חגיגה 26 — Soncino English Talmud

¹or both are going Out [it is considered] as outwards. Abaye said: We have also learnt [accordingly]: IF THE POTTER WHO SOLD THE POTS ENTERED INWARDS OF MODI'IM. Thus, it is only because it is inwards of Modi'im [that he is trusted], but in Modi'im itself he is not trusted. Consider now the latter part [of the Mishnah]: IF HE WENT OUT, HE IS NOT TRUSTED. THUS, IN MODI'IM ITSELF HE IS TO BE TRUSTED! It is clearly, then, to be deduced from this, that, in the one case, the potter is going out and the Associate is coming in; In the other case, both are going out or both are coming in. Proven. A Tanna taught: They are trusted [only] in regard to small earthenware vessels for hallowed things. Resh Lakish said: only if they can be taken in one hand. But R. Johanan said: Even if they cannot be taken in one hand. Resh rakish said: They taught this Only of empty [vessels], but not of fun ones. But R. Johanan said: Even of fun ones, and even if his head-covering is in it. Raba said: But R. Johanan admits that the liquid itself is unclean. And do not wonder at the [anomaly] for in the case of a jar full of liquid, the jar is unclean for seven days, but the liquid is clean. MISHNAH. IF TAX-COLLECTORS ENTERED A HOUSE, AND SIMILARLY IF THIEVES RESTORED [STOLEN] VESSELS THEY ARE BELIEVED IF THEY SAY: WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED [ANYTHING]’. AND IN JERUSALEM THEY ARE TRUSTED IN REGARD TO HALLOWED THINGS, AND DURING A FESTIVAL ALSO IN REGARD TO TERUMAH. GEMARA. Now we shall point to a contradiction: If tax collectors entered a house, the whole house is rendered unclean! — There is no contradiction: In the one case, a Gentile was with them; in the other case, there was no Gentile with them. For we have learnt: If a Gentile is with them, they are believed if they say, ‘We have not entered [at all]’; but they are not believed if they say, ‘We entered but we did not touch [anything]’. — What difference does it make if a Gentile be with them? R. Johanan and R. Eleazar [explain it]: one says, They are afraid of the Gentile; the other says. They are afraid of the Government. What is the practical difference between then? — There is [a practical difference] between them when the Gentile is not of high standing. AND SIMILARLY IF THIEVES RESTORED [STOLEN] VESSELS. Now we shall point to a contradiction: If thieves entered a house, It is not rendered unclean, except for the place where the feet of the thieves have trodden! — R. Phinehas said in the name of Rab: [The Mishnah speaks of a case] when they have repented. It is moreover to be deduced, for [the Mishnah] teaches: [If the thieves] restore the vessels. Proven. AND IN JERUSALEM, THEY ARE TRUSTED IN REGARD TO HALLOWED THINGS. A Tanna taught: They are trusted in regard to large earthenware vessels for hallowed things. Why an this? — Because no furnaces were erected in Jerusalem. AND DURING A FESTIVAL ALSO IN REGARD TO TERUMAH. Whence is this deduced? — R. Joshua b. Levi said: Scripture Says: So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, associated as one man: thus the verse made them an Associates. MISHNAH. IF [AN ASSOCIATE] OPENED HIS JAR [OF WINE] OR BROKE INTO HIS DOUGH [TO SELL THEM] ON ACCOUNT OF THE FESTIVAL, R. JUDAH SAYS, HE MAY FINISH [SELLING THEM AFTER THE FESTIVAL]; BUT THE SAGES SAY, HE MAY NOT FINISH. GEMARA. R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nappaha sat in the anteroom of R. Isaac Nappaha. One began and said: May he leave it for another Festival? — Said the other to him: The hands of an touch it, and you say, Leave it for another Festival! Said the former: Did not, till now, the bands of an touch it? — [The other] replied to him: What a comparison! It is alright up to now, because the Divine Law purified the uncleanness of the ‘am ha-arez a during the Festival, but now it is unclean [retrospectively]. Shall we say that Tannaim differ thereon? For one [Baraitha] taught: He may leave it for another Festival; and another [Baraitha] taught: He may not leave it for another Festival. Sure]y, Tannaim differ thereon! — No; the one [Baraitha], which teaches that he may leave it, is according to R. Judah; the other which teaches that he may not leave it, is according to the Rabbis. But can you possibly think so! Behold, R. Judah said: He may finish [selling them]! — Rather, [the Baraitha] which teaches that he may not leave it is according to R. Judah, and the one that teaches that he may leave it is according to the Rabbis: and ‘he may not leave it’ means that there is no need for him to leave it. MISHNAH. AS SOON AS THE FESTIVAL WAS OVER, THEY CLEARED UP FOR THE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE COURT, IF THE FESTIVAL TERMINATED ON FRIDAY, THEY DID NOT CLEAR UP ON ACCOUNT OF THE HONOUR DUE TO THE SABBATH. R. JUDAH SAID: NEITHER ON THURSDAY, FOR THE PRIESTS WERE NOT [YET] FREE. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: For the priests were not [yet] free from [the prior duty of] removing the ashes. MISHNAH. HOW DID THEY CLEAR UP FOR THE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE COURT? THEY IMMERSED THE VESSELS WHICH WERE IN THE TEMPLE, AND THEY USED TO SAY TO THEM: ‘TAKE HEED^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^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃnote:In the first case, the Associate must wait till the potter comes inwards of Modi'im; in the second case, since the Associate did not avail himself of the opportunity of buying before he reached the city, he may no longer do so. It follows, a foriori, that if the Associate is going outward and the potter coming inward, that the former must return and buy his vessels in the inward area.
