Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 20b
But behold it is taught: If a man’s ass-drivers and workmen1 were laden with [levitically] clean
goods, even if he withdrew from them more than a mil2 his clean goods3 remain clean.4 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?5 R. Isaac
Nappaha6 said: In the first case he purifies his ass-drivers and workmen for this purpose.7 — If so, [it
applies to] the second case too! — An ‘am ha-arez does not mind another’s touching.8 — 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.9 — 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.10
C H A P T E R I I I
MISHNAH. GREATER STRINGENCY APPLIES TO HALLOWED THlngs11 THAN TO
TERUMAH:12 FOR VESSELS WITHIN VESSELS13 MAY BE IMMERSED [TOGETHER] FOR
TERUMAH, BUT NOT FOR HALLOWED THINGS. THE OUTSIDE AND INSIDE AND
HANDLE14 [OF A VESSEL ARE REGARDED AS SEPARATE] FOR TERUMAH,15 BUT NOT
FOR HALLOWED THINGS.16 HE THAT CARRIES ANYTHING POSSESSING
MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS17 MAY CARRY [AT THE SAME TIME] TERUMAH,18 BUT NOT
HALLOWED THINGS. THE GARMENTS OF THOSE WHO EAT TERUMAH POSSES15
MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO EAT] HALLOWED THINGS.19 THE RULE
[FOR THE IMMERSION OF GARMENTS]20 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 KNOTS21 IN THE
UNCLEAN GARMENT], DRY IT22 [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 PURITY23 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,24 BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH.25
HALLOWED THINGS BECOME INVALID26 [BY UNCLEANNESS] AT THE FOURTH
REMOVE, BUT TERUMAH [ONLY BY UNCLEANNESS] AT THE THIRD REMOVE.27 IN
THE CASE OF TERUMAH, IF ONE HAND OF A MAN BECAME UNCLEAN,28 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 FOODSTUFFS29 MAY BE EATEN WITH UNWASH
ED HANDS,30 WITH TERUMAH, BUT NOT WITH HALLOWED THINGS.31

---

(1) Who belonged to the category of ‘am ha-arez.
(2) I.e., unbeknown, to them. A mil=two thousand cubits (Jast.).
(3) E.g., wine in earthenware jars.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) I.e., the smith.
(7) 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.
(8) I.e., though the workmen, being clean, cannot defile the goods, they might allow them to be defiled by other people
touching them.
(9) I.e., the fear that he might come upon them by surprise would deter them from permitting a stranger to touch the
goods.
(10) That he will not surprise them, and thus whatever they do will not be observed by their master.
(11) I.e., sacrificial flesh, mealofferings and drink-offerings.
(12) 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).
(13) 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.
(14) vyhcmv ,hc ‘the place of holding’, v. infra p. 143, n. 13.
(15) 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
(16) In the case of hallowed things, if one part becomes defied, the whole vessel is rendered unclean.
(17) E.g., if he wears the shoe of a gonorrhoeist. V. p. 120, n. 3.
(18) I.e., if the terumah is in an earthenware vessel, which he touches only from without. Cf. p. 132, nn. 1 and 2.
(19) V. p. 120, where the same statement is found.
(20) In respect of the law of vmhmv (‘Interposition, all intervening object’). Cf. ‘Er. 4a.
(21) Because they resemble an intervening object.
(22) Here the moisture is deemed to resemble an intervening object.
(23) 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.
(24) 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.
(25) 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.
(26) But cannot, In turn, render anything else invalid.
(27) 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).
(28) I.e., contracted a Rabbinic (as opposed to Pentateuchal) grade of uncleanness, which defiles the hand without
affecting the rest of the body.
(29) I.e., ordinary food which has never been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by coming in contact with water; v. p.
124, nn. 5-9.
(30) Lit., ‘unclean hands’; though these suffer from levitical uncleanness, the food is not affected because it has never
become susceptible to uncleanness.
(31) V. the explanation in the Gemara, pp. 154f(24b).
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 21a
A MOURNER [PRIOR TO THE BURIAL OF THE DECEASED],1 AND ONE WHO NEEDS TO
BRING HIS ATONEMENT SACRIFICE [IN ORDER TO COMPLETE HIS PURIFICATION]2
REQUIRE IMMERSION FOR HALLOWED THINGS,3 BUT NOT FOR TERUMAH.4 GEMARA.
Why not in the case of hallowed things?5 R. Ela said: Because the weight of the [inner] vessel forms
an interposition.6 — But since the latter clause [of the Mishnah] is based on [the rule of]
interposition.7 For it is taught in the latter clause: 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 THE CASE OF TERUMAH, IT MAY [FIRST] BE TIED AND AFTERWARDS
IMMERSED! — Both the former clause and the latter clause are based on [the rule of] interposition,
and they are both required. For if [the Mishnah] taught us the former clause [only], I might have
thought that the reason why it is not [permitted to immerse vessels within vessels] for hallowed
things is because of the weight of the vessel [which interposes], but in the latter clause where there is
no weight of a vessel [to interpose], I might have thought that it would not be deemed an
interposition even for hallowed things; and if [the Mishnah] taught us the latter clause, I might have
thought that the reason why it is not [permitted] in the case of hallowed things is because

---

(1) Heb. ibut , opposed to kct , a mourner during the week following the burial. It is assumed here that the mourner
had not become defiled by the corpse.
(2) E.g., a gonorrhoeist who, after duly immersing himself on the seventh day of his uncleanness, has awaited sunset on
that day, and now has only to bring his sacrifice on the morrow in order to complete his purification.
(3) In the latter case after bringing the prescribed sacrifices.
(4) Which may be eaten not only without immersion, but even before the sacrifices marking the completion of
purification have been brought.
(5) The question refers to the beginning of the Mishnah, i.e., why may not vessels within vessels be immersed for
hallowed things just as for terumah?
(6) The weight of the inner vessel prevents the water from reaching every part of the vessels, thus invalidating the
immersion both of the outer and inner vessels. V. infra p. 139.
(7) If the purpose of the two clauses is identical viz., to teach us that in the case of hallowed things even that which
resembles interposition invalidates, but in the case of terumah only proper interposition, then the Mishnah should have
contained one of the two clauses, not both.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 21b
a knot becomes tightened1 in water, but in [the case of] the former clause, where the water causes the
vessel to float, it would not be deemed an interposition; therefore [both clauses] are required.2 R. Ela
[in explaining the former clause to be based on the rule of interposition] is consistent in his view. For
R. Ela said that R. Hanina b. Papa said: Ten distinctions [of hallowed things over terumah] are
taught here.3 The former five apply both to hallowed things and to unconsecrated [food] 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. What is the reason? —
The former five, which involve the risk of eventual violation of the law of Impurity according to the
Torah,4 the Rabbis enacted both in regard to hallowed things and in regard to unconsecrated [food]
prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. The latter [five], which do not involve the risk
of the eventual violation of the law of purity according to the Torah, the Rabbis enacted in regard to
hallowed things, but not in regard to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of
hallowed things. Raba said: Since the latter clause is based on [the rule of] interposition, the former
clause cannot be based on [the rule of] interposition; and as to the former clause, the reason is this: It
is a Precautionary enactment so that one might not immerse needles and hooks in a vessel the mouth
of which is not the size of the spout of a skin-bottle.5 As we have learnt: The union of immersion
pools [requires a connecting stream]6 the size of the spout of a skin-bottle in breadth

