חגיגה 18 — Soncino English Talmud

¹, I would not know how many [days]; therefore we are told the statement of R. Eleazar In the name of R. Oshaia. Resh Lakish said: [It is written]: And the Feast of Harvest. Which is the Feast on which you feast and harvest? You must say: It is the Feast of Weeks. [Now] when? Should one say on the festival-day [itself]? Is reaping then permitted on the festival-day? It must refer, therefore, to [the period after the Feast] when the offerings can still be made good. Said R. Johanan [to him]: Now accordingly, [since it is written], the Feast of Ingathering [one can likewise argue thus]: ‘Which is the Feast on which there is ingathering? You must say: It is the Feast of Tabernacles. When? Should one say on the festival-day [itself]. is work then permitted on a festival-day! It must refer, therefore, to the mid-festival days’. But is [work] then permitted on the mid-festival days? It must mean, therefore, the Feast that comes at the season of ingathering. Similarly here [it means] the Feast that comes at the season of reaping. It follows therefore that both are of the opinion that on the mid-festival days it is forbidden to do work. Whence is this derived? — For our Rabbis taught: The Feast of Unleavened Bread shalt thou keep; seven days. This teaches concerning the mid-festival days that work thereon is forbidden: this is the view of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says: This is unnecessary. [It can be proved by] an argument a minore ad majus. If on the first and seventh days, which have no sanctity before or after them, work is forbidden, how much more so is it right that work should be forbidden on the mid-festival days, which have sanctity before and after them. — But the six working days disprove [this argument] for they have sanctity before them and after them, and yet work thereon is permitted! — [No], whereas [this applies] to the six working days which have no additional sacrifice, can you say [the same] of the mid-festival days which have an additional sacrifice? — But the New Moon Day disproves this [argument]; for it has additional sacrifices, and yet work thereon is permitted! — [No], whereas [this applies] to the New Moon Day which is not called a ‘holy convocation’, can you say [the same] of the mid-festival days which are called ‘holy convocation’? Since it is called ‘holy convocation’ it is only right that work thereon should be forbidden. Another [Baraitha] taught: Ye shall do no matter of servile work — this teaches that it is forbidden to do work on mid-festival days: this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says: This is unnecessary. It is said: These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, etc. Whereof does the verse speak? If of the first day, behold it has already been said: Solemn rest. If of the seventh day, behold, it has already been said: Solemn rest. The verse, therefore, must speak only of the mid-festival days, to teach thee that it is forbidden to do work thereon. Another [Baraitha] taught: Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; and on the seventh day shall be restraint [of work] unto to the Lord. Just as the seventh day is under restraint [in respect of work], so the six days are under restraint [in respect of work] — If [you should think that] just as the seventh day is under restraint in respect of all manner of work, so the six days are under restraint in respect of all manner of work; therefore Scripture teaches: ‘And on the seventh day shall be restraint [of work]’ — only the seventh day is under restraint in respect of all manner of work, but the six days are not under restraint in respect of all manner of work. Thus Scripture left it to the Sages to tell you on which day [work] is forbidden, and on which day it is permitted; which manner of work is forbidden, and which is permitted. AND MOURNING AND FASTING ARE PERMITTED, IN ORDER NOT TO CONFIRM THE VIEW OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS [INVARIABLY] FOLLOWS THE SABBATH: But behold it is taught: It happened that Alexa died at Lod, and all Israel assembled to mourn for him, but R. Tarfon did not permit them, because it was the festival-day of the Feast of Weeks. [Now] can you possibly suppose that it was [actually] the festival day? How could they come on the festival-day? You must say, therefore, because it was the day for slaughter! — There is no contradiction: in the one case, the festival-day [of the Feast of Weeks] fell after the Sabbath; in the other case, the festival-day fell on the Sabbath.34^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ

^ᵃnote:Sc. are allowed for making good the offerings of the Feast of Weeks.
^ᵇnote:Ex. XXIII, 16.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. and XXXIV, 22.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘the profane part of the festival’, i.e., the six half-festive days between the first day of Tabernacles, which is a festival-day proper, and the Eighth Day of Solemn Assembly, which is likewise a festival-day. The same term applies also to the five intermediate days of Passover. This period would correspond to that after the Feast of Weeks when the offerings can still be made good.
^ᵉnote:And not, as Resh Lakish would have it, a festival time at which feasting and reaping are combined.
