## Chagigah Daf 24a

###### Chagigah 24a:1
[Chagigah 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:1)

לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִשְׁיָרֵי מִנְחָה. דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, צָרִיךְ לִכְלִי — הַכְּלִי מְצָרְפוֹ, שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לִכְלִי — אֵין כְּלִי מְצָרְפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva’s testimony is not needed to teach the basic *halakha* that a vessel combines its ingredients, which is Torah law; **it is necessary only for the remainders of the meal-offering,** the part of a meal-offering left over after a fistful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar, which is eaten by a priest. In such a case the *halakha* of combining applies only by rabbinic law, for **by Torah law** only when an item **requires a vessel** in order for it to be sanctified does **the vessel combine it** with regard to impurity, even if its parts are not touching each other. But in the case of something **that does not require a vessel,** the **vessel does not combine it.** The remainder of a meal-offering no longer requires a vessel, since it is given to a priest after the fistful is sacrificed, so the flour in a vessel would not be considered combined according to Torah law.


###### Chagigah 24a:2
[Chagigah 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:2)

וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן וּגְזַרוּ דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְלִי — כְּלִי מְצָרְפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Sages came and decreed that even if** something **does not require a vessel,** such as the leftover flour of the meal-offering, the **vessel** nevertheless **combines it.**


###### Chagigah 24a:3
[Chagigah 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:3)

תִּינַח סֹלֶת, קְטוֹרֶת וּלְבוֹנָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: כְּגוֹן שֶׁצְּבָרָן עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְטְבֻלָא. דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, יֵשׁ לוֹ תּוֹךְ — מְצָרֵף, אֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ — אֵינוֹ מְצָרֵף, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן וְתַקִּינוּ דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ — מְצָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: It **works out well** in the case of **flour,** which can be said to refer to the flour left over from meal-offerings, but with regard to **incense and frankincense, what is there to say?** In these cases a vessel is certainly required, but if the *halakha* of combining applies to them from the Torah, why did Rabbi Akiva include them in his list? **Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: For example, if he piled them up on a leather board [*kartavla*],** rather than in a containing vessel. **By Torah law** a vessel that **has an inside combines** its ingredients, but **one that** is flat and **does not have an inside does not combine. And the Sages came and decreed that even if it does not have an inside it** nevertheless **combines** what is placed on it.


###### Chagigah 24a:4
[Chagigah 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:4)

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חָנִין אַדְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵעֵדוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נִשְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** this opinion **of Rabbi Ḥanin’s,** that impurity by combining is derived from the Torah, **disagrees with** the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** in reference to our mishna: **This mishna was taught based on Rabbi Akiva’s testimony.** In other words, the mishna’s teaching that a vessel combines its contents follows the statement of Rabbi Akiva, indicating that it is by rabbinic law, unlike Rabbi Ḥanin, who said that it is based on a source from the Torah.


###### Chagigah 24a:5
[Chagigah 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:5)

הָרְבִיעִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ פָּסוּל. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִנַּיִן לָרְבִיעִי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל — וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים שֶׁמּוּתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה — פָּסוּל בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁפָּסוּל בַּתְּרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה רְבִיעִי לַקֹּדֶשׁ? וְלָמַדְנוּ שְׁלִישִׁי לַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וּרְבִיעִי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: **The fourth degree** of impurity, **with regard to sacrificial** food, is **disqualified. It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei said: From where** is it derived with regard **to the fourth degree** of ritual impurity, that **with regard to sacrificial** food it **is disqualified? It is a logical derivation,** by *a fortiori*: **If one who is lacking atonement,** an impure person who is obligated to bring an offering to complete his purification process, **who is permitted to** eat ***teruma*,** is nevertheless **disqualified with regard to** the consumption of **sacrificial** food, as specified in the Torah, then concerning something that is impure to the **third** degree of ritual impurity, **which is disqualified** if it is ***teruma*, is it not right that it should engender a fourth** degree of ritual impurity when it touches **sacrificial** food? Therefore, **we have learned** that there is a **third** degree of impurity with regard **to sacrificial food from the Torah, and** that there is a **fourth** degree of impurity **from *a fortiori*** reasoning.


