Parallel
חגיגה 23
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
, when the thong of his sandal broke, and he took it and placed it on the mouth of the jar, and It fell into the hollow of the jar, which was thus rendered unclean. At that time they enjoined: He that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not hallowed things. — If so, [it should be forbidden to carry] terumah too! — This is according to R. Hananiah b. Akabia who said: They Prohibited it only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to [the circumstances of] the occurrence. What is this? — It is taught: A man shall not take water of purification or ashes of purification, and convey them over the Jordan in a ship, nor stand on one side [of a river] and throw them to the other side, nor float them over the water, nor ride upon all animal or his fellow, unless his feet touch the ground; but one may unhesitatingly convey them over a bridge, be it across the Jordan or any other river. R. Hananiah b. Akabia says: They prohibited it only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to [the circumstances of] the occurrence. What was the occurrence? — Rab Judah said that Rab said: Once someone was conveying water of purification on the Jordan in a ship, and a [piece of a] corpse the size of an olive was found stuck in the bottom of the ship. At that time they enjoined: A man shall not take water of purification and ashes of purification and convey them over the Jordan in a ship. A question was raised: [It happened with] all unclean sandal; what of a clean sandal? [It happened with] all open jar, what of a closed jar? How is it if a man transgressed and carried [them thus]? — R. Ela said: If he transgressed and carried [them thus], they are unclean. R. Zera said: If he transgressed and carried [them thus] they are clean. VESSELS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED IN PURITY etc. Who finished them? Should one say that an Associate finished them, then why do they require immersion? If, on the other hand, an ‘am ha-arez, finished them, can they be called ‘finished in purity’? — Rabbah b. Shilah said that R. Mattenah said that Samuel said: Actually, [one can say] that an Associate finished them, yet [the vessel requires immersion] lest the spittle of an ‘am ha-arez [fell upon it]. — When could it have fallen [upon it]? Should one say, before he finished it, then it is not yet a vessel! If, on the other hand, after he had finished it, then he would surely take good care of them! — Actually, [one can say that it fell upon it] before he finished it, but perhaps at the time when he finished it, it was still moist. [It states:] It requires [only] immersion, but not sunset; our Mishnah, therefore, is not according to R. Eliezer. For we have learnt: If a [reed] pipe was cut for [putting therein ashes of] purification, R. Eliezer says: It must be immersed forthwith; R. Joshua says: It must [first] be rendered unclean, and then immersed. Now we raised the point: Who could have cut it? Should one say that an Associate cut it, then why is im mersion required? If, on the other hand, an ‘am ha-arez cut it, how can R. Joshua, in such a case, say: It must [first] be rendered unclean, and then immersed? Behold,it is already unclean! Now Rabbah b. Shila said that R. Mattenah said that Samuel said: Actually, [you can say] that an Associate cut it, yet [immersion is required] lest the spittle of an ‘am ha-arez [fell upon it]. — [Again] when could it have fallen [upon it]? Should one say before he cut it, then it is not yet a vessel! If, on the other hand, after he had cut it, he would surely take good care of it! Actually, [you can say that it fell on the vessel] before he cut it, but perhaps at the time that he cut it, it was still moist. Granted [then] according to R. Joshua, a distinction is thus made, [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees. For we have learnt: They used to render the priest that was to burn the [red] heifer unclean, as a demonstration against the view of the Sadducees, who used to say: It must be performed [only] by those on whom the sun had set. But according to R. Eliezer, granted if you say that in an other cases we do require sunset, a distinction is thus made [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees, but if you say that in other cases [too] we do not require sunset, what distinction is there, [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees? — Rab answered:
—
They rendered it as though defiled by a [dead] reptile. — If so. it should not render a person unclean; why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion? — [You must say], therefore, They rendered it as though defiled by a corpse.If so, it should require sprinkling on the third and seventh day; why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion? [implying only] immersion, but not sprinkling on the third and seventh day! — [You must say], therefore, They rendered it as though in its seventh day after defilement by a corpse. But surely it is taught: They never introduced any innovation in connection with the [red heifer! — Abaye answered: [It means] that they never said that a spade. [for instance]. should be rendered unclean as a seat [on which a gonorrhoeist sat]. As it is taught: And he that sitteth on any thing: I might [have thought] that if [the gonorrhoeist] inverted a se'ah [measure] and sat upon it, [or] a Tarkab [measure] and sat upon it, it should become un clean, therefore the text teaches us: And he that sitteth on any thing whereon, [he that hath the issue] Sat ... shall become unclean; [meaning] that which is appointed for sitting; but that is excluded In regard to which we can say, Stand up that we may do our work. A VESSEL UNITES ALL ITS CONTENTS [FOR DEFILEMENT] IN THE CASE OF HALLOWED THINGS, BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH. Whence is this deduced? R. Hanin said: Scripture says: One golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense: thus, the verse made an the contents of the pan one. R. Kahana raised an objection: [We have learnt], R. Akiba added [with regard to] the fine flour and the incense, the frankincense and the coals, that if one who had taken an immersion that day [but had not yet awaited sunset] touched a part thereof, he renders the whole in valid. Now this is [an enactment] of the Rabbis! Whence [is this proven]? — Since it teaches in the first clause: R. Simeon b. Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification that if an unclean person touched a part thereof, he rendered the whole unclean; and then it teaches: R. Akiba added: — Resh Lakish answered in the name of Bar Kappara
—