---

(1) Thus approximating to interposition.
(2) Actually the latter clause is required because it also contains the rule: ‘He must dry it (if it is wet)’. But this is not
taken into account in our argument either because, (a) even if it were based on the principle of interposition it was held
to follow from the first clause, or (b) it may be based not on the principle of interposition but on the fact that the original
moisture could re-defile the garment and so render the Immersion useless.
(3) Since eleven points of difference are actually mentioned in the Mishnah, two, according to It. Ela, must be clue to the
same reason and hence are counted as one.
(4) I.e., as opposed to Rabbinic degrees of purity. For an explanation of how this violation of the Torah law of purity can
come about v. Rashi s.v. trrs ; for a discussion of the latter five distinctions v. Tosaf. s.v. t,hhr,c .
(5) In which case the immersion would be invalid, because the water in the vessel would not be regarded as connected
with the water in the immersion pool, for the minimum size of the connecting stream (as explained in the following
Mishnah) must be equivalent to the area of the tube of a skin-bottle.
(6) I.e., two adjoining pools can be combined to make up the prescribed quantity of forty se’ahs of water if there is an
aperture in between allowing a stream (of the size mentioned) to flow between them.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 22a
and 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 net1 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;2 but if an immersion-pool be divided by a basket or net, then whoever immerses
himself therein, his immersion is not effective,3 for the earth is wholly perforated,4 nevertheless we
require that there should be forty se’ahs [of undrawn water] in one place. Now this applies only to a
clean vessel,5 but’ [in the case of] an unclean vessel,6 since the immersion is effective for the entire
vessel itself,7 it is effective also for the vessels which are in it. For we have learnt:8 If one filled
vessels with vessels and immersed them, these [interior vessels also] become clean.9 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.10 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],11 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. Ela12 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!13 — For whom do we
state this rule]?14 For Associates.15 Associates know [the rules of immersion] very well. If so, it
should apply to hallowed things too!16 — 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]!17 — We do not
accept it from him.18 Let us not accept hallowed things either from him! — He would bear
animosity.19 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]?20 It is in order that every one may not go and give and build a high place21 for himself, and
burn a red heifer22 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.23 But should we not
apprehend [the contingency] of borrowing [by an Associate]?24 For we have learnt:25 An
earthenware vessel protects everything [therein from contracting uncleanness from a corpse that is
under the same roof]:26 so Beth hillel. Beth Shammai say: It protects only foodstuffs and liquids and
[other] earthenware vessels.27 Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: Wherefore? Beth Shammai
answered: Because it is unclean on account of the ‘am ha arez,28 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,

---

(1) A wicker or network in the wine or oil Press (Jast.), used for straining; cf. A.Z. 56b.
(2) Even for hallowed things.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) Which itself requires immersion.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) I.e.,irrespective of the size of the outer vessel’s mouth. This immersion is valid for terumah only (v. the Mishnah p.
133).
(10) I.e., unless the outer vessel’s mouth is that size.
(11) I.e., because it was levitically clean.
(12) 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.
(13) I.e., the prohibition against immersing vessels within vessels, according to either explanation, should apply to
terumah as well as hallowed things.
(14) Concerning the immersion of vessels within vessels.
(15) V. p. 120, n. 2. The ‘am ha-arez would not even wish to know the laws of immersion, let alone observe them.
(16) 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?
(17) And as he cannot be trusted to observe properly the rules of immersion, the hallowed contents of the vessels would
become defiled!
(18) 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).
(19) For were they not Jews?
(20) Wine for libations, oil for the preparation of meal-offerings.
(21) When these were prohibited: v. J.E. vol. VI, pp. 387-389 (particularly the last section, p. 389, s. ‘Rabbinic
attitude’).
(22) 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.
(23) But not the other Rabbis; v. Pes. 42b.
(24) 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?
(25) I.e., that it is permitted to borrow vessels from an ‘am ha-arez.
(26) 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.
(27) Kel. X, 1.
(28) 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.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 22b
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

---

(1) The foodstuffs and liquids of an ‘am ha-arez are unclean; hence Associates would eschew them in any case.
(2) 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
(3) And the hatchway leading from it to the lower room in which the corpse is lying was covered by an earthen vessel.
(4) 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.
(5) In accordance with your view that an earthenware vessel affords no protection to anything apart from foodstuffs,
liquids and earthenwares. Cf. Oh. V, 4.
(6) 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.
(7) Lit., ‘I humble myself to you’.
(8) V. p. 141, and cf. n. 2.
(9) Lest the ‘am ha-arez immersed them In a vessel, without observing the prescribed rules.
(10) V. Num. XIX, 18ff.
(11) For Associates we are told have to immerse any vessels borrowed from an ‘am ha-arez.
(12) For which he is trusted.
(13) In this case he is believed.
(14) I.e., by being wetted; v. p. 124, nn. 6-9.
(15) 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.
(16) Declaring that he has duly waited the first three days. Sprinkling takes place on the third and seventh day after
defilement by a corpse.
(17) By not believing that he waited three days.
(18) 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.
(19) 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).
(20) 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).
(21) Lit., ‘ear’ i.e., ear-shaped handle.
(22) 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.
(23) Even according to Rabbinic law only.
(24) I.e., holds it and reaches it to another.
(25) E.V. ‘reached’.
(26) Ruth II, 14.
(27) 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.
(28) Lit., ‘all vessels have no outside’, i.e., if the outside became defiled, the whole vessel is rendered unclean.
(29) I.e., sacrifices.
(30) I.e., sacred gifts, like terumah, which can be eaten in any part of Palestine.
(31) R. Nahman’s teacher.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 23a
, when the thong of his sandal1 broke, and he took it and placed it on the mouth of the jar, and It fell
into the hollow2 of the jar, which was thus rendered unclean. At that time they enjoined: He that
carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not
hallowed things. — If so, [it should be forbidden to carry] terumah too! — This is according to R.
Hananiah b. Akabia who said: They Prohibited it only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to
[the circumstances of] the occurrence.3 What is this? — It is taught: A man shall not take water of
purification or ashes of purification,4 and convey them over the Jordan in a ship, nor stand on one
side [of a river] and throw them to the other side, nor float them over the water, nor ride upon all
animal or his fellow, unless his feet touch the ground;5 but one may unhesitatingly convey them over
a bridge, be it across the Jordan or any other river. R. Hananiah b. Akabia says: They prohibited it
only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to [the circumstances of] the occurrence. What was
the occurrence? — Rab Judah said that Rab said: Once someone was conveying water of purification
on the Jordan in a ship, and a [piece of a] corpse the size of an olive was found stuck in the bottom of
the ship.6 At that time they enjoined: A man shall not take water of purification and ashes of
purification and convey them over the Jordan in a ship. A question was raised: [It happened with] all
unclean sandal; what of a clean sandal?7 [It happened with] all open jar, what of a closed jar?8 How
is it if a man transgressed and carried [them thus]? — R. Ela said: If he transgressed and carried
[them thus], they are unclean. R. Zera said: If he transgressed and carried [them thus] they are clean.
VESSELS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED IN PURITY etc. Who finished them? Should one say
that an Associate finished them, then why do they require immersion? If, on the other hand, an ‘am
ha-arez, finished them, can they be called ‘finished in purity’? — Rabbah b. Shilah said that R.
Mattenah said that Samuel said: Actually, [one can say] that an Associate finished them, yet [the
vessel requires immersion] lest the spittle of an ‘am ha-arez9 [fell upon it].10 — When could it have
fallen [upon it]? Should one say, before he finished it, then it is not yet a vessel!11 If, on the other
hand, after he had finished it, then he would surely take good care of them! — Actually, [one can say
that it fell upon it] before he finished it, but perhaps at the time when he finished it, it was still
moist.12 [It states:] It requires [only] immersion, but not sunset;13 our Mishnah, therefore, is not
according to R. Eliezer. For we have learnt: If a [reed] pipe14 was cut15 for [putting therein ashes of]
purification, R. Eliezer says: It must be immersed forthwith; R. Joshua says: It must [first] be
rendered unclean, and then immersed.16 Now we raised the point: Who could have cut it? Should
one say that an Associate cut it, then why is im mersion required?17 If, on the other hand, an ‘am
ha-arez cut it, how can R. Joshua, in such a case, say: It must [first] be rendered unclean, and then
immersed? Behold,it is already unclean! Now Rabbah b. Shila said that R. Mattenah said that
Samuel said: Actually, [you can say] that an Associate cut it, yet [immersion is required] lest the
spittle of an ‘am ha-arez [fell upon it]. — [Again] when could it have fallen [upon it]? Should one
say before he cut it, then it is not yet a vessel! If, on the other hand, after he had cut it, he would
surely take good care of it! Actually, [you can say that it fell on the vessel] before he cut it, but
perhaps at the time that he cut it, it was still moist. Granted [then] according to R. Joshua, a
distinction is thus made, [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees.18 For we have learnt: They used
to render the priest that was to burn the [red] heifer unclean,19 as a demonstration against the view of
the Sadducees,20 who used to say:21 It must be performed [only] by those on whom the sun had set.22
But according to R. Eliezer, granted if you say that in an other cases we do require sunset,23 a
distinction is thus made [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees, but if you say that in other cases
[too] we do not require sunset, what distinction is there, [as a demonstration] against the
Sadducees?24 — Rab answered:

