Parallel
חגיגה 20
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
From the fact that [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree [of purity]. — But perhaps the reason why [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree of purity is because if it is like terumah, behold [the Mishnah] deals with terumah; and if it is like unconsecrated [food], behold [the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated [food]! For it is taught: Unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like unconsecrated [food]. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok says: It is like terumah. — Rather [is it to be inferred] from the second part [of the Mishnah]. JOSE B. JO'EZER WAS THE MOST PIOUS IN THE PRIESTHOOD, YET HIS APRON WAS [CONSIDERED TO POSSESS] MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS [FOR THOSE WHO ATE] HALLOWED THINGS. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA USED ALL HIS LIFE TO EAT [UNCONSECRATED FOOD] IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURITY REQUIRED FOR HAllowed THINGS, YET HIS APRON WAS [CONSIDERED TO POSSESS] MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO OCCUPIED THEMSELVES WITH THE WATER OF] PURIFICATION. [Only] for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification, but not for hallowed things; thus [the Mishnah] holds that unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan b. Eleazar said: If a man's wrap fell from off him, and he said to his fellow, ‘Give it to me’, and he gave it to him, it is unclean. R. Jonathan b. Amram said: If by mistake a man put his Sabbath garments on instead of his weekday garments, they become unclean. R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: Once two scholarly women took one another's garments by mistake in the bathhouse, and the matter came before R. Akiba, and he declared them unclean. To this R. Oshaia demurred: If so, if a man stretched forth his hand to the basket with the intention of taking wheat bread and there came up in his hand barley bread, has it also become unclean? And should you say ‘It is so’; then behold it is taught: If one guards a jug on the assumption that it is [a jug] of wine, and it is found to be [a jug] of oil, it is clean so as not to defile! — But according to your reasoning, how do you understand the concluding clause [of the Baraitha]: But it may not be consumed? Why? — Said R. Jeremiah: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it against anything that might defile it, but not against anything that might invalidate it. But can anything be half-guarded? — Indeed; for it is taught: If a man stretched forth his hand into the basket, and the basket was on his shoulder and the shovel was in the basket, and his mind was on the basket but not on the shovel, the basket is clean and the shovel is unclean. [Now it says] ‘The basket is clean’? [Surely] the shovel should make the basket unclean! — One vessel does not make another unclean. Then it should make the contents of the basket unclean! — Rabina said: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it [the shovel] against anything that might defile it, but not against anything that might invalidate it. In any case, there is a contradiction! And furthermore, Rabbah b. Abbuha raised an objection: Once a woman came before R. Ishmael and said to him: Master, I have woven this garment in purity, but it was not in my mind to guard it in purity. But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael subjected her, she said to him: Master, a menstruous woman pulled the cord with me. Said R. Ishmael: How great are the words of the Sages, who used to say: If one had the intention to guard a thing, it is clean; if one did not have the intention to guard it, it is unclean. There was another story of a woman who came before R. Ishmael. She said to him: Master, I wove this cloth in purity, but it was not in my mind to guard it. But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael subjected her, she said to him: Master, a thread broke and I tied it with my mouth. Said R. Ishmael: How great are the words of the Sages who used to say: If it is in one's mind to guard a thing it is clean; if it is not in one's mind to guard it, it is unclean. Granted in regard to [the teaching of] R. Eleazar b. Zadok, [it can be explained that] each one [of the women] says [to herself]: ‘My companion is the wife of an ‘am ha-arez’; and [consequently] she takes her mind off it. In regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Amram too [it can be explained that] since a man takes special care of Sabbath garments, [it is as though] he took his mind off them. But in regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Eleazar [it can be objected] that he could [still] guard it in the hand of his companion! — R. Johanan answered: It is a presumable certainty that one does not guard what is in the hand of his companion. — Indeed no?
—
But behold it is taught: If a man's ass-drivers and workmen were laden with [levitically] clean goods, even if he withdrew from them more than a mil his clean goods remain clean. But if he said to them: Go ye, and I shall come after you, then as soon as they are hidden from his sight, his clean goods become unclean. — In what respect is the first case different from the second? R. Isaac Nappaha said: In the first case he purifies his ass-drivers and workmen for this purpose. — If so, [it applies to] the second case too! — An ‘am ha-arez does not mind another's touching. — If so, [it applies to] the first case too! — It is a case where [the master] can come upon them [suddenly] by a roundabout path. — If so [it applies to] the second case too! — Since he said to them, ‘Go ye, and I shall come after you’, their minds are at ease. MISHNAH. GREATER STRINGENCY APPLIES TO HALLOWED THlngs THAN TO TERUMAH: FOR VESSELS WITHIN VESSELS MAY BE IMMERSED [TOGETHER] FOR TERUMAH, BUT NOT FOR HALLOWED THINGS. THE OUTSIDE AND INSIDE AND HANDLE [OF A VESSEL ARE REGARDED AS SEPARATE] FOR TERUMAH, BUT NOT FOR HALLOWED THINGS. HE THAT CARRIES ANYTHING POSSESSING MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS MAY CARRY [AT THE SAME TIME] TERUMAH, BUT NOT HALLOWED THINGS. THE GARMENTS OF THOSE WHO EAT TERUMAH POSSES MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO EAT] HALLOWED THINGS. THE RULE [FOR THE IMMERSION OF GARMENTS] FOR [THOSE WHO WOULD EAT OF] TERUMAH IS NOT LIKE THE RULE FOR [THOSE WHO WOULD EAT OF] HALLOWED THINGS: FOR IN THE CASE OF HALLOWED THINGS, HE MUST [FIRST] UNTIE [ANY KNOTS IN THE UNCLEAN GARMENT], DRY IT [IF IT IS WET, THEN] IMMERSE IT, AND AFTERWARDS RETIE IT; BUT IN CASE OF TERUMAH, IT MAY [FIRST] BE TIED AND AFTERWARDS IMMERSED. VESSELS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED IN PURITY REQUIRE IMMERSION [BEFORE THEY ARE USED] FOR HALLOWED THINGS, BUT NOT [BEFORE THEY ARE USED] FOR TERUMAH. A VESSEL UNITES ALL ITS CONTENTS [FOR DEFILEMENT] IN THE CASE OF HALLOWED THINGS, BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH. HALLOWED THINGS BECOME INVALID [BY UNCLEANNESS] AT THE FOURTH REMOVE, BUT TERUMAH [ONLY BY UNCLEANNESS] AT THE THIRD REMOVE. IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH, IF ONE HAND OF A MAN BECAME UNCLEAN, THE OTHER REMAINS CLEAN, BUT IN THE CASE OF HALLOWED THINGS, HE MUST IMMERSE BOTH [HANDS], BECAUSE THE ONE HAND DEFILES THE OTHER FOR HALLOWED THINGS BUT NOT FOR TERUMAH. DRY FOODSTUFFS MAY BE EATEN WITH UNWASH ED HANDS, WITH TERUMAH, BUT NOT WITH HALLOWED THINGS.31
—