## Menachot Daf 24b

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

מִדְרָס וַעֲשָׂאוֹ וִילוֹן – טָהוֹר מִן הַמִּדְרָס, אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע מִדְרָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּאֵיזֶה מִדְרָס נָגַע זֶה? אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם נָגַע בּוֹ הַזָּב, טָמֵא מַגַּע הַזָּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

כִּי נָגַע בּוֹ הַזָּב מִיהָא טָמֵא, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְבַסּוֹף כְּטָמֵא מִדְרָס, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַגַּע הַזָּב, אַמַּאי? לֵימָא: שְׂבַע לֵיהּ טוּמְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״שֶׁאִם נָגַע בּוֹ הַזָּב״ לְבָתַר מִדְרָס? דִּילְמָא מִקַּמֵּי מִדְרָס, דְּהָוְיָא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַל טוּמְאָה קַלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי טוּמְאָה קַלָּה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בִּשְׁנֵי סְדִינִין הַמְקוּפָּלִין וּמוּנָּחִין זֶה עַל זֶה וְיָשַׁב זָב עֲלֵיהֶן, שֶׁהָעֶלְיוֹן טָמֵא מִדְרָס, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹן טָמֵא מִדְרָס וּמַגַּע מִדְרָס. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: שְׂבַע לֵיהּ טוּמְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 Rava’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.


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

הָתָם בְּבַת אַחַת, הָכָא בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ, וְאָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְנִמְצָא הָרִאשׁוֹן, וַהֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מוּנָּחִין בְּבִיסָא – נִטְמָא אָבוּד, אָבוּד וְרִאשׁוֹן מִצְטָרְפִין, מוּפְרָשׁ אֵין מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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 (*Ḥagiga* 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.


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

נִטְמָא מוּפְרָשׁ – מוּפְרָשׁ וְרִאשׁוֹן מִצְטָרְפִין, אָבוּד אֵין מִצְטָרֵף; נִטְמָא רִאשׁוֹן – שְׁנֵיהֶם מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִטְמָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָמֵי – שְׁנֵיהֶם מִצְטָרְפִין, מַאי טַעְמָא? כּוּלְּהוּ בְּנֵי בִיקְתָּא דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 24b:11
[Menachot 24b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/24b:11)

וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן קְמִיצָה, קָמַץ מִן הָאָבוּד – שְׁיָרָיו וְרִאשׁוֹן נֶאֱכָלִין, מוּפְרָשׁ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל; קָמַץ מִן הַמּוּפְרָשׁ – שְׁיָרָיו וְרִאשׁוֹן נֶאֱכָלִין, אָבוּד אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 24b:12
[Menachot 24b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/24b:12)

קָמַץ מִן רִאשׁוֹן – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 24b:13
[Menachot 24b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/24b:13)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קָמַץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן, שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי בְּנֵי בִיקְתָּא דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 24b:14
[Menachot 24b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/24b:14)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וְשִׁירַיִם דִּידֵיהּ מִיהָא נֶאֱכָלִין? הָא אִיכָּא דַּנְקָא דְּקוֹמֶץ דְּלָא קָרֵיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 24b:15
[Menachot 24b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/24b:15)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וְקוֹמֶץ גּוּפֵיהּ הֵיכִי קָרֵיב? הָא אִיכָּא תְּלָתָא חוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak, 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.**


###### Menachot 24b:16
[Menachot 24b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/24b:16)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: קוֹמֶץ בְּדַעְתָּא דְּכֹהֵן תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, וְכֹהֵן כִּי קָמֵיץ – אַעִשָּׂרוֹן קָא קָמֵיץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.