§ 1. He who introduces his hands into a house that is smitten [^1300] [with leprosy, thereby causes] his hands [to become unclean in a] primary [^1301] [degree]. Such is the dictum of R. Akivah; but the sages [ p. 361 ] decide, “[He causes] his hands [to become unclean in a] secondary [^1302] [degree].” Whatever renders garments unclean [^1303] at the time of [coming into] contact therewith, causes the hands to become unclean [in a] primary degree. Such is the dictum of R. Akivah; but the sages decide, “[It causes the hands] to become [unclean in a] secondary [degree].” They [the sages, moreover] said to R. Akivah, “When do we ever find [that] the hands [become unclean in a] primary [degree]?” He answered them, “How is it possible that they [the hands] can become [unclean in a] primary [degree] unless the whole body has [previously] become unclean, except in the present instance.” [^1304] Articles of food, and vessels which have become unclean through liquids, cause the hands to become unclean [in a] secondary [degree]. Such is the dictum of R. Joshua; but the sages decide, “That which is become unclean through an Ab Hatoomah [1] makes the hands unclean; [but that winch is become] unclean through a Ab Hatoomah [2] does not make the hands unclean.” R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “It happened that a woman came before my father, and stated to him, ‘My hands got into the empty space of an [unclean] earthen vessel:’ he asked her, ‘My daughter, from what [cause] did the uncleanness arise?’ but I did not hear what she said to him.” The sages replied, “The case is clear; [3] that which is become unclean through an Ab Hatoomah makes the hands unclean, [but that which is become unclean] through a Ab Hatoomah does not make the hands unclean.”
§ 2. Whatever disqualifies heave [4] causes the hands to become [ p. 362 ] [unclean in a] secondary [degree]. One hand makes the other hand unclean. Such is the dictum of R. Joshua; but the sages decide, “That no secondary can make a secondary.” [5] R. Joshua [objected and] said to them [the sages], “Are not sacred scriptures secondaries, and [nevertheless they do] make the hands unclean?” [6] [But] they answered him, “The commandments of the [written] law cannot be subjected to conclusions drawn from the dicta of the Sopherim [scribes], nor these dicta to those commandments, nor yet dicta of the Sopherim to others of their dicta.”
§ 3. Leather straps of Tephilin, with the Tephilin [attached thereto] make the hands unclean. R. Simeon saith, “The straps of Tephilin do not make the hands unclean.”
§ 4. The margin in a book of the Law, at the top and at the bottom, at the beginning and at the end [thereof], makes the hands unclean. R. Jose saith, “[The margin] at the end does not make the hands unclean until the roller is attached to it.”
§ 5. A book [of the Law, in] which [the writing] is obliterated, but which still contains eighty-five letters, [a number] equal to the Parasha ויהי בנסוע הארון, [7] makes the hands unclean. Any Megillah [8] which contains eighty-five letters, [a number] equal to the above named Parasha, makes the hands unclean. All sacred scriptures make the hands unclean. [9] The Canticles and Ecclesiastes make the hands unclean. R. Jehudah saith, “Canticles make the hands unclean, but Ecclesiastes is [subject to] a dispute [difference of opinion].” R. José saith, “Ecclesiastes does not make the hands unclean, but the Canticles are [subject to] a dispute.” R. Simeon saith, “Ecclesiastes is one of [those observances in which] Beth Shammai [are] less strict, and Beth Hillel more rigid.” [10] R. Simeon ben Azai said, “I have it as a tradition from the mouths of seventy-two elders, on the day they inducted R. Eleazar ben Azariah into the president’s seat, that Canticles and Ecclesiastes [both] make [ p. 363 ] the hands unclean.” R. Akivah said, “Mercy forbid! no man in Israel ever disputed that the Canticles make the hands unclean, as the whole [history of the] world does not [offer an epoch] equal to the day on which the [book] Canticles was given to Israel; for all the Kethoobim [Hagiographers] are holy, but the Canticles are holy of holies. The dispute [in question, therefore,] referred to Ecclesiastes [only].” R. Jochanan ben Joshua, the son of R. Akivah’s father-in-law, said, “Even as Ben Azai stated, so was the dispute, and so was [also] the decision.”
360:1 Vide Leviticus xiv. 33–48. ↩︎
360:2 So as by their touch to render Cholin [common food], unfit for use; to render heave unclean, and what comes into contact therewith unfit for use; to p. 361 render sacred things and what comes into contact therewith unclean, and whatever touches the last named unfit for use. ↩︎
361:3 Which only renders unfit for use in heave, but renders such sacred things unclean as come in direct contact therewith. ↩︎
361:4 Such as the spittle or discharge of a person having a running issue [menorrhagia]. ↩︎
361:5 Because the hands only having been introduced into the house smitten with leprosy, the rest of the body remains clean. ↩︎
361:6 אב הטמאה, the parent stock, or generator of uncleanness; whatever contains the principle of uncleanness in itself, and does not derive it from any other object, but communicates it to whatever comes in contact therewith, as a human corpse, a dead reptile, &c. (Vide Treatises Oholoth, Negaim, and Mikvaoth.) ↩︎
361:7 ולד הטמאה, the offspring or product of uncleanness; whatever does not contain the principle of uncleanness in itself, but has derived or contracted it from some other object. (Vide Treatises Kelim, Taharoth, and Ukzin.) ↩︎
361:8 R. Gamaliel’s question as to the nature of the uncleanness supports and confirms our decision. ↩︎
361:9 So that it becomes Cholin and must not be eaten by priests. ↩︎
362:10 One object unclean in a secondary degree cannot cause another object, with which it comes in contact, to become unclean in the same degree. ↩︎