---

(1) Which possessed midras-uncleanness. J.T.: ‘his sandal got torn off’ (v. Tosaf. s.v. vexpbu ).
(2) Lit., ‘air’.
(3) I.e., R. Hananiah, taught that a Rabbinic decree consequent upon a certain incident was always restricted to the actual
circumstances of the incident. In our case, the occurrence was in connection with hallowed things; therefore the Rabbinic
prohibition affects only hallowed things.
(4) V. Num. XIX.
(5) Since a person travelling in a ship does not touch the ground with his feet, the Rabbis enacted that anyone carrying
water or ashes of purification may not journey with his feet lifted off the ground.
(6) The moment the piece of corpse was overshadowed by a person or object, it caused all under the same covering or
overshadowing to become unclean for seven days: v. Num. XIX, 14 and Oh. II, 1.
(7) I.e., does the prohibition referred to in our Mishnah extend also to a person wearing a clean sandal?
(8) Into which nothing could fall.
(9) Who, we are afraid, may be suffering from gonorrhoea, in ‘which case any fluid coming from him is a ‘father of
uncleanness;’ cf. p. 143, n.6.
(10) Unobserved by the Associate.
(11) And cannot, therefore, be defiled.
(12) In Nid. VII, I, we learn that spittle etc. convey uncleanness when wet, but not when dry.
(13) Otherwise it would be specifically mentioned. Cf p. 121, n. 9.
(14) Cf. Kel. XVIII, 7.
(15) I.e., from the ground, so that it was still clean.
(16) R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that being a vessel, and therefore subject to defilement, the reed pipe has to be
immersed and then used for the ashes of the red heifer before sunset, the underlying motive being to demonstrate against
the Sadducees, who held that any thing or person to be employed in connection with the red heifer must, if unclean, first
be completely purified, i.e., must wait for sunset after immersion; whereas the Rabbis held that immersion without sunset
was sufficient; and although the Sadducean view in this case was stricter than the Pharisaic, the Rabbis nevertheless
demonstrated against the Sadducees in order to uphold the authority of the Oral Law, which the latter repudiated. The
only difference between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is as to whether the vessel should first be defiled (and thus rendered
unclean according to the Law of the Torah, which the Sadducees also recognized), or immersed forthwith (being
regarded as unclean by Rabbinic enactment only). Cf. the defilement of the priest referred to on p. 147, and another
demonstration against the Sadducees mentioned on p. 111.
(17) Seeing that the reed pipe is actually clean, the fact that we require its immersion without the awaiting of sunset
cannot be regarded as a demonstration against the Sadducees, who postulate sunset only for the unclean; the immersion,
therefore, would be pointless.
(18) For Once the reed pipe is defiled, the Sadducees require sunset In addition to Immersion.
(19) Either (according to Tosaf. who quotes the Tosef. in support) by his fellow priests laying their hands on him (for
compared with him all were unclean; v. p. 121), or (according to Rashi and Maimonides) he was defiled by means of a
(dead) reptile or an equivalent source of uncleanness.
(20) Lit., ‘to bring forth (the false opinion) from the heart of the Sadducces’. The Mishnah, Par. III, 7’ from which this
passage is quoted, has simply, ‘because of the Sadducees’.
(21) The Mishnah text has, ‘that they should not say’, and our reading as a var. lec.
(22) V. p. 146, n. 8.
(23) I.e., that an vessels finished in purity (in circumstances as described by Rabbah b. Shila) require sunset In addition
to immersion before being used for hallowed things, and that only for the ashes of the red heifer is immersion alone
sufficient.
(24) We must conclude, therefore, as suggested above, that our Mishnah is not according to R. Eliezer.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 23b
They rendered it as though defiled by a [dead] reptile.1 — If so. it should not render a person
unclean;2 why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion? — [You must
say], therefore, They rendered it as though defiled by a corpse.If so, it should require sprinkling on
the third and seventh day; why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion?
[implying only] immersion, but not sprinkling on the third and seventh day! — [You must say],
therefore, They rendered it as though in its seventh day after defilement by a corpse.3 But surely it is
taught: They never introduced any innovation in connection with the [red heifer!4 — Abaye
answered: [It means] that they never said that a spade. [for instance]. should be rendered unclean as a
seat [on which a gonorrhoeist sat].5 As it is taught: And he that sitteth on any thing:6 I might [have
thought] that if [the gonorrhoeist] inverted a se’ah [measure] and sat upon it, [or] a Tarkab7
[measure] and sat upon it, it should become un clean, therefore the text teaches us: And he that
sitteth on any thing whereon, [he that hath the issue] Sat … shall become unclean;8 [meaning] that
which is appointed for sitting;9 but that is excluded In regard to which we can say, Stand up that we
may do our work.10 A VESSEL UNITES ALL ITS CONTENTS [FOR DEFILEMENT] IN THE
CASE OF HALLOWED THINGS, BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH. Whence is this
deduced? R. Hanin said: Scripture says: One golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense:11 thus, the
verse made an the contents of the pan one. R. Kahana raised an objection: [We have learnt], R.
Akiba added12 [with regard to] the fine flour13 and the incense, the frankincense and the coals,14 that
if one who had taken an immersion that day [but had not yet awaited sunset]15 touched a part thereof,
he renders the whole in valid.16 Now this is [an enactment] of the Rabbis!17 Whence [is this proven]?
— Since it teaches in the first clause: R. Simeon b. Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of
purification that if an unclean person touched a part thereof, he rendered the whole unclean; and then
it teaches: R. Akiba added:18 — Resh Lakish answered in the name of Bar Kappara

