חגיגה 22 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and in area, [namely, One in which] two fingers can make a complete revolution. Thus he [Raba] agrees with R. Nahman who said that Rabbah b. Abbuha said: Eleven distinctions are taught here: the former six apply both to hallowed things and to unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things; the latter [five] apply to the hallowed things, but not to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. What is [the practical difference] between [the explanations of] Raba and R. Ela? There is [a practical difference] between them [in the case of] a basket or a net which was filled with vessels and immersed. According to the view that [the former clause] is based on [the rule of] interposition, it applies [here too]; according to the view that [the former clause] is a Precautionary enactment lest one immerse needles and hooks in a vessel the mouth of which is not the size of the spout of a skin-bottle, [it does not apply here, because] there is no basket or net the mouth of which is not the size of a skin-bottle. Now Raba is consistent in his view. For Raba said: If one filled a basket or net with vessels and immersed them, they become clean; but if an immersion-pool be divided by a basket or net, then whoever immerses himself therein, his immersion is not effective, for the earth is wholly perforated, nevertheless we require that there should be forty se'ahs [of undrawn water] in one place. Now this applies only to a clean vessel, but’ [in the case of] an unclean vessel, since the immersion is effective for the entire vessel itself, it is effective also for the vessels which are in it. For we have learnt: If one filled vessels with vessels and immersed them, these [interior vessels also] become clean. But if he did not immerse [the outer vessel], then the water [in it] mingled [with the water of the immersion-pool] does not count as mingled unless [the water in the outer vessel and immersion-pool] are mingled [by a stream] the size of the spout of a skin-bottle. What is the meaning of ‘But if he did not immerse [the outer vessel] etc.’? — This is the meaning: But if he did not require to immerse [the outer vessel], then the water [in it] mingled [with the water of the immersion-pool] does not count as mingled unless [the water in the outer vessel and the immersion-pool] are mingled [by a stream] the size of the spout of a skin-bottle. Now the point of difference between Raba and R. Ela is the subject of dispute between Tannaim. For it is taught: If a basket or net was filled with vessels and immersed, they become clear both for hallowed things and for terumah. Abba Saul says: For terumah, but not for hallowed things. If so, it should apply to terumah too! — For whom do we state this rule]? For Associates. Associates know [the rules of immersion] very well. If so, it should apply to hallowed things too! — An ‘am ha-arez may see it and go and immerse [likewise]. In the case of terumah too an ‘am ha-arez may see it, and go and immerse [likewise]! — We do not accept it from him. Let us not accept hallowed things either from him! — He would bear animosity. In the case of terumah too he will bear animosity! — [In the case of terumah], he does not mind, for he can go and give it to his fellow, a priest, who is an ‘am ha-arez. And who is the Tanna who takes account of animosity? — It is R. Jose. For it is taught: R. Jose said: Wherefore are all trusted throughout the year in regard to the cleanness of the wine and oil [they bring for Temple Else]? It is in order that every one may not go and give and build a high place for himself, and burn a red heifer for himself. R. Papa said: According to whom is it that we accept nowadays the testimony of an ‘am ha-arez? According to whom? According to R. Jose. But should we not apprehend [the contingency] of borrowing [by an Associate]? For we have learnt: An earthenware vessel protects everything [therein from contracting uncleanness from a corpse that is under the same roof]: so Beth hillel. Beth Shammai say: It protects only foodstuffs and liquids and [other] earthenware vessels. Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: Wherefore? Beth Shammai answered: Because it is unclean on account of the ‘am ha arez, and an unclean vessel cannot interpose. Said Beth Hillel to them: But have ye not declared the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean? Beth Shammai answered: When we declared the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean,^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

^ᵃnote:A wicker or network in the wine or oil Press (Jast.), used for straining; cf. A.Z. 56b.
^ᵇnote:Even for hallowed things.
^ᶜnote:For the requisite forty se'ahs of water are to be found in neither division, and though, through the meshes of the network, the water flows from one part of the pool to the other, this is not considered a proper connection for the reason that follows.
^ᵈnote:I.e., water flows through the hollows of the earth, and water appearing at any particular spot is bound to be connected underground to some big stream elsewhere, yet this connection is not valid, for we require (as the Gemara goes on to say) forty se'ahs of water in one place.
^ᵉnote:I.e., the rule that the immersion of an article in a vessel with all aperture less than the size of the mouth of a skin-bottle is invalid applies only if the outer vessel is clean, and consequently does not itself require immersion.
^ᶠnote:Which itself requires immersion.
