Chagigah

the other to [Second] Tithe. — And whence do you infer that unconsecrated food does not require intention?1 — For we have learnt: If a wave was sundered [from the sea] and contained forty se'ahs2 and it fell upon a person or upon vessels [that were unclean], they become clean. Thus a person is likened to vessels: just as vessels have no intention3 so too [the Mishnah] speaks of a person who had no intention. But why so? Perhaps we are dealing with a case where one was sitting and waiting for the wave to become sundered, and so vessels are likened to a person; just as a person is capable of intention, so too in the case of the vessels one had intention with regard to them! And should you say: If it is a case of one who sits and waits [for the wave to be sundered], what need is there to teach it?4 [I will answer]: You might have thought it should be prohibited, as a preventive measure, [to bathe in a detached wave] lest one come to battle in a torrent of rainwater,5 or that we ought to prohibit, as a preventive measure, [immersion in] the ends6 [of the wave] on account of the crest,7 therefore [the Mishnah] teaches us that we make no such prohibition. — (And whence do you infer that one may not immerse [vessels] in the crest [of the wave]? — For it is taught: One may immerse [vessels] in the ends [of the wave] but not in the crest, because one may not immerse in the air.)8 — Rather [is it9 to be inferred] from that which we have learnt: If produce fell into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out [his hands] and took it, his hands became clean10 and [the law], if [water] be put on,11 does not apply to the produce;12 but if [he did so] in order that13 his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean, but [the law], ‘If [water] be put on’, applies to the produce.14 Rabbah15 put an objection to R. Nahman: IF ONE BATHED FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF SECOND] TITHE.16 [Thus] if one intended to be rendered fit [therefor], One may [eat unconsecrated food], but if one did not intend to be rendered fit [therefor], one may not [eat unconsecrated food]!17 — This is the meaning: Even though one had intention for unconsecrated, one is still prohibited from [partaking of Second] Tithe. 18 He put [another] objection to him: IF ONE BATHED, BUT WITHOUT SPECIAL INTENTION, IT IS AS THOUGH ONE HAD NOT BATHED. Surely it means that he is as though he had not bathed at all!19 — No, [it means that] he is as though he had not bathed for [Second] Tithe, but did bathe for unconsecrated food. He20 thought [at first] that he21 was merely putting him off,22 [but] he went forth, examined [the matter] and found that it is taught: If one bathed, but without special intention, one is prohibited [from partaking of Second] Tithe, but one is permitted [to partake of] unconsecrated [food]. R. Eleazar said: If a man bathed and came up,23 he may intend to be rendered fit for whatever he pleases. An objection was raised: If he still has one foot in the water, and he had intended to be rendered fit for something of lesser [sanctity], he may intend to be rendered fit for something of higher [sanctity]; but once he has come up he can no longer have intention. Surely [it means that] he can no longer have any intention at all!24 — No, [it means that] if he still [has one foot in the water] even though he intended to render himself fit [for a lesser degree of sanctity], he may still intend to render himself [fit for a higher degree of sanctity];25 but once he has come up, if he had no intention to be rendered fit [for anything at all], he may now intend to be rendered fit, but if he had intention to be rendered fit [for any particular degree of sanctity] he may no longer intend to be rendered fit [for any higher degree of sanctity].26 — Who is the author of the teaching: ‘If he still has one foot in the water etc.’?27 R. Pedath said: It is according to R. Judah. For we have learnt: If an immersion pool was measured and found to contain exactly forty se'ahs [of water], and two persons went down and immersed themselves therein one after the other, the first person is clean, but the second is unclean. 28 R. Judah said: If the feet of the first person were [still] touching the water [when the second person immersed himself] the second person is also clean.29 R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute30 concerns [only] the Rabbinical degrees [of purity],31 but in a case of purification from [real] uncleanness,32 all would agree that the second person remains unclean. This then is in agreement with the view of R. Pedath.33 Another version is: R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute concerns purification from [real] uncleanness, but in regard to the Rabbinical degrees [of purity], all would agree that the second person too becomes clean. Thus he differs from the view of R. Pedath.34 ‘Ulla said: I asked R. Johanan: According to R. Judah, is it permissible to immerse needles and hooks in the [wet] head of the first [bather]?35 Does R. Judah accept [only] the principle of connecting downward,36 but not of connecting upward;37 or, perhaps, R. Judah accepts the principle of connecting upward as well? — He replied: Ye have learnt it; If a wady has three depressions, one at the top, one at the bottom and one in the middle, the one at the top and the one at the bottom containing twenty se'ahs each and the middle one forty se'ahs, and a torrent of rainwater passes between them,38 R. Judah says: Meir used to say: One may immerse in the top one.39 (a) since the water flows down a steep incline, the forty se'ahs cannot be regarded as being in one place or connected (v. Toh. VIII, 9), and consequently the bather does not immerse himself in forty se'ahs of water at one and the same time; (b) rain-water can be used for immersion only in the form of a stagnant pool but not when it forms a flowing current (v. Supra to Lev. XI, 36). the air, and consequently may not be used for immersion, for no immersion may take place in the air. unconsecrated food does not require intention. referred to in the verse. Only when the owner is pleased with the wetting of the produce does it become susceptible to defilement (v. Kid. 59b), which is not the case here. The Mishnah text (Maksh. IV, 7) reads ‘are clean’ for ‘the law, "If water be put on ",does not apply to the produce’. the wetting of the produce, for he benefits by it; consequently, the produce becomes susceptible henceforward to defilement. reading. case it has to be understood in this sense. than the prescribed minimum of forty se'ahs of water. the immersion pool, the water on his body is regarded as forming part of the water in the pool, thus helping to restore the required volume of forty se'ahs. holds that the Rabbis reject the principle of ‘connecting downward’ even in regard to the Rabbinical degrees of purity, for the whole question of intention in regard to any specific degree of purity is based on Rabbinic enactment. of R. Judah, for he holds that in regard to the Rabbinical degrees of purity, the Rabbis agree with R. Judah in accepting the principle of ‘connecting downward’. bathers above, where the water on the body of the first bather is regarded as connected with the water in the pool; but not in the upward direction, so that the water in the pool should be considered as connected with the water on the bather's head, and thus enable needles etc. to be purified in the water clinging to the bather's head. principle of ‘connecting downward’. Since R. Judah quoted R. Meir s view without contradicting it, the presumption is that he concurs in it. This explanation follows Rashi's text and interpretation. For a different reading and explanation v. Tosaf. s. hcr