---

(1) I.e., you can still say our Mishnah is according to R. Eliezer, even if he holds the view that in other cases too we do
not require sunset for vessels finished in purity, for here the vessel is made to assume the uncleanness of an object
defiled by a (dead) reptile (in respect of communicating defilement), which object in all other cases requires sunset. Thus
a distinction is made, which clearly rejects the Sadducean view.
(2) Only a ‘father of uncleanness’ can defile a person; whereas a vessel defiled by a dead reptile would be an ‘offspring
of uncleanness’.
(3) I.e., as though in its seventh day after the sprinkling: it would still require immersion and could defile a person.
(4) Whereas the actual defilement of the priest (v. p. 147) does not involve any change in the laws of levitical purity. the
attribution of corpse-defilement to the reed cut in purity represents a complete Innovation.
(5) A gonorrhoeist defiles an object on which he sits, making it a ‘father of uncleanness’ provided (as the following
Baraitha explains) it is an object appointed for sitting. Now the Rabbis never enacted a new law in connection with the
red heifer, whereby an object on susceptible to a given type of uncleanness should become susceptible to it, e.g.. that a
spade should become defiled as the seat of a gonorrhoeist: in this sense they introduced no innovations. But they did not
refrain from attributing to a vessel the kind of uncleanness to which it was susceptible, even though it had not actually
been defiled. Thus the reed pipe, though clean, could be regarded as though defiled by a corpse, since it could be subject
to corpse-defilement.
(6) Lev. XV, 6.
(7) Grk. **, terkab (for another derivation v. Jastrow s.v.) == three kabs or a half se’ah, a dry measure.
(8) Heb. tnyh ; in the verse tnyu (‘and shall be unclean’).
(9) This is deduced apparently from the word cah (‘sat’), which, being vocalized as the imperfect instead of the perfect
( cah ), can imply repeated action i.e., that it did not just happen on this one occasion that someone sat on it, but that it
was customary to use it as a seat (v. Rashi here and to Lev. XV, 4). B. Epstein in Torah Temimah (ibid. N. 20) explains
the deduction to be drawn from the world hkf (E.V. ‘thing but really ‘vessel, article’) i.e., an article appointed for
sitting.
(10) I.e., it excludes any article which has its own specific use and was not intended as a seat.
(11) Num. VII, 14 et passim.
(12) I.e., to R. Simeon b. Bathiyra’s statement (quoted infra; v. ‘Ed. VIII, 1 (Sonc. ed., p. 47).
(13) Used for a meal-offering; cf. Lev. II, 1ff.
(14) Carried by the High Priest into the Holy of Holies for the purpose of producing the cloud of incense (cf. Lev. XVI,
12); this rule of defilement did not apply to the coals gathered every day by ordinary priests. It should be noted that
though frankincense and coal are ordinarily not susceptible to uncleanness, they are rendered so in this case on account
of their sanctity.
(15) Which would I have completed his purification; thus, he is still partially unclean and renders invalid (though he
does not defile) Terumah and hallowed things.
(16) Because the vessel unites an its contents. The point in R. Akiba’s addition is either (a) that a vessel is able to unite
its contents even for invalidation and not for defilement only (Bertinoro); or (b) that even flat vessels, not hollowed like
a receptacle, can unite their contents (Maim. following our Gemara; v. p. 150).
(17) Whereas R. Hanin derived the rule from the Torah.
(18) R. Simeon b. Bathyra’s testimony is definitely of Rabbinic origin, for from the verse quoted above one could only
deduce that the rule applied to offerings on the altar, but not to the ashes of the red heifer. Since R. Akiba’s statement is
an addition to a Rabbinic rule, it follows that it must itself be a Rabbinic enactment.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 24a
: It1 refers only to the remains of the meal-offering,2 for according to the Torah that which requires
the vessel,3 the vessel unites, that which does not require the vessel,4 the vessel does not unite; and
the Rabbis came and decreed that even though it does not require the vessel, the vessel should unite
it. Granted with regard to the fine flour, but how are the incense and the frankincense to be
explained?5 — R. Nahman answered that Rabbah b. Abbuha said: For instance, if he heaped them
upon a leather spread: according to the Torah, that which has an inside6 can unite [its contents], that
which has no inside, cannot unite [them]; and the Rabbis came and enacted that even that which has
no inside should unite [its contents]. Now R. Hanin’s teaching win conflict with that of R. Hiyya b.
Abba, for R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: This Mishnah7 was taught as a resent of R.
Akiba’s testimony.8 HALLOWED THINGS BECOME INVALID [BY UNCLEANNESS] AT THE
FOURTH REMOVE. It is taught: R. Jose said: Whence [is it deduced] that hallowed things become
invalid [by uncleanness even] at the fourth remove? Now it is [to be deduced by] conclusion ad
majus: if one who [only] needs to bring his atonement sacrifice [in order to complete his
purification]9 is, whilst being permitted [to partake] of terumah, [nevertheless] disqualified for
hallowed things,10 how much more so should uncleanness at the third remove, which renders
terumah invalid,11 produce in the case of hallowed things uncleanness at the fourth remove.12 Thus,
we learn uncleanness at the third remove in respect of hallowed things from the Torah, and
uncleanness at the fourth remove by means of an a fortiori argument. Whence [do we deduce] from
the Torah uncleanness at the third remove in respect of hallowed things? It is written: And the flesh
that toucheth a thing unclean thing shall not be eaten;13 we are surely dealing [here with a case]
where it may have touched something suffering from uncleanness [even] at the second remove,14 yet
the Divine Law says it ‘shall not be eaten ‘Uncleanness at the fourth remove by means of? an a
fortiori argument’; as we have said [above]. IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH, IF [ONE HAND OF A
MAN] BECAME etc. R. Shezbi said: They taught [this only] of a case where [the hands] are
connected,15 but not where they are not connect ed.16 Abaye put an objection to him: [It is taught]: A
dry [unclean] hand renders the other unclean so as to render hallowed things unclean,17 but not
terumah this is the view of Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: so as to render invalid,18 but not
unclean. Now granted, if you say that [it refers also to] a case where [the hands] are not connected,
[then the fact that the hand is] ‘dry’ is in that case remarkable; but if you say that [it refers only to] a
case where [the hands] are connected, but not where they are not connected, what is there
remarkable about [the hand being] ‘dry’?19 It is also20 taught: Resh Lakish said: They taught [this
only] of his [own hand], but not of the hand of his fellow.21