^ᵇnote:V. supra p. 162, n. 5.
^ᶜnote:I.e., the latter.
^ᵈnote:I.e.,the statement in the Mishnah that from Modi'im inwards the potters are trusted in regard to earthenware vessels, refers only to small vessels for hallowed things, which are essential to the pilgrims, but not to large vessels like wine jars, which may be bought only in Jerusalem itself (v. p. 165).
^ᵉnote:u,uxrehpt ; also u,uxrept = ihxrept ; cf. Peshita to Judg. XIV, 2 for Heb. ohbhsx , Goldschmidt trails: ‘Kopfhulle’; Levy, ‘Hulle’; Jast., ‘underwear’. Rashi annotates: Even if they are fun of his own liquid, which is not hallowed! Whatever the exact signification of the word, the general meaning is clear: even if his profane things are in it, the vessel is considered clean; (v. however, D.S. II. 40). MS.M. has: ‘Even if his head-covering fell therein
^ᶠnote:Though the containing vessel is clean.
^ᵍnote:V. p. 141, nn. 4-5.
^ʰnote:I.e., if Jewish tax-collectors, acting on behalf of a non-Jewish government. entered a Jewish house in order to seize pledges for the taxes due. Cf. Toh. VII, 6.
^ⁱnote:Or simply ‘articles’.
^ʲnote:I.e., they are trusted in regard to hallowed things but not terumah; so Rashi, who regards the whole of our Mishnah as a further exemplification of leniency in regard to hallowed things as compared with terumah (v. p. 155f); the Tosef., that he quotes in support of his view, corresponds to the reading in our edd. Tosaf. (s.v. ihtcdv ), on the other hand, refers the Mishnah to terumah as well and quotes in support a different version of the same Tosef. statement.
^ᵏnote:I. e., the ‘amme ha-arez.
^ˡnote:V. Gemara infra p. 165.
^ᵐnote:When an are considered to be clean; cf. p. 165, n. 11 and p. 166.
^ⁿnote:I.e., an the utensils are to be regarded as unclean, for it is to be presumed that the tax-collectors touched them.
^ᵒnote:I.e., in the latter case, the tax-collectors are not believed if they say that they have not to touched, because they are bound, in the presence of the Gentile, to have searched everything.
^ᵖnote:Lest he punish them.
^ᵠnote:Lest the Gentile inform against them.
^ʳnote:In which case he himself has not the power to punish them, but he is able to inform against them.
^ˢnote:Now if the place on which they stood is unclean, then certainly the vessels they took and are now returning must be unclean!
^ᵗnote:In Yeb. 22b, R. Papa; in B.M. 62a, Raba; in B.K. 94b and Sanh. 85a simply: As R. Phinehas said.
^ᵘnote:I.e., only if, in consequence of their repentance, they restored the stolen vessels, are they believed, in accordance with our Mishnah, if they say that they have not been touched.
^ᵛnote:Showing their repentance.
^ʷnote:And, a fortiori, in regard to small vessels. The J.T. distinctly states that they are trusted in regard to the purity of an vessels for hallowed things.
^ˣnote:The question refers also to the regulations regarding small vessels contained in the preceding Mishnah (p. 162).
^ʸnote:For making either small or large vessels. Consequently, permission was granted to buy vessels from the ‘am ha-arcs. In the case of small vessels, which were in greater demand, the permission was extended to a fifteen mile radius round Jerusalem; in the case of large vessels, purchase was permitted only in Jerusalem.
^ᶻnote:E.V. ‘knit together’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Judg. XX, 11.
^ᵃᵇnote:Similarly, at Festivals when all the men of Israel were gathered’, they were to be regarded as Associates.
^ᵃᶜnote:Although the goods are touched by ‘amme ha-ares, they remain clean throughout the Festival (cf. p. 164, n. 6).
^ᵃᵈnote:The order of the disputants is reversed in Rashi.