^ᵍnote:Even if the vessel's mouth is less than the prescribed size, its interior is nevertheless purified by the water of the immersion-pool, for we argue that in the same manner as it became defiled so it is also purified.
^ʰnote:Heb. ib,s i.e., we have learnt in a Mishnah viz., Mi!. VI, 2. But the Mishnah text differs somewhat from the quotation here, reading as follows: ‘If a bucket filled with vessels was in immersed, they (also) become clean; but if he did not immerse (the bucket), the water (in it) does not count as mingled unless etc.’. These var. lec. made R. Samson b. Abraham of Sens (in his commentary to Mik.) conclude that our quotation was not the actual Mishnah from Mik., but a Baraitha corresponding to it. Other var. lec. are ‘and immersed it’ for ‘and immersed them’, and ‘in the mingled water’ for ‘the mingled water’. Both R. Asher b. Jehiel and R. Abraham of Sens had the second reading, the latter referring the phrase specifically to the examples of ‘mingled waters’ enumerated in Mik. V, 6, the former explaining it more generally of all instances of reservoirs united by a connecting stream. The reacting ‘the water (in it) does not count as mingled’ is undoubtedly the smoothest.
^ⁱnote:I.e.,irrespective of the size of the outer vessel's mouth. This immersion is valid for terumah only (v. the Mishnah p. 133).
^ʲnote:I.e., unless the outer vessel's mouth is that size.
^ᵏnote:I.e., because it was levitically clean.
^ˡnote:I.e., Raba explains the first clause of the Mishnah to be based on the rule that the unification of immersion-pools requires a connecting stream at least the size of a skin-bottle spout in thickness, and consequently articles immersed in a basket or net, the mouth of which is invariably large, can be used even for hallowed things in accordance with the first view in the Baraitha. R. Ela explains the same clause with reference to the rule of interposition, and consequently articles immersed in a basket or net, just as those immersed in any other receptacle, may be used only for terumah in accordance with Abba Saul.
^ᵐnote:I.e., the prohibition against immersing vessels within vessels, according to either explanation, should apply to terumah as well as hallowed things.
^ⁿnote:Concerning the immersion of vessels within vessels.
^ᵒnote:V. p. 120, n. 2. The ‘am ha-arez would not even wish to know the laws of immersion, let alone observe them.
^ᵖnote:I.e.,if the Mishnah applies only to Associates, who observe all the laws meticulously, why are they not permitted to immerse vessels within vessels for hallowed things?
^ᵠnote:And as he cannot be trusted to observe properly the rules of immersion, the hallowed contents of the vessels would become defiled!
^ʳnote:Terumah is accepted from an ‘am ha-arez only at the seasons of wine-presses and olive-vats (v.infra 24b, and Toh.IX, 4), when all purify their vessels Properly under associate supervision (according to Rashi). or when all are regarded for the time as Associates (according to Tosaf. s.v. tk; cf. infra 26a).
^ˢnote:For were they not Jews?
^ᵗnote:Wine for libations, oil for the preparation of meal-offerings.
^ᵘnote:When these were prohibited: v. J.E. vol. VI, pp. 387-389 (particularly the last section, p. 389, s. ‘Rabbinic attitude’).
^ᵛnote:V. Num. XIX, 2ff; cf. also R. Judah's statement (quoted in Tosaf. a.l. s. tka , as R. Jose's) in Tosef. Hagigah III, that all are to be trusted to look after the ashes of the red heifer.
^ʷnote:But not the other Rabbis; v. Pes. 42b.
^ˣnote:I.e., should we not prohibit the immersion of vessels within vessels for terumah even by Associates, lest the ‘am ha-arez see it and do likewise (but without observing all the prescribed laws). and an Associate go and borrow the vessels from him?
^ʸnote:I.e., that it is permitted to borrow vessels from an ‘am ha-arez.
^ᶻnote:l.e., if its lid is fixed on; or if the corpse is in a room below and the earthen vessel covers the hatchway between the lower room and the upper room, it protects everything in the upper chamber. Cf. Num. XIX, 15, and Oh. V, 3.
^ᵃᵃnote:Kel. X, 1.
^ᵃᵇnote:Being the vessel of an ‘am ha-arez, it is unclean to begin with, before ever it is placed over the hatching or articles are put in it.