^ᶠnote:Since Resh Lakish does not object to R. Johanan's statement regarding the prohibition of work on the mid-festival days, it follows that he must agree.
^ᵍnote:Ex. XXIII, 15.
^ʰnote:‘Keep’ is taken invariably to imply prohibition of work. By connecting the words ‘seven days’ with the verb ‘keep’, the prohibition is extended to the mid-festival days.
^ⁱnote:I.e.,the verse is not needed for the proof.
^ʲnote:I.e., holy days.
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘six days of the beginning of (creation)’; cf Ex. XX, 9-11.
^ˡnote:Lit., ‘prove’ sc. the contrary.
^ᵐnote:I.e., the Sabbath.
^ⁿnote:V. Num. XXVIII, 19-24, and XXIX, 13-16.
^ᵒnote:V. Lev. XXIII, and Num. XXVIII and XXIX. ‘Holy’ implies the prohibition of work.
^ᵖnote:Lev. XXIII, 7.
^ᵠnote:This teaching is deduced by connecting the end of v. 7 with the words ‘seven days’ in the following verse.
^ʳnote:Ibid. v. 4 and 37.
^ˢnote:Lev. XXIII, v. 39.
^ᵗnote:V. next note. The reading should be emended to the ‘eighth day’ (v. R. Hananel a.I.), for nowhere is the term ‘solemn rest’ applied to the seventh day of a festival.
^ᵘnote:Ibid.
^ᵛnote:E.V. ‘a solemn assembly’!
^ʷnote:Deut. XVI, 8.
^ˣnote:For the verse concludes: ‘Thou shalt do no work therein’.
^ʸnote:I.e., since the verse indicates only that the prohibition of work does not apply uniformly to all the days of the festival, it must be the intention of Scripture to let the Sages decide how the prohibition did apply.
^ᶻnote:I. e., which day is a festival day proper, and which only a mid-festival day. For the fixing of the calendar, V. J.E. vol. III, pp. 498f.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., on mid-festival days: work which could not be postponed without incurring irretrievable loss was permitted.
^ᵃᵇnote:This is the correct reading viz.,thb,vu (‘it is taught’ by the Tannaim), not rn,htvu (‘it is stated’ by the Amoriam).
^ᵃᶜnote:Abbreviated form of the name Alexander. (12) Lydda in South Palestine (Roman name, Diospolis).
^ᵃᵈnote:Thus R. Tarfon forbade mourning on the slaughtering day, which contradicts the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., the case of Alexa.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., in the middle of the week, so that the slaughtering day was not on a Sunday. Mourning, therefore, was prohibited in accordance with regular Jewish law.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., that of the Mishnah.
^ᵃʰnote:Consequently the slaughtering day was on a Sunday, and, therefore, as a demonstration against the erroneous view of the Sadducees, the ordinary rule prohibiting mourning on the slaughtering day was waived.

²MISHNAH. THE HANDS HAVE TO BE RINSED FOR [EATING] UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], AND [SECOND] TITHE, AND FOR TERUMAH [HEAVE-OFFERING]; BUT FOR HALLOWED THINGS [THE HANDS] HAVE TO BE IMMERSED. IN REGARD TO THE [WATER OF] PURIFICATION, IF ONE'S HANDS BECAME DEFILED, ONE'S [WHOLE] BODY IS DEEMED DEFILED. IF ONE BATHED FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF SECOND] TITHE. IF ONE BATHED FOR [SECOND] TITHE, AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR [SECOND] TITHE, ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF] TERUMAH. IF ONE BATHED FOR TERUMAH, AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR TERUMAH, ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF] HALLOWED THINGS. IF ONE BATHED FOR HALLOWED THINGS, AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR HALLOWED THINGS ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [TOUCHING THE WATERS OF] PURIFICATION. IF ONE BATHED FOR SOMETHING POSSESSING A STRICTER [DEGREE OF SANCTITY], ONE IS PERMITTED [TO HAVE CONTACT WITH] SOMETHING POSSESSING A LIGHTER [DEGREE OF SANCTITY]. IF ONE BATHED BUT WITHOUT SPECIAL INTENTION, IT IS AS THOUGH ONE HAD NOT BATHED. THE GARMENTS OF AN AM HA-AREZ POSSESS MIDRAS -UNCLEANNESS FOR PHARISEES; THE GARMENTS OF PHARISEES POSSESS MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR THOSE WHO EAT TERUMAH; THE GARMENTS OF THOSE WHO EAT TERUMAH POSSESS MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO EAT] HALLOWED THINGS; THE GARMENTS OF [THOSE it yet does not render the person fit to eat food possessing any degree of sanctity. Similarly, in the cases that follow, intention for one degree of sanctity does not enable one to partake of food having a higher degree of sanctity. WHO EAT] HALLOWED THINGS POSSESS MIDRAS — UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO OCCUPY THEMSELVES WITH THE WATERS OF] PURIFICATION. 