^ᵃᵉnote:Otherwise the vendors win be discouraged from sending their goods, and the pilgrims will not have sufficient food; v. Bez. 11b.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., he may not send the goods, because they are considered unclean retrospectively (v. infra n. 8 and cf. next Mishnah).
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., ‘smith’.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘curtain’; ‘curtained enclosure’.
^ᵃⁱnote:The question refers to the view of the Sages in the Mishnah, i.e., may the goods be kept till the following Festival, when again an are regarded as clean?
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., during the Festival so many amme ha-arez touched it, and yet it is considered clean throughout the festive period.
^ᵃᵏnote:An Associate may never sell unclean goods; and although throughout the Festival the goods were held to be clean, immediately after the Festival the concession ceases, and the goods become retrospectively unclean, because they were touched by ‘amme ha-arez.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., on the question raised above as to whether the wine etc. may be left for another Festival.
^ᵃᵐnote:After the Festival and need not leave them over for the next Festival.
^ᵃⁿnote:Rashi reverses the order of the disputants; cf. p. 165, n. 12.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘removed’, sc. the utensils, which, having been touched during the Festival by ‘amme ha-arez, now become retrospectively unclean.
^ᵃᵖnote:Every priest had to make preparations for the Sabbath, in his own home.
^ᵃᵠnote:But waited tin after the Sabbath.
^ᵃʳnote:V. Gemara.
^ᵃˢnote:Which, were piled up during the whole of the Festival in the centre of the altar, called Tappuah (Apple); v. Tam. II, 2.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., to the ‘amme ha-arez priests who went to prostrate themselves in the Hekal (i.e., the Holy Hall where the golden altar etc. stood). Ordinary Israelites, on the other hand, were not permitted to pass even between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

²THAT YE TOUCH NOT THE TABLE [AND THUS RENDER IT UNCLEAN]’. ALL THE VESSELS THAT WERE IN THE TEMPLE HAD SECOND AND THIRD SETS, SO THAT IF THE FIRST WERE RENDERED UNCLEAN, THEY MIGHT BRING A SECOND SET IN ITS PLACE. ALL THE VESSELS THAT WERE IN THE TEMPLE REQUIRED IMMERSION, EXCEPT THE ALTAR OF GOLD AND THE ALTAR OF BRONZE, FOR THEY WERE ACCOUNTED AS THE GROUND: THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ELIEZER. BUT THE SAGES SAY: BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERLAID [WITH METAL]. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: ‘Take heed lest ye touch the Table or the Candlestick’. — Why does not our Tanna mention the Candlestick? — In connection with the Table, there is written [the word] ‘Tamid’ [perpetual]; in connection with the Candlestick, there is not written [the word] ‘Tamid’. And the other [Tanna]? — Since it is written: And the Candlestick over against the Table, it is as though [the word] ‘Tamid’ were written in connection there-with. And the other [Tanna]? -That [verse] comes merely to fix its place. But I can, [on the contrary,] deduce it from the fact that [the Table] is a wooden utensil made for resting [things on it], and any wooden utensil made for resting [things on it] is not subject to uncleanness! — What is the reason? — We require it to be like a sack: Just as a sack is movable both fun and empty, so everything that is movable both full and empty [is susceptible to uncleanness]. This, too, is movable both fun and empty. As Resh Lakish [said]: for Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the verse, Upon the clean, table? , The inference is that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But why? It is a wooden utensil made for resting [things on it], and cannot, therefore, contract unclean ness! It teaches, therefore, that they used to lift it and show thereon to the Festival pilgrims the showbread, and to say to them: Behold the love in which you are held by the Omnipresent; it is taken away as [fresh as] it is set down. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: A great miracle was Performed in regard to the showbread: As [fresh as] It was when set down, so was it taken away. For it is said: To put hot bread it the day when it was taken away. But I can deduce this from the fact that it is overlaid! For behold we have learnt: If a table or a side-table was damaged, or was overlaid with marble, but room was left for setting cups thereon,it remains susceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah said: There must be room [also] for Setting Portions [of food thereon]. And should you say, Acacia wood is valuable and is not nullified [by the plating], this would be quite right according to Resh Lakish, who said: They taught this only of utensils of common wood, which come from overseas, but utensils of polished wood are not nullified But what can one say according to R. Johanan, who said: Even vessels of polished wood become nullified [by the plating]? And should you say: The one [Mishnah] refers to a fixed covering, the other to a covering that is not fixed, behold Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: [Does it apply only] to a fixed covering, or [also] to a covering that is not fixed? [Only] to overlaid rims, or [also] if the rims are not overlaid? And he answered him: It makes no difference whether the covering is fixed or the covering is not fixed; whether the rims are overlaid or the rims are not overlaid! Rather, [must you say], the Table is different^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ

^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., the table of the showbread, which could not be removed for immersion since the showbread was to he on it continually, v. Gemara. Some texts add: ‘And the Candlestick’; but v. p. 168.
