Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 6, scan section 77

have fallen upon it" when? Should we assume, before it is completed, then it is not yet a vessel ; if after, then he takes good care of it ? The case may be, before it is completed, yet perhaps at the moment it was made, it was still liquid (and it may be defiled). " The vessel includes what is within,'' etc. Whence do we know that ? Said R. Hanin : It is written [Num. vii. 14, etc.] : " One spoon of ten shekels of gold, full of incense." The Scripture makes everything that is in the spoon one. R. Kahana objected : We have learned, that R. Aqiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the in- cense, and the frankincense and the coals, for if the person, in the course of purification, touch the extremity of it, he disquali- fies the whole. Now, this addition of R. Aqiba is certainly rab- binical, as the first part of the Mishna states (Edeoth, VIII., i): R. Simeon b. Bathyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the red cow, that if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean ; and immediately he says, that R. Aqiba added this? (And R. Hanin says, it is rabbinical.) Said Resh Lakish in the name of Bar Kapara : The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For, biblically, what stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it ; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it ; but the rabbis went further and ordained that, although a thing does not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel, nevertheless, includes it. *' The unclean in the fourth degree,'" etc. We have learned in a Boraitha : R. Jose said : Whence do we deduce the case of the unclean in the fourth degree, that in the matter of sacred things he is disqualified ? By an ^ fortiori argument. For he who has entered on the last stage of his atonement, while he is free as regards heave-offering, he is disqualified as regards sacred things, so much the more when one is unclean in the third degree who defiles heave-offering that he should become dis- qualified as regards sacred things if unclean in the fourth degree. We have learned, however, that he who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards sacred things, biblically, and that he who is in the fourth degree — by an a fortiori argu- ment, namely: It is written [Lev. vii. 9] : "And the flesh that toucheth any' unclean thing shall not be eaten." Are we not here treating of the touching of a thing of secondary unclean- ness? And nevertheless the Scripture says, it shall not be 48 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. eaten ? That which is unclean in the fourth degree is proved to be disqualified by the a fortiori argument stated above, ^^ And though one of his hands be unclean.'' R. Shezbi said: It is only in the case of contact, but not otherwise. Abayi objected : We have learned : A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean so far as to make unclean for sacred things, but not for heave-offering. Such is the dictum of Rabbi. R. Jose b. R. Jehu- dah says : This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. It is correct if the Mishna treats of a case where it did not come in contact, and therefore the importance of " wiped " hand ? But if the case is only when there is contact, but not otherwise, where is the importance of "wiped " hand? It was taught also that Resh Lakish said the Mishna refers only to his own hand, but not to the hand of his companion (R. Jo- hanan, however, says both his own hand and his companion's hand), with the same hand he may only disqualify, but not render unclean. Whence did he learn this? From the fact that it has been taught in the latter portion of the Mishna. For the hand makes its fellow unclean in the case of sacred things, but not in the case of heave-offering. Why the repetition ? Was it not taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishna? We must therefore say, it comes to teach us that the hand of the companion is included. And Resh Lakish himself retracted his decision, as R. Jonah said in the name of R. Ami that Resh Lakish said, whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his com- panion, with that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean. " We may eat dry food" etc. We have learned in a Boraitha : R. Hanina b. Antigonus said : Does such a question as to whether a thing be dry or wet exist as regards sacred things? Does not love for the sacred things make m.en cautious in regard to defilement? The Mishna treats of a case, that a man's com- panion put a piece of the sacred things into his mouth, or he put it into his own mouth with a spindle or with a skewer, or attempted to eat along with these an onion or garlic taken from unconsecrated things. As to sacred things the rabbis ordained so, but as to heave-offering they did not. " The fnourner and he who lacks atonement.'' Why so ? Be- cause they were under restriction, the sages ordained that they shall dip. MISHNA : More rigorous rules, on the other hand, hold in a heave-offering, for in Judea people are believed with regard to TRACT HAGIGA (HOLOCAUST). 49 purity of wine and oil all the days of the year, but at the time of the vintage and the oil-pressing, with regard to heave-offering also. When the vintage and the oil-pressing are over, and a cask of wine for heave-offering was brought, it must not be received, but it may be left for the next vintage. But if he say to him, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for sacred things, he is believed. In the case of jugs of wine and jugs of oil which are mixed, men are believed with regard to them at the time of vintage and oil- pressing and for seventy days before the vintage. GEMARA : In Judea, yes; but in Galilea, no? Why so? Said Resh Lakish : Because there is a strip of the Gentiles mak- ing a separation between them. But let him bring it in a box, a chest, or in a balloon ? This is in accordance with Rabbi, \yho said : A tent projected is not a real tent. But let one bring it in an earthenware vessel tied round with a line of thread ? Said R. Eliezer : We have learned in a Boraitha : Sacred things are not preserved from uncleanness by a line of thread. '■'But at the time of vintage''' etc. There is a contradiction from the following Boraitha : He who finishes his olives shall leave aside one box and place it before the eyes of the priest (in order that he shall examine it as to whether they are not ripe yet, and the priest shall place them in cleanness when they become ripe. Hence we see that even at that time they were not believed ?) Said R. Nahman : This presents no difficulty. The one is the case of those early in season, the other of those