Let us say that the bottom sheet is already saturated with impurity and cannot be rendered impure a second time.

ื”ืชื ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื”ื›ื ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื”

The Gemara rejects this proof: There, with regard to the bottom sheet, the two types of impurity take effect simultaneously, whereas here, with regard to the impure meal offering, the two forms of impurity take effect one after the other. It is only in the latter case that Rava suggests that the second type of impurity does not take effect. Therefore, there is no conclusive proof, and the question raised by Rava remains unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉื—ืœืงื• ื•ืื‘ื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื•ื ืžืฆื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืจื™ ืฉืœืฉืชืŸ ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืกื ื ื˜ืžื ืื‘ื•ื“ ืื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ

ยง Rava says: In a case where one divided a tenth of an ephah of a meal offering into two halves, and one half was lost and he separated another half in its stead, and afterward the first lost half was found, and all three are placed in a receptacle together, if the one that had been lost became impure, the previously lost half-tenth of an ephah and the first half-tenth of an ephah join together and become impure, in accordance with the mishna cited earlier (แธคagiga 20b) that a vessel joins the two together with regard to ritual impurity. But the half-tenth of an ephah that was separated to replace the lost half-tenth does not join together with the other half-tenths, and it remains pure.

ื ื˜ืžื ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืื‘ื•ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ื ื˜ืžื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ

If the one that had been separated to replace the lost half-tenth became impure, then the separated half-tenth and the first half-tenth join together and become impure, since the former was separated in order to complete the tenth together with the first half-tenth, while the previously lost half-tenth does not join together with them. If the first half-tenth became impure, then both the previously lost half-tenth as well as the half-tenth that was separated as its replacement join together and become ritually impure, as each of them had at one point been part of the same tenth as the first half-tenth.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื ื˜ืžื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืงืชื ื“ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Abaye says: Even if any one of the half-tenths became impure, both remaining half-tenths join together and become impure as well. What is the reason? They are all residents of one cabin, i.e., they were meant to be part of the same meal offering.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ืฆื” ืงืžืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืื‘ื•ื“ ืฉื™ืจื™ื• ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืงืžืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ืคืจืฉ ืฉื™ืจื™ื• ื•ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืื‘ื•ื“ ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ

And similarly, according to Rava, with regard to the removal of the handful, if one removed the handful from the previously lost half-tenth, its remainder and the remainder of the first half-tenth of an ephah are eaten by the priests, while the half-tenth of an ephah that was separated in its stead is not eaten. Since it was not meant to join together with this other half-tenth, the removal of the handful does not permit its consumption. If one removed the handful from the one that had been separated in place of the lost half-tenth, then its remainder and the first half-tenth of an ephah are eaten, while the previously lost half-tenth is not eaten.

ืงืžืฅ ืžืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ

If one removed the handful from the first half-tenth, then both the previously lost half-tenth as well as the half-tenth that had been separated in its stead are not eaten. This is because the removal of the handful allows the remainder of only one tenth to be eaten, and it is not known whether the consumption of the previously lost half-tenth or the replacement half-tenth has now been permitted.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืžืฅ ืžืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืžื™ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืงืชื ื“ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Abaye says: Even if one removed the handful from any one of them, both remaining half-tenths are not eaten. What is the reason? They are all residents of one cabin, and it is not possible to know whether the consumption of one or of the other has been permitted.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ื”ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื“ื ืงื ื“ืงื•ืžืฅ ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื‘

Rav Pappa objects to this ruling of Abaye: And is that to say that in any event the remainder of the half-tenth itself from which the handful was taken is eaten? But one-sixth [danka] of the handful that was removed was not sacrificed to permit this remainder. The handful was removed to permit the consumption of the remainders of all three half-tenths of an ephah in the receptacle. Since the handful included one-third that was removed to account for the half-tenth that is not needed, it turns out that each of the two actual half-tenths should have had an additional one-sixth removed to render them permitted.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื•ืงื•ืžืฅ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืงืจื™ื‘ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืชืœืชื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Yitzแธฅak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, also objects to this ruling of Abaye: And with regard to the handful itself, how can it be sacrificed? But one-third of it, i.e., the portion separated to permit the extraneous half-tenth of an ephah, is non-sacred.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื‘ื“ืขืชื ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืชืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ืฅ ืืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืงื ืงืžื™ืฅ

Rav Ashi said: These questions present no difficulty, since with regard to the removal of the handful, the matter is dependent on the intention of the priest. And when the priest removes the handful, he removes it to permit the remainder of the tenth of an ephah, and not the remainder of the extraneous half-tenth. Still, the other two halves may not be eaten because it is not possible to know whether the consumption of one or of the other has been permitted.

Scroll To Top