a limb, which is all one; but as for the fistful, which is divisible, I would say [that it is] not [so]. (1) Therefore he informs us [otherwise]. R. Ahai said: Therefore, when half of the fistful, which is Piggul, is lying on the ground, and half has been taken up on the wood-pile [on the altar], and the fire has taken hold of it, we must take up the whole of it, even at the very outset. R. Isaac said in R. Johanan's name: If Piggul, nothar, or unclean [flesh] is taken up to the altar, their forbidden status leaves them. Said R. Hisda: O author of this [statement]! Is then the altar a ritual bath of purification! — Said R. Zera: [This law applies] where the fire has taken hold of it. (2) R. Isaac b. Bisna objected: Others (3) say: [When Scripture writes, But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings... ] having his uncleanness upon him [that soul shall be cut off from his people], (4) [it implies] one whose uncleanness can leave him, thus excluding flesh, whose uncleanness cannot leave it. (5) But if this is correct, (6) surely the uncleanness does leave it, through the fire? — Said Raba: We mean, through a mikweh. (7) Is then a Mikweh written [in the text]? — Rather said R. Papa: We are dealing with the flesh of peace-offerings, which is not eligible for presenting [on the altar]. (8) Rabina said: ‘Having his uncleanness upon him’ implies, one whose uncleanness leaves him while he is yet whole; thus flesh is excluded, because uncleanness does not leave it while it is whole, but only when it is defective. (9) [To turn to] the main text: ‘Having his uncleanness upon him’: Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person. You say, Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather of uncleanness of the flesh? Here ‘having his uncleanness [upon him]’ is said; while elsewhere it says, his uncleanness is yet upon him: (10) as there Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person, so here too Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person. R. Jose said: Since the ‘holy things’ are mentioned, in the plural, whilst ‘uncleanness’ is stated in the singular, Scripture must refer to uncleanness of the person. (11) Rabbi said: ‘And eat’ [shows that] Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person. (12) Others say: ‘Having his uncleanness upon him’ [implies] one whose uncleanness leaves him, thus excluding flesh, whose uncleanness cannot leave it. A Master said: ‘Rabbi said: "And eat" [shows that] Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person.’ How does this imply it? (13) — Said Raba, Every text which R. Isaac b. Abudimi, and every Mathnitha [Baraitha] which Ze'iri did not explain, are not explained. Thus did R. Isaac b. Abudimi say: Since the Writ commences in the feminine form and ends in the feminine, while [it employs] the masculine form in the middle, the Writ must speak of uncleanness of the person. (14) ‘A Mathnitha’? (15) — For it was taught: If the lighter ones were stated, why were the more stringent ones stated; and if the more stringent ones were stated, why were the lighter ones stated? (16) If the lighter ones were stated and not the more stringent ones, I would say: The lighter ones involve a negative injunction, (17) and the more stringent ones involve death; (18) therefore the more stringent ones are stated. (19) While if the more stringent were stated and not the lighter, I would say: The stringent ones involve culpability, but the lighter ones do not involve culpability at all; therefore the lighter ones are stated. Now, what are the lighter ones and the more stringent ones? Shall we say [that] the lighter ones are the tithe, and the more stringent ones are terumah? (20) [Can you then say,] ‘I would say: The more stringent ones involve death’? Surely now it too involves death! (21) Moreover, if it were not stated, would I say that it involves death? Surely it is sufficient for the conclusion to be as its premise? (22) Again if ‘the lighter ones’ mean uncleanness of a reptile, and ‘the more stringent ones’ uncleanness of a corpse, (23) to what then [does it refer]? (24) If to terumah? both involve death! (25) Moreover, [can you say,] ‘Therefore the more stringent ones are stated, [to teach] that they involve a negative injunction [only]?’ but surely it involves death? Whilst if it refers to the eating of tithe,

---

(1). ↑ Only the flour which has actually been burnt through must be taken up again, but not the rest.
(2). ↑ Then it belongs, as it were, to the altar.
(3). ↑ This usually refers to R. Meir; Hor. 13b.
(4). ↑ Lev. VII, 20.
(5). ↑ The Heb. we-tumatho ‘alaw might mean, having its uncleanness upon it, and thus imply that a clean person who partakes of the unclean flesh of a sacrifice incurs koreth. It is explained, however, that the phrase implies that the uncleanness is in force only now and that it can be raised; hence it must refer to the person, not to the flesh, which once unclean can never become clean again.