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. GEMARA. Do unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe then require rinsing of the hands? Now we can show this to conflict with [the following Mishnah]: For terumah and first fruits one may incur the penalty of death, or [a fine of] an [added] fifth, and they are prohibited to non-priests and they are the property of the priest, and are neutralized in one hundred and one [parts], and require rinsing of the hands, and sunset; these [rules] apply to terumah and first fruits but not to [Second] Tithe. How much less then to unconsecrated food. Thus there is a contradiction in regard to [Second] Tithe and a contradiction also in regard to unconsecrated food! Granted that in regard to [Second] Tithe [it can be shown that] there is no contradiction: the one [Mishnah] is according to R. Meir and the other is according to the Rabbis. For we have learnt: Whosoever requires immersion by enactment of the Scribes defiles hallowed things and invalidates terumah, but is permitted [to eat] unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe — this is the view of R. Meir; but the Sages prohibit in the case of [Second] Tithe. In regard to unconsecrated food, however, there is a contradiction! — There is no contradiction: the one case refers to eating [unconsecrated food] and the other to touching [it]. To this R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred: The Rabbis differ from R. Meir only in regard to the eating of [Second] Tithe, but in regard to the touching of [Second] Tithe and the eating of unconsecrated food they do not differ! — Both [Mishnahs], therefore, must refer to eating; but there is no contradiction: the one refers to the eating of bread, the other refers to the eating of fruit. For R. Nahman said: Whosoever rinses his hands for fruit belongs to the haughty of spirit. Our Rabbis taught: He who raises his hands, if he did so with intention, his hands are [levitically] clean; but if he did so without intention, his hands are unclean. Similarly one who bathes his hands, if he did so with intention, his hands are clean, but if he did so without intention his hands are unclean. — But behold it is taught: Whether he did it with intention or without intention, his hands are clean! — R. Nahman answered: There is no contradiction: the one [statement] refers to unconsecrated food,^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ

^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., in the manner prescribed in Yad. I, 1. Lit., ‘take for the hands’, an elliptical phrase for ‘take water for the hands’.
^ᵃʲnote:As opposed to tithe etc.; cf. p. 35, n. 6.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. p. 35, n. 8.
^ᵃˡnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., such as are offered in the Temple, and if not wholly devoted to the altar, have to be eaten in the Temple Court.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., in a valid immersion pool (Mikweh) containing not less than forty se'ahs of undrawn water (cf. Trac. Mikwa'oth).
^ᵃᵒnote:V. Num. VIII, 7 (A.V. ‘purifying’; R.V. ‘expiation’) and ibid. XIX.
^ᵃᵖnote:In regard to lesser degrees of sanctity, it is possible for the hands only to become defiled e.g., by touching unclean food etc.; but in this case the whole body would require ritual immersion.
^ᵃᵠnote:V. n. 11.
^ᵃʳnote:The clause, ‘and intended . . . solely’ translates only one Heb. word ezjuv , denom. of vezj (v. Dictionaries) = lit., ‘presumed or considered himself (to have taken the ritual bath) etc.’
^ᵃˢnote:Actually, unconsecrated food does not require ritual immersion, unless one desires to eat it in purity, and even so the immersion does not require intention’; but even if there is definite intention to eat ordinary food in purity,
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., merely for the sake of physical cleanliness: such an immersion does not fit one for any sanctified food.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘people of the land’, hence generally ‘illiterate, ignorant’, (opp. to Talmid Hakam1, ‘a disciple of the wise’). Here it is used in a technical sense, and refers to one who is ignorant of the Torah and fails to observe the laws of purity and impurity, and is not scrupulous in setting aside the tithes from his produce (opp. to Haber, ‘an associate’, who strictly observes the Law). V. Glos.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘place of treading or pressure’, denotes levitical impurity arising in an object from contact with gonorrhoeist who sits, lies, rides upon or leans against it; in general= vtnuyv ct, the first degree of impurity. V. Lev. XII, 2; XV, 2-25; and cf. Nid. VI, 3 with explan. ibid. 49b. The reason for this Rabbinic enactment is the fear that the wife of the Am ha-arez may have sat on the garments when she was in a menstruous condition. V. Hul. 35 (and infra 19b. Tosaf. s. hsdc ).