###### Chagigah 24a:6
[Chagigah 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:6)

שְׁלִישִׁי לַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דִּנְגַע בְּשֵׁנִי, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״. רְבִיעִי מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The above *baraita* taught that there is a **third** degree of impurity **for sacrificial** food **from the Torah.** The Gemara asks: **From where** is this derived? **As it is written: “And the meat that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 7:19). **Is it not** so that **we are not dealing** in that verse with meat that touches any “impure thing” at all, even **if it touched** something that is of the **second** degree of ritual impurity, which is also called an “impure thing”? **And** yet **the Merciful One states** with regard to that meat, which having touched a second-degree impurity is now impure to the third degree: **“It shall not be eaten,”** meaning that it has been rendered unfit due to impurity. And as for the *baraita’s* statement that the **fourth** level of impurity is derived **by an *a fortiori* inference –** it is **as we said** just above, the *a fortiori* inference put forth by Rabbi Yosei.


###### Chagigah 24a:7
[Chagigah 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:7)

וּבַתְּרוּמָה אִם נִטְמֵאת כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: בְּחִיבּוּרִין שָׁנוּ, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: **And with regard to *teruma*, if** one of one’s hands **became impure** with impurity by rabbinic law that renders only the hands impure, its counterpart, the other hand, remains pure. But with regard to sacrificial food, if one hand becomes impure he must immerse them both. **Rav Sheizevi said:** When they said that with regard to sacrificial food a hand that is rendered impure renders the other hand impure as well, **they taught** this only for a situation **when** the pure hand is **in contact** with the sacrificial food when the impure hand touches it. **But** if the pure hand is **not in contact** with the sacrificial food, **no,** the pure hand is not rendered impure by touching the impure hand. According to Rav Sheizevi, the Sages enacted the decree that one hand renders the other impure because they were concerned that the impure hand may have touched the sacrificial food directly without being noticed. Therefore, the decree applies only when the pure hand is touching the sacrificial food.


###### Chagigah 24a:8
[Chagigah 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: יָד נְגוּבָה מְטַמָּא חֲבֶירְתָּהּ לְטַמֵּא לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לִפְסוֹל, אֲבָל לֹא לְטַמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rav Sheizevi from the following teaching: Even **a dry hand** that is impure **renders its counterpart,** i.e., the other hand, **impure, to** the extent that the second hand will now **render impure** any food that it touches. This is true with regard **to sacrificial** food **but not** with regard **to *teruma*.** This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** The second hand is not rendered impure to such a severe extent. It can merely **disqualify** sacrificial food that it touches, by rendering it impure to the fourth degree, **but not render** it **impure** with third-degree impurity.


###### Chagigah 24a:9
[Chagigah 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:9)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין — הַיְינוּ רְבוּתַיהּ דִּנְגוּבָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּחִיבּוּרִין — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין — לָא, מַאי רְבוּתָה דִּנְגוּבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that the second hand becomes impure even **when it is not in contact** with the sacrificial food, **this** would explain **the noteworthiness of a dry** hand rendering its counterpart impure. It teaches that even though normally a dry hand would not render another hand impure, the Sages nevertheless declared it impure with regard to sacrificial food. **But if you say** that when the second hand is **in contact** with sacrificial food, **yes,** the decree that the second hand becomes impure applies, lest the impure hand touch the sacrificial food directly, but **when it is not in contact, no,** the decree does not apply, then **what is the noteworthiness** of stating that it applies in the case of a **dry** hand?


###### Chagigah 24a:10
[Chagigah 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/24a:10)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא יָדוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated** that *amora’im* disputed a similar issue: **Reish Lakish said: They taught** that one hand renders the other impure **only** if the second hand is **his** own **hand,**