(6). ↑ That when unclean flesh is carried up to the altar and the fire takes hold of it, it loses its forbidden status.
(7). ↑ V. Glos.
(8). ↑ But is eaten; hence it can never become clean.
(9). ↑ I.e., when the fire has already partially destroyed it.
(10). ↑ Num. XIX, 13. Emended text.
(11). ↑ Sh. M.: Scripture writes, Whosoever... approacheth unto the holy things... having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me (Lev. XXII, 3). Now there it cannot refer to the sacrifices, for in that case the plural, having their uncleanness upon them would be required. Hence it must refer to the person, and therefore the same is assumed here.
(12). ↑ Ibid. VII, 21. The verse reads: And when any one shall touch any unclean thing... and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. That verse obviously refers to uncleanness of the person, and thus it illumines the previous verse (v. 20), showing that that too refers to the same.
(13). ↑ That the previous verse too refers to the same. Perhaps the previous verse treats of uncleanness of the flesh.
(14). ↑ The second verse (v. 21) writes: And when any one (Heb. Nefesh, lit. ‘soul’, fem.) shall touch (Heb. tiga’, fem.) any unclean thing... and eat (we-akal, masc. instead of we-aklah, fem.) of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that soul shall be cut off (we-nikrethah, fem.). The preceding verse (v. 20) runs: But the soul (fem.) that eateth (fem.) of the flesh (masc.)... having his (or its) uncleanness upon him (or it) masc.), that soul shall be cut off (fem.) Since the suffixes of ‘uncleanness’ and ‘upon’ are masc., it might be assumed that they refer to ‘flesh’ which is masc. But when we see the same change of gender in the following verse, though that obviously refers to the uncleanness of the person, it is reasonable to say the same here. For Scripture has already treated of uncleanness of the flesh earlier in the section: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire (v. 19). It continues with, And as for the flesh, any one that is clean may eat thereof, which indicates that unclean flesh is no longer being dealt with. Hence when it proceeds, But the soul that eateth... having his uncleanness upon him, it is logical to assume that uncleanness of the person is referred to, in suite of the change of gender.
(15). ↑ Which mathnitha required Ze'iri's explanation?
(16). ↑ This treats of the interdict of eating sacred food while personally unclean. By ‘lighter’ and ‘more stringent’ are meant food of lighter and of more stringent sanctities respectively. The Talmud explains anon which these are.
(17). ↑ Which is punishable by flagellation.
(18). ↑ At the hands of heaven.
(19). ↑ To show that these too involve a negative injunction only.
(20). ↑ V. Lev. XXII, 6f: The soul that toucheth any such (unclean reptiles, etc.) shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water. And when the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterwards he may eat of the holy things. These two verses are apparently contradictory, for the first implies that he may eat of the ‘holy things’ immediately after a ritual bath, even before sunset, while the second teaches that even after the ritual bath he must wait until sunset. Therefore the Rabbis (in Yeb. 74b) made the first refer to tithe, whose sanctity is lighter, and the second to terumah, whose sanctity is more stringent. Its greater stringency lies in the fact that a Zar (a lay Israelite) may not partake of terumah, whereas he may partake of tithe. Scripture then goes on to say in v. 9: They (i.e. the priests) shall therefore keep My charge, lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it. This is understood to mean that an unclean priest eating terumah is liable to death (v. n. 4.).
(21). ↑ Scripture does in fact teach that for partaking of terumah whilst unclean one is liable to death.
(22). ↑ This is a general principle: when one thing is learnt from another, a fortiori or a minori, it cannot go further than its premise. Now, if terumah were not stated, it could be learnt from tithe, a minori. But it could not involve a greater punishment than tithe, which is subject to a negative injunction only.
(23). ↑ I.e., ‘lighter’ and ‘more stringent’ apply not to the ‘holy things’ (the sacred food) but to the source of the priest's defilement. Both are enumerated in that passage, viz.: And whoso toucheth any one that is unclean by the dead... or whosoever toucheth any swarming thing (i.e. a reptile) Lev. XXII, 4-5.
(24). ↑ To the eating of which sacred food?
(25). ↑ Whether a priest is unclean in the one way or the other, he is liable to death for eating terumah.