^ᵃʷnote:Those who strictly observe the Mosaic Law and the Rabbinic regulations, particularly in regard to tithing and purity. To their body belong also the Haberim (Associates); v. Mishnah Dem. II, 3, and Moore III, 26. For further information, v. J.E. vol. IX, pp. 661f, and R. T. Herford's ‘The Pharisees’.
^ᵃˣnote:V. Aboth I, 4 (Sonc. ed., p. 3, nn. 4-6).
^ᵃʸnote:Deut. XXVI, 1ff. For the analogy between terumah and first fruits v. Mak. 17a (Sonc. ed., pp. 121-2).
^ᵃᶻnote:I.e., if a non-priest eats thereof of set purpose; v. Lev. XXII, 9, 10, the context of which refers particularly to terumah. Cf. also Hul. I, 9.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., if a non-priest eats thereof in error he must not only pay the value of the amount consumed but must also add thereto a fifth of the value by way of fine; v. ibid. v. 14. This fifth is not analogous to the added fifth that must be paid in redeeming Second Tithe in order that the produce may be eaten outside Jerusalem and the redemption money spent in food and drink in Jerusalem: hence the Mishnah excludes Second Tithe from all these rules.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., by a prohibitory law of the Torah.
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., he may sell them and purchase with the money whatever he desires, e.g., land, slaves, unclean animals etc.; or he may betroth a woman therewith.
^ᵇᵈnote:E.g., if one se'ah of terumah fell into one hundred se'ahs of unconsecrated produce making one hundred and one in all, any one se'ah may be taken out and given to a priest and the rest is permitted to a non-priest. But if there are not at least one hundred se'ahs of terumah the whole produce becomes prohibited to non-priests.
^ᵇᵉnote:The hands are considered, by Rabbinic enactment, to suffer levitical impurity in the second degree, and therefore, unless washed, can invalidate terumah by defiling it with impurity in the third degree.
^ᵇᶠnote:If a priest became unclean through some defilement mentioned in the Torah, he not only requires ritual immersion, but he must also wait till sunset before he may partake of terumah. V. Yeb. 74b.
^ᵇᵍnote:Here the Mishnah ends, excluding explicitly from the above rules, which include the rinsing of the hands, Second Tithe and also by obvious implication — as the Gemara goes on to point out — ordinary food.
^ᵇʰnote:I.e., the latter.
^ᵇⁱnote:I.e., although ritually clean from the point of view of the Biblical law. This category includes those who eat or drink what is unclean; vessels that have touched unclean liquids; and the hands: these are all unclean in the second degree. V. Zab. V, 12 and Shab. 14b.
^ᵇʲnote:Being impure in the second degree he is able to impart impurity to hallowed things in the third degree: in turn the hallowed things are capable of disqualifying in the fourth degree.
^ᵇᵏnote:The terumah becomes itself disqualified but cannot disqualify anything else.
^ᵇˡnote:This positive expression (as opposed to the negative formula ‘but does not disqualify’) implies permission to eat as well as touch,
^ᵇᵐnote:I.e., our Mishnah, which requires rinsing of the hands for ordinary food.
^ᵇⁿnote:V. supra, n. 6; similarly the phrase, ‘but the Sages prohibit’, refers only to eating Second Tithe but not to touching it. But regarding unconsecrated food there is no dispute: even the Sages agree that it may be eaten without rinsing of the hands. The original question, therefore, remains: the Mishnahs contradict one another!
^ᵇᵒnote:Our own Mishnah, which requires rinsing of the hands for unconsecrated food.
^ᵇᵖnote:The second Mishnah quoted, which excepts Second Tithe (and consequently unconsecrated food) from rinsing of the hands and the other regulations applying to terumah and first fruits.
^ᵇᵠnote:I.e.,is affectedly or ostentatiously scrupulous.
^ᵇʳnote:Cf. our Mishnah p. 120, n. 1.
^ᵇˢnote:I.e., in a ritual bath containing at least forty se'ahs of water: this represents a higher degree of purification.
^ᵇᵗnote:I.e., the second Baraitha, which does not require intention.