^ᵃᵛnote:On account of the uncleanness contracted during the Festival.
^ᵃʷnote:V. Ex. XXX, 1ff.
^ᵃˣnote:V. Ex. XXVII, 1ff and I Kings VIII,64.
^ᵃʸnote:Utensils of earth are not susceptible to uncleanness;.v. pp. 170- 171 and cf. Sheb. X, 7; Uk, III, 10.
^ᵃᶻnote:Explained infra 27a; cf. Kel. XI, 2, 4, 6.
^ᵇᵃnote:V. Ex. XXV, 30 (‘always’).
^ᵇᵇnote:Actually, the word ‘Tamid’ is used of the Temple lamp (cf. Ex. XXVII, 20, ‘to cause a lamp to burn continually’); but, as Rashi points out, it has not the same meaning when applied to the Candlestick as when applied to the Table. In the case of the latter, ‘perpetual’ means ‘day and night’, for the showbread remained on the Table from Sabbath to Sabbath. In the case of the former, it merely means ‘every night’, as the expression from evening unto morning’ (ibid. XXVII, 21) indicates (v. Men. 89a); thus, the Candle-stick could be removed during the day. For a similar use of the word ‘Tamid’ cf. Ex. XXIX, 38 and Lev. VI, 13. For the difficulty raised by the statement in Tam. 30b that the western lamp of the Candlestick burned an day, v. Tosaf. a.I. (s.v. vrubn ).
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., why does the Tanna of the Baraitha include the Candlestick?
^ᵇᵈnote:Ex. XXVI, 35.
^ᵇᵉnote:I.e., the meaning of the verse is — so.long as the Table is there so long must the Candlestick be over against it.
^ᵇᶠnote:I.e., why does the Tanna of our Mishnah exclude the Candlestick?
^ᵇᵍnote:I.e., the insusceptibility of the Table to uncleanness.
^ᵇʰnote:So Jast. and Levy; But Rashi explains: a wooden utensil intended to rest in one place; and Goldschmidt translates: ‘Ein ruhendes Holzger_t’.
^ᵇⁱnote:I.e., in order to be susceptible to uncleanness, we require a wooden utensil to be like a sack, for they are mentioned together in one verse (Lev. XI, 32) in respect of defilement.
^ᵇʲnote:This would exclude wooden vessels not intended to be moved at all or such as cannot be moved when fun because of their liability to break i.e., a vessel containing forty se'ahs of liquid or two kors of dry goods.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lev. XXIV, 6.
^ᵇˡnote:I Sam. XXI, 7. I.e., it was still ‘hot breath in the day when it was taken away’.
^ᵇᵐnote:I.e., that the Table was susceptible to uncleanness even though intended for resting things on it (or to rest in one place).
^ᵇⁿnote:With gold; since metal utensils are not likened to a sack, they are susceptible to defilement even if they are not intended to be moved.
^ᵇᵒnote:hepkus (delphica, sub. mensa) a three-legged table used as a toilet table or a water, contrad. from ijka (eating table); (last.).
^ᵇᵖnote:If it is so damaged as to be useless for its original purpose, it becomes insusceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵇᵠnote:Stone vessels are not susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵇʳnote:I.e., part of the table was left undamaged or uncovered with marble.
^ᵇˢnote:Because it is still useful for its original purpose.
^ᵇᵗnote:Otherwise, it does not serve the purpose of a table, and consequently becomes insusceptible to uncleanness. For a fuller explanation of the principles involved, v. ktrah ,rtp, to the Mishnah, Kel. XXII, 1. According to either view, however, it is evident that an object's insusceptibility to uncleanness is dependent on the covering: if the marble can render a table unsusceptible to defilement, then a fortiori, the gold plating renders the Sanctuary Table susceptible to defilement.
^ᵇᵘnote:Of which the Table was made: v. Ex. XXV, 23.
^ᵇᵛnote:I .e., that the covering is an-important and nullifies the wood.
^ᵇʷnote:Or foresters’ apparel (i.e.,leather covers), Jast. Aliter (on basis of other reading): camping apparel’, Jast.; Levy: eingewirkte Kleidungst_cke.
^ᵇˣnote:Probably coral-wood (so Jast.). Levy ‘Kostbare Holzart’ (s.v. xnhxn ).
^ᵇʸnote:Lit., ‘standing’, i.e., fixed e.g., with nails.
^ᵇᶻnote:The covering of the Temple Table (of which our Mishnah speaks) was not fixed.
^ᶜᵃnote:I.e., the Mishnah of the table and side-table, which teaches that the susceptibility of the table to uncleanness depends on the covering.