---

(1) I.e., R. Akiba’s testimony.
(2) I.e.,the rule to which R. Akiba testified is certainly of Rabbinic origin; but this does not conflict with the view of R.
Hanin who derives our Mishnah teaching from the Bible, for R. Akiba refers only to the remains of the meal eaten by the
Priests (v. Lev. II, 3 et passim) to which the Biblical law (as the Gemara goes on to explain) does not apply.
(3) For the service in connection therewith, e.g., the incense; v. Num. VII, 14 quoted on p. 149.
(4) E.g., the remains of the meal-offering which are eaten by the priests.
(5) Since they require the vessel, the vessel unites them according to the law of the Torah: why then are they included in
R. Akiba’s testimony, which refers only to Rabbinical enactments?
(6) I.e., is hollowed like a receptacle.
(7) I.e., our Mishnah.
(8) I.e., it is of Rabbinic, not of Torah origin.
(9) V. p. 135, n. 4.
(10) V. Yeb. 74b (Sonc. ed., pp. 502-3).
(11) V. Sot. 29a (Sonc. ed., p. 143).
(12) Thus rendering the hallowed things invalid. For this method of argument cf. B.K. 24bff (Sonc. ed., p. 125ff). The
principle of iusbf ,uhvk ihsv in tck uhs (‘It is quite sufficient that the law in respect of the thing inferred
should be equivalent to that from which it is derived’) discussed ibid., does not apply here, for otherwise the ‘a fortiori’
argument becomes valueless, for we know from Scripture that uncleanness at the third remove invalidates hallowed
things; and those, too, who hold the principle of ‘Dayyo’ even where the purpose of the ‘a fortiori’ argument is defeated,
would nevertheless not apply it here, since we are dealing only with Rabbinical not Torah degrees of impurity.
(13) With reference to the flesh of peace-offerings; Lev. VII, 19.
(14) So that the hallowed flesh (of the peace-offering) is made to suffer uncleanness at the third remove. The Gemara
assumes here that the term ‘unclean thing,’ can include something suffering from second-grade uncleanness, because we
find that an object possessing uncleanness at the second remove is termed ‘unclean’ by Scripture; v. Lev. XI, 33, where
the vessel possesses uncleanness at the first remove and its contents, therefore, uncleanness at the second remove.
(15) I.e., the rule in the Mishnah that one hand defiles the other for hallowed things applies only (according to Rashi) to
a case where the unclean hand is actually touching the clean hand at the time when the latter is in contact with hallowed
things, the reason for this Rabbinic enactment being the fear lest the unclean hand touch the hallowed things. But Tosaf.
(s.v. ihruc h,c ) explains the case to be one where the clean hand is touching the unclean hand whilst the latter is in
contact with a defiling object (e.g., a sacred Scroll), and we are afraid that the clean hand may also touch the defiling
object.
(16) I.e., (according to Rash), if, after the unclean hand had been removed from the clean, the latter to touched hallowed
things. these would remain clean, for one hand cannot convey to the other uncleanness even at the third remove so as to
render, in turn, hallowed things invalid.
(17) I.e., at the third remove: third-grade uncleanness can, in turn, produce in hallowed things fourth grade uncleanness.
Unwashed hands are generally regarded as possessing uncleanness at the second remove.
(18) I.e., the second hand can convey at the third remove to hallowed things a fourth-grade uncleanness, which
disqualifies them but does not enable them to defile.
(19) If the case is one in which the hands are not connected, then the fact that the clean hand, through having been
previously in contact with the dry unclean hand, is able to defile hallowed things constitutes a new point of Rabbinic
law, viz., that one hand possessing uncleanness at the second remove can convey to the other hand, without the help of
moisture, uncleanness of the same grade; were the unclean hand wet this would not, of course, be remarkable, for since
second-grade uncleanness renders liquids, by Rabbinic enactment, unclean at the first remove, the moisture on the
unclean hand would in turn convey to the other hand uncleanness at the second remove. But if the Mishnah refers only to
a case where the hands are connected, the fact that the hand is dry is pointless. for the defilement of the hallowed things
would in that in-stance perforce have to be accounted for as a preventive prohibition lest the unclean hand touch the
hallowed things (v. p. 151, n. 6). and in that case it would make no difference whether the unclean hand were wet or dry,
for since it possesses second-grade uncleanness, it can defile hallowed things with uncleanness at the third remove.
(20) [MS.M. omits ‘also’ which in fact is difficult to explain.]
(21) I.e., if he touched with his unclean hand another person’s hand, the latter’s hand is not defiled.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 24b
But R. Johanan said: Be it his [own] hand or the hand of his fellow; [and] with that1 hand he can
[defile the other hand]2 so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean.3 Whence [is this
deduced]? — From the fact that [the Mishnah] teaches in the second clause that the one hand defiles
the other for hallowed things but not for terumah. Why am I told this again? Behold it has already
been taught in the first clause!4 You must surely infer from this that it comes to include the hand of
his fellow. And Resh Lakish, too, retracted; for R. Jonah said that R. Ammi said that Resh Lakish
said: Be it his own hand or the hand of his fellow, with that hand [he can defile the other] so as to
render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean. Now [whether the second hand] renders [hallowed
things] invalid but not unclean is [disputed by] Tannaim. For we have learnt: Whatsoever renders
terumah invalid5 defiles the hands with uncleanness at the second remove, and one hand renders the
other unclean: this is the view of R. Joshua. But the Sages say: the hands possess uncleanness at the
second remove, and that which possesses uncleanness at the second remove cannot convey
uncleanness at the second remove to anything else.6 Surely, [the meaning is], it cannot convey
uncleanness at the second remove, but it can convey uncleanness at the third remove!7 — Perhaps, it
does not convey uncleanness either at the second or the third remove!8 –Rather [is it disputed by]
the following Tannaim. For it is taught: A dry [unclean] hand renders the other unclean so as to
render unclean in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of terumah: this is the view of
Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: That hand [can defile another] so as to render [hallowed things]
invalid but not unclean. DRY FOODSTUFFS MAY BE EATEN WITH UNWASHED HANDS etc.
It is taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonos said: Is there [a distinction in favour of] dryness in regard to
hallowed things?9 Does not then the honour10 in which hallowed things are held render them fit [for
uncleanness]?11 It refers only to a case where his companion12 inserted [the consecrated food] into
his mouth,13 or he himself picked it up with a spindle14 or whorl,15 and he wanted to eat
unconsecrated horseradish or onion with it,16 then in the case of hallowed things the Rabbis
prohibited it,17 in the case of terumah the Rabbis did not prohibit it.18 A MOURNER [PRIOR TO
THE BURIAL OF THE DECEASED] AND ONE WHO NEEDS TO BRING HIS ATONEMENT
SACRIFICE [IN ORDER TO COMPLETE HIS PURIFICATION] etc. What is the reason? — Since
up till now they were prohibited [from partaking of hallowed things],19 the Rabbis required them to
take an immersion. MISHNAH. GREATER STRINGENCY APPLIES TO TERUMAH [THAN TO
HALLOWED THINGS], FOR IN JUDEA20 THEY21 ARE TRUSTED IN REGARD TO THE
PURITY OF [HALLOWED] WINE AND OIL THROUGHOUT THE YEAR;22 AND ONLY AT
THE SEASON OF THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE-VATS23 IN REGARD TO TERUMAH. IF
[THE SEASON OF] THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE-VATS WAS PASSED, AND ONE24
BROUGHT TO HIM25 A JAR OF WINE OF TERUMAH, THE LATTER MAY NOT ACCEPT IT
FROM HIM. HOWEVER, [THE ‘AM HA-AREZ] MAY LEAVE IT FOR THE COMING
[SEASON] OF THE WINE-PRESS.26 BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM,27 ‘I HAVE SET APART
THEREIN A QUARTER LOG28 AS A HALLOWED THING’,29 HE IS TRUSTED [IN REGARD
TO THE PURITY OF THE WHOLE].30 IN REGARD TO JUGS OF WINE AND JUGS OF OIL

