חגיגה 20:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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^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

^ᵃnote:Who belonged to the category of ‘am ha-arez.
^ᵇnote:I.e., unbeknown, to them. A mil=two thousand cubits (Jast.).
^ᶜnote:E.g., wine in earthenware jars.
^ᵈnote:Because the men touch only the exterior of the vessels, which, being earthenware, are not defiled within by the contact of a defiling object on the outside (cf. Hul. 25a). The fear of their master who could arrive at any moment would deter the men from attempting to touch the contents of the vessels. This proves that, contrary to R. Johanan's statement, a man can guard what is in another's hand.
^ᵉnote:Rashi prefers to delete this sentence. If it is retained, he interprets it as a continuation of the argument against R. Johanan, thus: — If you contend that a man cannot guard what is in another person's hand, then why is the first case decided differently from the second? Tosaf., however, explains it as a rejoinder in defence of R. Johanan's teaching: Granted that the first case of the Baraitha seems to contradict R. Johanan, but how can the second case be explained otherwise than as a support? One must answer, therefore, with R. Isaac Nappaha, that the first case too does not really contradict R. Johanan, because the men were specially purified for the purpose.
^ᶠnote:I.e., the smith.
^ᵍnote:Consequently the goods remain clean; for even if the men touch the goods they cannot defile then,. But if the men had not been specially purified, R. Johanan's principle that one cannot guard what is in another's hand would hold good.
^ʰnote:I.e., though the workmen, being clean, cannot defile the goods, they might allow them to be defiled by other people touching them.
^ⁱnote:I.e., the fear that he might come upon them by surprise would deter them from permitting a stranger to touch the goods.
^ʲnote:That he will not surprise them, and thus whatever they do will not be observed by their master.
^ᵏnote:I.e., sacrificial flesh, mealofferings and drink-offerings.
^ˡnote:In the eleven cases (according to Raba), or ten (according to R. Ela), that follow. For further differences, v. the Mishnah pp. 119-121. The latter are not included in our Mishnah because (according to Tosaf. s.v. rnuj) they do not involve the risk of an eventual violation of the law of purity ( vtnuys trrs).
^ᵐnote:I.e., any articles susceptible to defilement. According to Rashi (a.l.), both the exterior and interior vessels are unclean; according to Tosaf. (22a, s.v. htn) only the interior vessels re unclean.
^ⁿnote:vyhcmv ,hc ‘the place of holding’, v. infra p. 143, n. 13.
^ᵒnote:I.e., if these parts can be used separately they are regarded, in the case of terumah, as distinct utensils, so that if one of them becomes defiled the others remain unaffected. This rule applies, as the Gemara explains, only in the case of Rabbinical degrees of uncleanness, v. Kel. XXV, 6f
^ᵖnote:In the case of hallowed things, if one part becomes defied, the whole vessel is rendered unclean.
^ᵠnote:E.g., if he wears the shoe of a gonorrhoeist. V. p. 120, n. 3.
^ʳnote:I.e., if the terumah is in an earthenware vessel, which he touches only from without. Cf. p. 132, nn. 1 and 2.
^ˢnote:V. p. 120, where the same statement is found.
^ᵗnote:In respect of the law of vmhmv (‘Interposition, all intervening object’). Cf. ‘Er. 4a.
^ᵘnote:Because they resemble an intervening object.
^ᵛnote:Here the moisture is deemed to resemble an intervening object.
^ʷnote:I.e., from the moment that they reached the stage when they could be termed vessels, and consequently became susceptible to defilement, they were carefully guarded from uncleanness.
^ˣnote:If an unclean person touched one portion of hallowed food in a vessel, all the other pieces, although not in contact with it, are rendered equally unclean by the unifying effect of the vessel.
^ʸnote:In the case of terumah, the portion to touched by the unclean person contracts uncleanness at the first remove (v. infra n. 7); if another portion touches it, the second contracts uncleanness at the second remove, and any portion touching the latter suffers uncleanness at the third remove; the rest remain clean.
^ᶻnote:But cannot, In turn, render anything else invalid.
^ᵃᵃnote:If A is a ‘Father of uncleanness’ (i.e., suffers from primary uncleanness, which can convey uncleanness even to men and vessels; those that come in contact with it are termed ‘offspring of uncleanness’, and can convey uncleanness only to foodstuff and liquids) and touches B, and B to touches C, and C touches D, if D is a hallowed thing it becomes invalid; and if C is terumah it becomes invalid; but if D is terumah it does not become invalid (Danby, The Mishnah, p. 214. n. 9).
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., contracted a Rabbinic (as opposed to Pentateuchal) grade of uncleanness, which defiles the hand without affecting the rest of the body.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., ordinary food which has never been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by coming in contact with water; v. p. 124, nn. 5-9.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘unclean hands’; though these suffer from levitical uncleanness, the food is not affected because it has never become susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. the explanation in the Gemara, pp. 154f(24b).