²we declared them clean [only] for [the ‘am ha-arez]. himself; but should we [therefore] declare [also] the vessel clean, which would make it clean for thee as well as for him? It is taught: R. Joshua said: I am ashamed of your words, O Beth Shammai! Is it possible that if a woman [in the upper chamber] kneads [dough] in a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean for seven days, but the dough remains clean; that if there is [in the upper room] a flask full of liquid, the flask contracts seven-day uncleanness, but the liquid remains clean! [Thereupon] one of the disciples of Beth Shammai joined him [in debate] and said to him: I will tell thee the reason of Beth Shammai. He replied, Tell then! So he said to him: Does all unclean vessel bar [the penetration of uncleanness] or not? He replied: It does not bar it. — Are the vessels of an ‘am ha-arez clean or unclean? He replied: Unclean. — And if thou sayest to him [that they are] unclean, will he pay any heed to thee? Nay, more, if thou sayest to him [that they are] unclean, he will reply: Mine are clean and thine are unclean. Now this is the reason of Beth Shammai. Forthwith, R. Joshua went and prostrated himself upon the graves of Beth Shammai. He said: I crave your pardon, bones of Beth Shammai. If your unexplained teachings are so [excellent], how much more so the explained teachings. It is said that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts. Now it says, ‘For thee as well as for him’; accordingly we may borrow from them! — When we borrow [vessels] from them, we immerse them. If so, Beth Hillel could have replied to Beth Shammai: When we borrow [vessels] from them, we immerse them! — That which is rendered unclean by a corpse requires sprinkling on the third and seventh day, and people do not lend a vessel for seven days. — But are they not trusted in regard to immersion? For behold it is taught: The ‘am ha-arez is trusted in regard to the purification by immersion of that which is rendered unclean by a corpse! Abaye answered: There is no contradiction: the one [teaching] refers to his body, the other to his vessels. Raba answered: Both refer to his vessels; but there is no contradiction: the one refers to a case where he says: I have never immersed one vessel in another; the other refers to a case where he says: I have immersed [one vessel in another], but I have not immersed in a vessel the mouth of which is not the size of the spout of a skin-bottle. For it is taught: An ‘am ha-arez is believed if he says: The produce has not been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness], but he is not believed if he says: The produce has been rendered susceptible [to unclean ness], but it has not been made unclean. — But is he trusted in regard to his body? For behold it is taught: If an Associate comes to receive sprinkling, they at once sprinkle upon him; but if an ‘am ha-arez comes to receive sprinkling, they do not sprinkle upon him until he observes before us the third and seventh day! — Abaye answered: As a result of the stringency you impose upon him at the beginning, you make it easier for him, at the end. THE OUTSIDE AND THE INSIDE. What is meant by THE OUTSIDE AND THE INSIDE? — As we have learnt: If the outside of a vessel was rendered Unclean by [unclean] liquid, [only] its outside becomes unclean; but the inside, rim, hanger and handles, remain clean. But if the inside became unclean, the whole is unclean. AND HANDLE. What is meant by the HANDLE? Rab Judah said that Samuel said: The part by which one hands it; and thus it says: And they handed her parched corn. R. Assi said that R. Johanan said: The part where the fastidious hold it. R. Bebai recited before R. Nahman: There is no differentiation [in the case of uncleanness] between the outside and the inside of any vessel, be it [for] the hallowed things of the Sanctuary, be it [for] the hallowed things of the provinces. Said [the latter] to him: What is meant by ‘the hallowed things of the provinces’? Terumah. But we have learnt: THE OUTSIDE AND INSIDE AND HANDLE [ARE REGARDED AS SEPARATE] FOR TERUMAH! Perhaps you mean unconsecrated food prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. [Indeed], you have recalled something to my mind. For Rabbah b. Abbuha said: Eleven distinctions are taught here [in our Mishnah]: the former six apply both to hallowed things and to unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things; the latter [five] apply to hallowed things, but not to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. HE THAT CARRIES ANYTHING POSSESSING MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS MAY CARRY [AT THE SAME TIME] TERUMAH, BUT NOT HALLOWED THINGS. Why not hallowed things? — Because of a certain occurrence. For Rab Judah said that Samuel said: Once someone was conveying a jar of consecrated wine from one place to another^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^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

^ᵃᶜnote:The foodstuffs and liquids of an ‘am ha-arez are unclean; hence Associates would eschew them in any case.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., all Associate may borrow the vessel of an ‘am ha-arez. The Mishnah text differs from our own in several details. The most important var. lec. is: ‘But when thou declarest the vessel clean, thou declarest it so for thyself as well as for him,. The Mishnah then concludes: ‘Beth Hillel retracted and gave their ruling according to Beth Shammai
^ᵃᵉnote:And the hatchway leading from it to the lower room in which the corpse is lying was covered by an earthen vessel.
^ᵃᶠnote:Heb. ihduk = ihdk (the usual and correct form) of the Mishnah and MS.M.; larger than a xuf (cup) and smaller than a sf (jug) — cf. Bez. 15b. Here, it would be made of metal or wood.