---

(1) I.e., the first hand.
(2) [So Rash. Tosaf. (s.v. sjt fol. 24a) on the basis of another reading refers it to the hand of his fellow: ‘Be it his
own hand or the hand of his fellow (that hand can defile) so as to render invalid etc.’]
(3) Resh Lakish on the other hand, holds, it appears, that the hallowed things are rendered unclean; cf. his retraction
‘Infra (v. Tosaf. ibid.).
(4) I.e., that In the case of hallowed things he must immerse both hands.
(5) I.e., any-thing suffering from second-grade uncleanness; cf. Zab. V, 12.
(6) I.e., one hand cannot convey the same grade of uncleanness to the other; this shows that R. Joshua holds the opposite
view. The text in the Mishnah, apart from minor differences, omits the words ‘the hands possess uncleanness at the
second remove’.
(7) Thus enabling it to invalidate terumah.
(8) I.e., the Sages may hold that since, as they observe, the hand possesses second-grade uncleanness, it cannot defile the
other hand at an, so that, unlike our own mishnah, they would not accept any distinction in this respect between terumah
and hallowed things. In other words, possibly the Tannaim do not differ as to whether the second hand invalidates or
defiles hallowed things, but as to whether the second hand does or does not become defiled at all; on the view however
that it does, an may agree with R. Joshua that it is rendered unclean at the second remove.
(9) This distinction obtains only in the case of unconsecrated food, which does not become susceptible to uncleanness till
it has been once wetted (cf. p. 124, nn. 6f). R. Hanina b. Antigonos assumes that the Mishnah refers to consecrated foods
and that their ‘dryness’ means that they have not yet been fitted for uncleanness.
(10) Lit., ‘love’.
(11) Following is the Tosefta reading, which differs in several respects from our passage: ‘R. H b. A. said: Is there (a
distinction in favour of) dry things in regard to hallowed things? (It must refer to a case), therefore, where he picks up
the cake with a spindle or a chip of wood and he eats with it an (unconsecrated) olive or onion; (it is permitted) in the
case of terumah but not in the case of hallowed things’. The version of the Tosefta quoted by Tosaf. (s.v. tk )
corresponds more nearly to our own, but likewise omits the sentence, ‘Does not then the honour in which hallowed
things are held render them fit for (uncleanness)?’, and makes the answer appear to be part of R. H. b. A.’s statement
instead of a reply by others to his question.
(12) Whose hands were leviticany clean.
(13) Because the eater’s hands were not clean.
(14) Jast.: reed, especially reed used as spindle (v. Ar. s.v.); also as fork.
(15) Heb. rfrf ; Levy reads, sfrf from Grk. ** == ** (shuttle). The spindle and whorl, being small flat pieces of
wood, do not come within the category of ‘Kelim’ (vessels or articles), and consequently are not susceptible to
defilement.
(16) For the hands, which possess second-grade uncleanness, do not defile dry unconsecrated foods, since the latter are
not susceptible to uncleanness at the third remove (V. p. 155, n. 2).
(17) Lest his hands touch the consecrated food in his mouth, or defile it indirectly by rendering the saliva unclean.
(18) Though unclean hands can invalidate terumah, the Rabbis relied on the eaters of terumah taking due care, and
imposed no prohibition in this case. According to the Gemara’s explanation, therefore, the Mishnah does not refer to
consecrated but to unconsecrated food; and ‘dry’ does not mean that the food had not become susceptible to uncleanness,
but simply that it was dry at the moment for were it wet, then the hands would convey to the liquid uncleanness at the
first remove (cf. P. 152, n. 4), which would render the unconsecrated food unclean at the second remove, and the latter in
turn would disqualify the terumah by conveying to it uncleanness at the third remove (so Rashi here). Another view
(refuted by Rashi here, although accepted by him apparently in his note to the Mishnah) takes ‘dry’ to mean that the
unconsecrated food had not yet been fitted for uncleanness.
(19) And also of Second time, but lot of terumah, v. Yeb. 68b (Sonc. ed., p. 458).
(20) V. infra p. 156.
(21) The ‘amme ha-arez.
(22) If an ‘am ha-arez set aside wine and oil for Temple use (for libations and meal-offerings respectively) during the
seasons of the winepresses and olive-vats, he may be trusted in regard to their purity throughout the year (for another
explanation v. Tosaf. s.v. vsuvhca ). For though an ‘am ha-arez, could not be trusted in respect to terumah, he could
be relied up on strictly to observe the laws of purity in respect to hallowed things.
(23) When everyone can be trusted to purify his vessels: cf. Toh. IX, .
(24) V. n. 5; lit., ‘they’.
(25) I.e.,an Associate priest.
(26) And then give it to the priest.
(27) I.e., the ‘am ha-arez owner to the priest.
(28) A log == six eggs.
(29) I.e., he had put a quarter log of wine in a vessel to be used as a drink-offering.
(30) For since he is trusted in regard to the hallowed things, i.e., the drink-offering, he is also trusted in regard to the
terumah.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 25a
THAT ARE MIXED UP,1 THEY ARE TRUSTED DURING THE SEASON OF THE
WINE-PRESSES AND THE OLIVE-VATS AND PRIOR TO [THE SEASON OF] THE
WINE-PRESSES SEVENTY DAYS.2 GEMARA. In Judea but not In Galilee: what is the reason?
Resh Lakish said: Because a strip of [land inhabited by] Cutheans3 separates them.4 — Let it be
brought then in a box, chest or turret!5 — This is according to Rabbi, who said: A tent in motion is
not to be considered a tent.6 For it is taught: One who enters Gentile territory in a box, chest or
turret, Rabbi declares to be unclean, and R. Jose b. Judah to be clean.7 — But let it be brought in an
earthenware vessel fitted with a close-bound covering!8 R. Eliezer9 said: They teach:10 Hallowed
things are not protected11 by a close-bound covering. — But it is taught: The [water of] purification
is not protected by a close-bound covering. Surely this implies that hallowed things are protected! —
No, it implies that water which is not yet sanctified12 is protected by a close-bound covering.13 —
But ‘Ulla said: The Associates prepare [their hallowed things]14 in purity in Galilee!15 — They let
them remain; and when Elijah comes16 he win purify them.17 AND ONLY AT THE SEASON OF
THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE VATS IN REGARD TO TERUMAH. Now we shall point to a
contradiction. He18 who finished [gathering] his olives, let him leave19 one basket [for terumah] and
give it to a poor priest!20 — R. Nahman said: There is no contradiction: the one [Mishnah]21 refers to
early-ripening [olives],22 and the other refers to later ripening [olives].23 Said R. Adda b. Ahaba to
him: Which [are caned late-ripening]? Like those of your fathers. R. Joseph said: They taught this of
Galilee.24 Abaye put an objection to him: Transjordania and Galilee are like Judea: they are trusted
[there] In regard to the wine during the wine-season, and in regard to the oil during the oil-season;
but not in regard to the wine during the oil-season, and not in regard to the oil during the
wine-season? — The best ,25 therefore, is that which was given at first.26 IF [THE
SEASON OF] THE WINE-PRESSES AND OLIVE-VATS WAS PASSED, AND ONE BROUGHT
TO HIM A JAR OF WINE OF TERUMAH, THE LATTER MAY NOT ACCEPT IT FROM HIM.
HOWEVER, [THE ‘AM HA-AREZ,] MAY LEAVE IT FOR THE COMING [SEASON] OF THE
WINE-PRESS. R. Shesheth was asked: If [the priest] transgressed and accepted It, may he leave it
for the next [season of the] winepress?-He answered them: Ye have learnt it:

---

(1) Explained in Gemara (p. 161) to mean that unconsecrated wine terumah and drink-offering are mixed together,
though, as a rule, the expression is a technical term for the admixture of secular produce with terumah in proportions
sufficient to make the whole prohibited to non-priests. ,ugnusnv In (‘mixed up’) is f. pl. part. pu’al, from (pi’el),
denom. of gns == ‘(sacred) fruit’, from rt gns == ‘flow, weep’; cf. Ex. XXII, 28.
(2) When it is customary to begin purifying the vessels for the wine. Though normally the ‘am ha-ares is not trusted in
regard to his jugs even during the vat-season, in this case he is trusted, because he is believed in regard to the
drink-offering therein; v. p. 161, n. 1.
(3) I.e., Samari-tans; v. II Kings XVII, 24, 29, and J.E. vol. IV, p. 398. For the Talmudic attitude to Samaritans, v. /.E.
vol. X, p. 672f (s. Religion). For censorial influence on word, v. last, s.v. h,uf .
(4) The Sages declared heathen territory to be unclean, for fear of defilement by an undiscovered grave; v. Shab.
14b-15a. Thus even Associates could not bring sacred things (e.g., libations) from Galilee to the Temple, which was in
Judah.
(5) I.e., a kind of chest or case. These receptacles, it is held, could protect their contents against defilement.
(6) I.e., such a receptacle. technically termed a tent, does not protect its contents from defilement.
(7) V. Naz. 55a (Sonc. ed., p. 204 notes).
(8) V. Nun,. XIX, 15.
(9) Read with MS.M.: R. Eleazar.
(10) Heb. ihbua an unusual expression for a Baraitha teaching, for which the most common formula is thb, (it is
taught).
(11) Lit., ‘delivered’, . sc. from defilement.
(12) I.e., the ashes of the red heifer had not yet been put in.
(13) And may afterwards be used with the ashes for sprinkling.
(14) I.e., their wine and oil for Temple use (Rashi).
(15) Which, Implies that there is a way of transporting them in purity to the Temple.
(16) Rashi reads, ‘Maybe Elijah win come’. For the concept of Elijah as the solver of an religious controversies and legal
disputes v. Men. 45b; Ab. R. N. xxxiv; Num. l lab. III, near the end. For the general Rabbinic concept of Elijah v. J.E.
pp. 122-127.
(17) I.e., reveal a path by ‘which the hallowed things can be brought, which does not lead through heathen territory. [The
Associates, accordingly, who lived during the Temple times and who were anxious to express their devotion, to it, would
prepare their wine and oil in purity in the expectation that Elijah might come and direct them, through a clean path
enabling them to bring these to the Temple. Rashi, Nid. 6b, refers this to the period after the Destruction of the Temple,
when the Associates would follow this practice in the expectation that the Temple might be rebuilt in their days.]
(18) I.e., an ‘am ha-arez.
(19) Var. lec., ‘and left’.
(20) Heb. ivf(v) hbgk (this reading is supported by Maimonides) i.e., the ‘am ha-arez, must give the olives to the
priest before they become susceptible to uncleanness, so that the priest may prepare the olive-oil himself in purity. A
poor priest is mentioned, because a rich one would not accept such terumah, as he would not wash to bother himself with
the pressing of a small quantity of olives. But ‘Aruk and Tosaf and so apparently Rashi (v. Tosaf.) read, ivfv hbhgk
, ‘in the presence of the priest , I.e., so that the priest may be sure that the olives have not been rendered susceptible to
uncleanness. According to either reading this Mishnah snows that the ‘am ha-arez is not to be trusted even during the
season, and thus contradicts our own Mishnah.
(21) l.e., our own.
(22) Which are gathered at the normal season: consequently the ‘am ha-arez is trusted.
(23) Since these are gathered after the normal season, the ‘am ha-ares is no longer trusted in regard to terumah.
(24) The second Mishnah (Toh. IX, 4), according to which the ‘an ha-arez not to be trusted at all, refers to Galilee,
whereas our own Mishnah according to which the ‘am ha-ares is to be trusted during the proper season, expressly refers
to Judah. Tosaf. a.I. explains that the Galileans were rich and produced so much olive oil that their season continued
much later.
(25) Lit., ‘the white (explanation)’.
(26) I.e., R. Nahman’s.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 25b
If an Associate and an ‘am ha-arez inherited [jointly] from their father, who was an ‘am ha-arez, [the
Associate] may say to the other: ‘Take thou the wheat that is in one place, and I [shall take] the
wheat that is In the other place; [or] take thou the wine that is in the one place, and I [shall take] the
wine that is in the other’. But he may not say to him: ‘Take thou the liquid [produce] and I [shall
take] the dry;1 [or] take thou the wheat and I [shall take] the barley’,2 And it is taught with , regard to
this: That Associate burns the liquid [produce]3 and leaves the dry. Why now? Let him leave it for
the coming [season of the] wine-press! — [It refers] to something which has no pressing [season].4
— Let him leave it then for the [next] Festival!5 — [It refers] to something which cannot be kept till
the Festival. BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM, I HAVE SET APART THEREIN A QUARTER LOG AS
A HALLOWED THING’, HE IS TRUSTED [IN REGARD TO THE PURITY OF THE WHOLE].
We have learnt there: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that for the purpose of preparing the
Passover sacrifice one may investigate [a field containing a ploughed grave],6 but not for the purpose
of eating terumah.7 What is meant by ‘investigate’? — Rab Judah said that Samuel said: A man
blows [on the ground]8 of a Beth ha-Peras9 [grave area] and proceeds. But R. Hiyya b. Abbah in the
name of ‘Ulla said: A Beth ha-peras which has been trodden is clean.10 In the case of those who go
to prepare the Passover sacrifice, [the Sages] did not maintain their enactment11 where kareth
[extinction]12 was involved; in the case of those who go to eat terumah, they maintained their
enactment where death [at the hands of Heaven] was involved.13 A question was asked: If one
investigated [a Beth Peras] for his Passover sacrifice, may he [also] eat his terumah? Rabbah b. ‘Una
said: If one investigated [a Beth Peras] for his Passover sacrifice, he may not [also] eat his terumah.
Said an old [scholar] to him: Do not dispute with ‘Ulla, for we have learnt according to his view:
BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM, ‘I HAVE SET APART THEREIN A QUARTER-LOG AS A
HALLOWED THING’, HE IS TRUSTED [IN REGARD TO THE PURITY OF THE WHOLE].
Thus, since he is trusted in regard to hallowed things, he is trusted also in regard to terumah.14
Likewise In our case, since he is credited [to be clean] in regard to the Passover sacrifice, he is
credited [to be clean] also in regard to terumah. IN. REGARD TO JUGS OF WINE AND JUGS OF
OIL etc. A Tannna taught: They are not trusted either in regard to the casks or in regard to the
terumah. Casks of what? If they are casks of hallowed things, then since they are trusted in regard to
the hallowed things, they are to be trusted also in regard to the casks! If, on the other hand, they are
casks of terumah, this is obvious? For if they are not trusted in regard to terumah, are they to be
trusted in regard to the casks! it must refer, therefore, to empty [casks] of hallowed things15 at any
time of the year,16 or to full [casks] of terumah at the time of the vats.17 We have learnt: IN
REGARD TO JUGS OF WINE AND JUGS OF OIL THAT ARE MIXED UP: surely [it means]
mixed up with, terumah!18 — The School of R. Hiyya said: [It means] mixed up with hallowed
things. — But does ‘mixing up’ obtain in the case of hallowed things?19 The School of R. Ila’i said:
It is a case where he prepares his untithed produce20 in purity in order to take therefrom
drink-offerings.21 PRIOR TO [THE SEASON OF] THE WINE-PRESSES SEVENTY DAYS.
Abaye said: From this is to be deduced that it is obligatory on the aris [tenant]22 to see to the
provision of the jugs seventy days before the pressing-season.
MISHNAH. FROM MODI’IM23 INWARDS24 [THE POTTERS] ARE TRUSTED IN REGARD
TO EARTHENWARE VESSELS; FROM MODI’IM OUTWARDS THEY ARE NOT TRUSTED.25
FOR INSTANCE: IF THE POTTER WHO SELLS THE POTS ENTERED26 INWARDS OF
MODI’IM, THEN THE SAME POTTER27 IN REGARD TO THE SAME POTS28 AND IN
REGARD TO THE SAME BUYERS29 IS TRUSTED. BUT IF HE WENT OUT [FROM MODl’IM
OUTWARDS] HE IS NOT TRUSTED.
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: Modi’im [itself] is sometimes [considered] as inwards, sometimes as
outwards. For instance: If the potter is going Out and the Associate is coming in,30 it is [considered]
as inwards.31 If both are coming in

