חגיגה 20:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Viz. that the garments of Pharisees who eat unconsecrated food in ordinary purity possess midras-uncleanness for those who eat unconsecrated food according to the purity required by hallowed things. The omission of this category proves, according to R. Mari, that it belongs to the same degree of purity as hallowed things themselves, which are already mentioned in the Mishnah.
^ᵇnote:I.e., the fact that unconsecrated food prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is not mentioned in the Mishnah as a separate degree of purity does not necessarily prove that it is like hallowed things. On the contrary, it may belong to one of the other degrees of purity specified in the Mishnah, such as ordinary unconsecrated food or terumah.
^ᶜnote:I.e., we actually find Tannaim disputing as to whether it is like ordinary food or like terumah; but no one takes the view that it is like hallowed things.
^ᵈnote:So Jast.; Levy, ‘Hulle’; Goldschmidt, ‘Kopftuch’. Cf. rpt (‘headband’) in I Kings XX, 38, 41, which belongs to the same root as our word ,rpgn, with interchange of t and g.
^ᵉnote:I.e., one as observant of the laws of purity as himself (R. Hananel).
^ᶠnote:Even though the person, who picked it up was clean, for we cannot assume that he took it upon himself to guard it from impurity whilst he handled it, since the owner did not inquire whether he was clean or not; nor can we say that the owner guarded it against defilement whilst it was not in his possession (v. R. Johanan's answer p. 131).
^ᵍnote:This apparently teaches the principle that if a man guards something on the assumption that it is one thing and finds it to be another, it is unclean.
^ʰnote:Lit.,’associates i.e., knowing and observing the Laws of purity. V. p. 120, n. 4.
^ⁱnote:I.e., so that in turn it could make other things unclean.
^ʲnote:I.e., from being used, but would not make it capable of imparting impurity. This shows that although the keeper may be mistaken regarding the identity of the object guarded, his guarding nevertheless remains effective for the purpose intended, which, in this case, was that the oil should not be defiled.
^ᵏnote:Although a vessel can defile food.
^ˡnote:Figs (Rashi).
^ᵐnote:From being used at the outset in connection with clean foodstuffs. The shovel, being ‘a utensil’, can only be invalidated by unclean liquids (Tosaf). Rashi suggests, alternatively, that ‘it’ may refer to the food adhering to the shovel. — This Baraitha thus shows that a thing can be guarded ‘by half’.
^ⁿnote:I.e., the statement in the Baraitha that the oil remains clean supports R. Oshaia and contradicts the view that a mistake in regard to the identity of an object serves to make it unclean.
^ᵒnote:I.e., I know, as a matter of fact, that from the moment three fingers by three of cloth — the minimum area susceptible to defilement — were woven it was not made unclean.
^ᵖnote:I.e., I did not actually intend to guard it against defilement.
^ᵠnote:So that uncleanness may have been communicated through her shaking the web.
^ʳnote:Before she commenced to weave: the rules of uncleanness did not yet apply then.
^ˢnote:She had not yet purified herself by immersion from the impurity of her menstruous condition, so that her saliva possessed uncleanness in the first degree (vtnuyv ct). Thus although to begin with the moistened thread could not affect the purity of the cloth (hence she paid no attention to it), nevertheless if the thread remained wet when the web was three fingers by three it would defile the cloth, although the woman had since purified herself by immersion. So Rashi; for another explanation v. Tosaf. s. v. tnhb.
^ᵗnote:From all this, It is clear that the deciding factor in keeping an object clean is the intention to guard it against uncleanness; but it is not necessary to know the identity of the object guarded.
^ᵘnote:Whereas he thought them to be his week-day clothes.