Chagigah

we declared them clean [only] for [the ‘am ha-arez]. himself;1 but should we [therefore] declare [also] the vessel clean, which would make it clean for thee as well as for him?2 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,3 the woman and the trough become unclean for seven days, but the dough remains clean; that if there is [in the upper room] a flask4 full of liquid, the flask contracts seven-day uncleanness, but the liquid remains clean!5 [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.6 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,7 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’;8 accordingly we may borrow from them! — When we borrow [vessels] from them, we immerse them.9 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,10 and people do not lend a vessel for seven days. — But are they not trusted in regard to immersion?11 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,12 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;13 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],14 but he is not believed if he says: The produce has been rendered susceptible [to unclean ness], but it has not been made unclean.15 — But is he trusted in regard to his body? For behold it is taught: If an Associate comes to receive sprinkling,16 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,17 you make it easier for him, at the end.18 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 Unclean19 by [unclean] liquid,20 [only] its outside becomes unclean; but the inside, rim, hanger21 and handles,22 remain clean. But if the inside became unclean,23 the whole is unclean. AND HANDLE. What is meant by the HANDLE? Rab Judah said that Samuel said: The part by which one hands24 it; and thus it says: And they handed25 her parched corn.26 R. Assi said that R. Johanan said: The part where the fastidious hold27 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,28 be it [for] the hallowed things of the Sanctuary,29 be it [for] the hallowed things of the provinces.30 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. Abbuha31 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 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 than a sf (jug) — cf. Bez. 15b. Here, it would be made of metal or wood. liquids and earthenwares. Cf. Oh. V, 4. 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. regulation relating to the size of the mouth of the immersing vessel. defilement by a corpse. anxious to complete his purification. only from the inside (v. Lev. XI, 33). 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). here have a distinct use; hence they are treated as separate utensils, and remain clean, if the outside only of the vessel be defiled. 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.