Pesachim 37

בכל טמא לא יאכל מי לא עסקינן דנגע בשני רביעי מקל וחומר כדאמרינן

shall not be eaten:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19.');">¹</span> do we not treat even [of a case] where it touched a second?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a 'second' is called unclean; thus Scripture intimates that a second makes a third in sacred food.');">²</span>

ואי ס"ד סבר כר"ע ניתני נמי רביעי בתרומה וחמישי בקודש

'While a fourth [is learned] 'a minori, as we have stated. Now, if you should think that he holds as R'Akiba, let him also state a fourth in the case of terumah and a fifth in the case of sacred food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he holds that there is a third in the case of hullin, he can deduce these a minori. Thus: if a tebul yom (v. Glos.) . though permitted to eat hullin, is unfit to eat terumah, then surely a third, which is unfit in the case of hullin, creates a fourth in the case of terumah. And we cannot defile this by the principle that it is sufficient for what is learned a minori to be like its premise, for in that case the deduction is superfluous, for a third in the case of terumah is learned direct from Scripture from the same source whence we learn a third in the case of hullin (v. supra 18a) . Hence the deduction a minori must be in respect of a fourth, while a fifth would then follow on the same lines from one who lacks atonement.');">³</span>

אלא ר"ע לא סבר כר' יוסי מנלן

But how do we know that R'Akiba does not agree with R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the validity of this argument.');">⁴</span> - Said he to him, Because a Tanna could not completely refrain from teaching [that there is] a fourth in the case of terumah and a fifth in the case of sacred food, and we would say that it agrees with R'Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Akiba must hold thus if he');">⁵</span>

א"ל דלא לישתמיט תנא וליתני רביעי בתרומה וחמישי בקודש ונימא ר"ע היא ואנן אהכי ניקום ונסמוך

And shall we arise and rely upon this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is merely a negative argument?');">⁶</span> [Thereupon] R'Ashi - others say, R'Kahana - went out, searched, and found the following which we learned: A utensil unites its contents in the case of sacred food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If two pieces of sacred food are lying in a vessel, not touching each other, and an unclean object touches one piece, the other is defiled too, because the vessel makes them, both as one.');">⁷</span>

נפק רב אשי ואי תימא רב כהנא דק ואשכח הא דתנן הכלי מצרף את מה שבתוכו לקודש אבל לא לתרומה והרביעי בקודש פסול והשלישי בתרומה

but not in the case of terumah, and a fourth degree is unfit in the case of sacred food, but not in the case of terumah - Whereon R'Hiyya B'Abba said in R'Johanan's name: This Mishnah was learned as a result of R'Akiba's testimony. For we learned, R'Akiba added<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his testimony on 'that day', v. p. 71, n. 3.');">⁸</span>

ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מעדותו של ר"ע נשנית משנה זו (דתניא) הוסיף ר"ע הסולת והקטורת והלבונה והגחלים שאם נגע טבול יום במקצתן פסל את כולן

the fine meal, incense, frankincense, and the burning coals, that if a tebul yom touches part thereof he renders all unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This must be because the vessel which contains them makes the various particles one, and not just because they touch each other, for in that case we would have to go in order to render all the particles unfit even beyond a fifth. V. 'Ed., Sonc. ed. p. 47 notes.');">⁹</span> Thus there is a fourth [in sacred food], but not a fifth; a third [in the case of terumah].

רביעי אין חמישי לא שלישי אין רביעי לא

but not a fourth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we have a positive proof that R. Akiba does not hold that there are a fourth and a fifth in the case of terumah and sacred food respectively.');">¹⁰</span> This proves that he holds that [the power of] uniting is Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Johanan states that this Mishnah was taught as a result of R. Akiba's testimony, referring as it does to frankincense and live coals, is only Rabbinical, for they are subject to defilement only by Rabbinical, not by Scriptural law (Rashi) . Tosaf. offers another explanation.');">¹¹</span>

אלמא קסבר צירוף דרבנן ופליגא דרבי חנין דאמר צירוף דאורייתא שנאמר (במדבר ז, יד) כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטרת הכתוב עשה כל מה שבכף אחת

Now he differs from R'Hanin who maintained: [The power of] uniting is Biblical, for it is said, one golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VII, 14.');">¹²</span> the Writ rendered everything in the pan one.

תנן התם על מחט שנמצאת בבשר שהסכין והידים טהורות והבשר טמא נמצאת בפרש הכל טהור אמר רבי עקיבא זכינו שאין טומאת ידים במקדש

We learned elsewhere: [He testified] concerning an [unclean] needle which is found in the flesh [of a sacrifice], that the knife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherewith the animal was slaughtered.');">¹³</span> and the hands<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the priest who touched the animal.');">¹⁴</span> are clean, while the flesh is unclean; if found in the excrements,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inside the animal.');">¹⁵</span> it is all clean - R'Akiba said: We have been favoured in that there is no uncleanness of the hands in the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness of the hands in general is only Rabbinical, and R. Akiba maintains that this enactment never applied to the');">¹⁶</span>