^ᵃᵍnote:In accordance with your view that an earthenware vessel affords no protection to anything apart from foodstuffs, liquids and earthenwares. Cf. Oh. V, 4.
^ᵃʰnote:Because of the intransigence of the ‘am ha-arez in regard to things which cannot be purified, e.g.. foodstuffs and earthenware vessels (the latter have to be broken), therefore Beth Shammai declared them clean i.e.,for the ‘am ha-arez, only; but vessels (like the trough and the flask) which can be purified by immersion are declared unclean, for the ‘am ha-arez will in such instance, where there is a remedy pay heed to Rabbinic injunction, and purify the vessels: so Rashi. But Tosaf. (s.v. oukf), holding the view that the ‘am ha-ares never conforms to Rabbinic ruling, explains the passage in the following lines: An Associate may never use food or drinks belonging to an ‘am ha-arez, for the latter does not observe the laws of purity; hence there is no need, in our case, to declare them impure, for they do not affect Associates. But immersible vessels may be borrowed from an ‘am ha-arez, for they can be purified by immersion; hence, In our case, they have to be declared unclean so that Associates should not use them without first purifying them.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘I humble myself to you’.
^ᵃʲnote:V. p. 141, and cf. n. 2.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lest the ‘am ha-arez immersed them In a vessel, without observing the prescribed rules.
^ᵃˡnote:V. Num. XIX, 18ff.
^ᵃᵐnote:For Associates we are told have to immerse any vessels borrowed from an ‘am ha-arez.
^ᵃⁿnote:For which he is trusted.
^ᵃᵒnote:In this case he is believed.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., by being wetted; v. p. 124, nn. 6-9.
^ᵃᵠnote:This shows that he could not be relied on in a matter which required scrupulous care, and similarly in regard to the regulation relating to the size of the mouth of the immersing vessel.
^ᵃʳnote:Declaring that he has duly waited the first three days. Sprinkling takes place on the third and seventh day after defilement by a corpse.
^ᵃˢnote:By not believing that he waited three days.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., he is trusted in regard to the immersion following the sprinklings; for this he carries out with due care, as he is anxious to complete his purification.
^ᵃᵘnote:Only in the case of vessels made of wood or metal can the outside be defiled: earthen vessels are rendered unclean only from the inside (v. Lev. XI, 33).
^ᵃᵛnote:According to the laws of the Torah only ‘a father of uncleanness’ (v. p. 134, n. 7) can defile vessels; but the Rabbis enacted that all unclean liquids should defile vessels on account of fluid issuing from a gonorrhoeist, which is a ‘father of uncleanness’ (v. Nid. 7a). In order, however, to prevent terumah or hallowed things from being burnt in consequence of contact with vessels defiled by liquids, a distinction was made to mark the Rabbinic (as opposed to Torah) character of the defilement viz. that if the outside of a vessel became thus defiled, the inside etc. should remain clean (v. Bek. 38a).
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘ear’ i.e., ear-shaped handle.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., ‘its hands’ = ‘place of holding’ in our Mishnah, v. p. 133, n. 4. The different parts of the vessel enumerated here have a distinct use; hence they are treated as separate utensils, and remain clean, if the outside only of the vessel be defiled.
^ᵃʸnote:Even according to Rabbinic law only.
^ᵃᶻnote:I.e., holds it and reaches it to another.
^ᵇᵃnote:E.V. ‘reached’.
^ᵇᵇnote:Ruth II, 14.
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., the handle. Heb. (in edd.) ihgcum, prob. denominative from gcmt , ‘finger’ (cf. Aramaic tgcm ) i.e., grip with fingers (v. Levy s.v.). J.T. has tghcmv ,hc in the Mishnah instead of our vyhcmv ,hc ; undoubtedly, R. Johanan, the editor of the Pal. Talmud, was explaining the J.T., rather than the Babylonian reading. According to Rashi, ihgcum = ihkhcyn i.e., dip the food: he explains that a cavity was made in the bottom (under the rim?) of the vessel where mustard or vinegar was placed, and the food dipped there. The MS.M. reading is ihycum ; the J.T. III,1 has, ‘By which the cleanly take hold of it’; Aruch: ‘. . . drink’; v. D.S. a.I.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘all vessels have no outside’, i.e., if the outside became defiled, the whole vessel is rendered unclean.
^ᵇᵉnote:I.e., sacrifices.
^ᵇᶠnote:I.e., sacred gifts, like terumah, which can be eaten in any part of Palestine.
^ᵇᵍnote:R. Nahman's teacher.