---

(1) The former being susceptible to uncleanness, but not the latter.
(2) In regard to each kind of produce, the Associate may chose for himself the produce that has not been rendered
susceptible to uncleanness, or which he knows still to be clean. But he is not entitled to exchange one kind of produce
for another11 the heritage, and by so doing he would transgress Lev. XIX, 14, (‘nor put a stumbling-block before the
blind’). The principle (as Rashi explains) on which this Mishnah is based is that of vrhrc (retrospective selection or
designation; v. last. s.v.), which applies to different parts of the same produce, but not to different kinds of produce,
because on the father’s death a share in each kind of produce comprising the heritage falls in each heir.
(3) I.e., if he is a priest and inherits oil which is terumah, he nay use it for kindling his lamp.
(4) I.e., no special manufacturing season, e.g., beer or meat. According to this explanation, ‘burn’ means ‘destroy’.
(5) When the produce of the ‘am ha-arez, is considered clean: v. pp, 165-6.
(6) I.e., if a man who is going to prepare his Passover sacrifice must traverse a field containing a ploughed grave, he may
walk through the field provided he investigates his path so as to avoid defilement by contact with splintered bones; for
bones from the size of a barley grain (unless they comprise a quarter-kab of the larger bones or the greater number of the
bones, when they defile in accordance with the law of tent-covering’; v. p , 56, n. 6 and Oh. II, 1) defile only when
touched or carried.
(7) Investigation cannot be relied upon; v. p, 160, n. 5.
(8) In order to blow away from his path any bone-splinters large enough to de-file by contact (v. supra, n. 6): the bigger
bones he would see and avoid.
(9) xrp == ‘half’ sc. furrow (cf Tosef. Neg. VII, 10, where Peras == ‘half a loaf’. xrp ,hc (the area of, i.e., a
square, Peras) is a technical term for a field, the area of fifty square cubits (a square halffurrow) rendered unclean on
account of crushed bones carried over it from a ploughed grave; v. M.K. 5b and D.S. a.l. note; Oh. XVII, 1 where ten
cubits represents the size of the full furrow; and Nid. 57a. The above explanation of Beth Peras follows Jastrow’s view
(v. Dict. s. xrp ) and adopts the reading vbgn hmj (‘half a furrow’) instead of the usual reading vbgn tkn
(‘a full furrow’) In M.K. 5b. I Rashi (to Nid. 57a) explains Peras from rt. meaning ‘to break’ i.e., an area of crushed
bones; Maim. (to Oh. XVII) from rt. meaning ‘to extend’ i.e., area of extension; v. also Levy s.v.
(10) It should be investigated then by seeing whether it has been trodden or not.
(11) The uncleanness of a Beth Peras is a Rabbinic law.
(12) ,rf = ,rfv (Niph. infin.), ‘to be cut off’; cf. the recurrent Pentateuchal formula, ‘that soul shall be cut off
from among his people’. It is a term for divine punishment (opp. to v,hn capital punishment) incurred for thirty-six
kinds of transgression (v. Ker. I, 1), including neglect to offer the Passover sacrifice at the proper time; v. Num. IX, 13.
The nature of the punishment is variously explained: (a) childlessness (Rashi to Shab. 25a, s. ,rfu ); (b) premature
death (M .K. 28a); (c) extinction of soul (Sanh. 64b). Maim. (Teshubah Ch. VIII) holds that kureth means that the soul
perishes completely; but this view is controverted by Nahmanides (Comm. to Pentateuch end of hrjt ).
(13) E.g., for wittingly eating terumah when he was unclean. Kureith is the severer penalty; nevertheless the Rabbis
waived their enactment regarding a Beth Peras in the case of the Passover sacrifice, because it has a fixed time. But in
the case of terumah, for the eating of which there is no fixed time, the priest must either avoid the Beth Peras by taking a
longer route, or else if he traverses it, he must purify himself in accordance with the law of corpse-defilement, before
partaking of the terumah (cf. our passage in Pes. 92b with Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.).
(14) For it would be unseemly that part of the wine should be offered as a libation, whilst another part, intended as
terumah, should be considered unclean.
(15) Once the hallowed contents have been emptied out, the ‘am ha-arez cannot be relied upon in regard to the purity of
his vessels. —
(16) In regard to hallowed things, there is no distinction between the vat-seasons and the rest of the year.
(17) Though the ‘am ha-ares was trusted at the appropriate pressing-season in regard to the terumah, in order that the
Associate priests might not be deprived of the greater part of their dues, he was not trusted in regard to the vessels (cf. p.
163, ‘And do not wonder, etc.’). Thus the priest could not accept the terumah in the original vessels, but had to empty it
into his own.
(18) And yet he is trusted, the Mishnah tells us, in regard to the vessels! V. p. 156, n. 6.
(19) ‘Mixing up’ necessarily obtains in the case of terumah, because an untithed produce contains a part which must
event many be set apart as terumah; but not so hallowed things, which have not perforce to be separated from the
untithed produce. V. next note.
(20) Heb. tebel i.e., produces in that stage in which the separation of levitical and priestly shares respectively is required
before one may partake of them; eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts. tebel, however, is not subject
to tithes until it is brought home (Jast. s.v. kcy ).
(21) I.e., unconsecrated produce, hallowed produce, and terumah are all mixed together; and since he is trusted in regard
to the hallowed produce, he is also trusted in regard to both the terumah and the vessels on the principle explained on p.
161, n. 1.
(22) A sub-farmer who tills the owner’s ground for a given share in the produce.
(23) In Mishnah edd., Modi’ith; also occurs as Moda’ith and Modi’im. V. I Macc. II,1. Described in pes. 93fi (q.v.) as
fifteen mil — each of two thousand cubits or three thousand five hundred feet — from Jerusalem. Perhaps it is to be
identified with the modern Amdiyeh, seventeen miles north-west of Jerusalem.
(24) I.e., towards Jerusalem.
(25) l.e., potters, who are ‘amme ha-arez are trusted within this radius from Jerusalem in regard to small, essential
earthenware vessels like pots and cups, because no furnaces, whether for pottery or lime, were permitted in Jerusalem on
account of the smoke.
(26) Note the var. lec. in the Gemara quotation (v. p. 163, n. 4).
(27) I.e., who brought the vessels inwards of Modi’im; but should be transfer them to another potter (who is an ‘am
ha-ares) they may not be purchased.
(28) I.e., which the potter himself bought; but he is not trusted in regard to vessels he may have acquired from a local
potter.
(29) I.e., only if the Associate buyers themselves saw the potter bring the vessels in, may they buy them from him.
(30) I.e.,if the potter enters Modi’im from inwards and the Associate from out-wards.
(31) As the potter is leaving the inward area, the Associate is permitted to buy from him, in order that he should not be
left without vessels.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 26a
or both are going Out [it is considered] as outwards.1 Abaye said: We have also learnt [accordingly]:
IF THE POTTER WHO SOLD THE POTS ENTERED INWARDS OF MODI’IM.2 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,3 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.4 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-covering5 is in it. Raba said: But R. Johanan admits that the liquid itself is unclean.6 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.7 MISHNAH. IF TAX-COLLECTORS ENTERED A HOUSE,8 AND
SIMILARLY IF THIEVES RESTORED [STOLEN] VESSELS9 THEY ARE BELIEVED IF THEY
SAY: WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED [ANYTHING]’.10 AND IN JERUSALEM THEY11 ARE
TRUSTED IN REGARD TO HALLOWED THINGS,12 AND DURING A FESTIVAL13 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!14 — There is no contradiction: In the one case, a Gentile was with
them;15 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;16 the
other says. They are afraid of the Government.17 What is the practical difference between then? —
There is [a practical difference] between them when the Gentile is not of high standing.18 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!19 — R. Phinehas said in the name of Rab:20 [The Mishnah speaks of
a case] when they have repented.21 It is moreover to be deduced, for [the Mishnah] teaches: [If the
thieves] restore the vessels.22 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.23 Why an this?24 — Because no furnaces were erected in Jerusalem.25 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,
associated26 as one man:27 thus the verse made them an Associates.28 MISHNAH. IF [AN
ASSOCIATE] OPENED HIS JAR [OF WINE] OR BROKE INTO HIS DOUGH [TO SELL THEM]
ON ACCOUNT OF THE FESTIVAL,29 R. JUDAH SAYS,30 HE MAY FINISH [SELLING THEM
AFTER THE FESTIVAL];31 BUT THE SAGES SAY, HE MAY NOT FINISH.32 GEMARA. R.
Ammi and R. Isaac Nappaha33 sat in the anteroom34 of R. Isaac Nappaha. One began and said: May
he leave it for another Festival?35 — 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?36 — [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].37
Shall we say that Tannaim differ thereon?38 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]!39 — 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:40 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 UP41 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.42 R.
JUDAH SAID: NEITHER ON THURSDAY,43 FOR THE PRIESTS WERE NOT [YET] FREE.44
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: For the priests were not [yet] free from [the prior duty of] removing the
ashes.45 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:46 ‘TAKE HEED

---

(1) 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.
(2) V. supra p. 162, n. 5.
(3) I.e., the latter.
(4) 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).
(5) 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
(6) Though the containing vessel is clean.
(7) V. p. 141, nn. 4-5.
(8) 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.
(9) Or simply ‘articles’.
(10) 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.
(11) I. e., the ‘amme ha-arez.
(12) V. Gemara infra p. 165.
(13) When an are considered to be clean; cf. p. 165, n. 11 and p. 166.
(14) I.e., an the utensils are to be regarded as unclean, for it is to be presumed that the tax-collectors touched them.
(15) 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.
(16) Lest he punish them.
(17) Lest the Gentile inform against them.
(18) In which case he himself has not the power to punish them, but he is able to inform against them.
(19) Now if the place on which they stood is unclean, then certainly the vessels they took and are now returning must be
unclean!
(20) In Yeb. 22b, R. Papa; in B.M. 62a, Raba; in B.K. 94b and Sanh. 85a simply: As R. Phinehas said.
(21) 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.
(22) Showing their repentance.
(23) 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.
(24) The question refers also to the regulations regarding small vessels contained in the preceding Mishnah (p. 162).
(25) 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.
(26) E.V. ‘knit together’.
(27) Judg. XX, 11.
(28) Similarly, at Festivals when all the men of Israel were gathered’, they were to be regarded as Associates.
(29) Although the goods are touched by ‘amme ha-ares, they remain clean throughout the Festival (cf. p. 164, n. 6).
(30) The order of the disputants is reversed in Rashi.
(31) Otherwise the vendors win be discouraged from sending their goods, and the pilgrims will not have sufficient food;
v. Bez. 11b.
(32) I.e., he may not send the goods, because they are considered unclean retrospectively (v. infra n. 8 and cf. next
Mishnah).
(33) I.e., ‘smith’.
(34) Lit., ‘curtain’; ‘curtained enclosure’.
(35) 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?
(36) I.e., during the Festival so many amme ha-arez touched it, and yet it is considered clean throughout the festive
period.
(37) 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.
(38) I.e., on the question raised above as to whether the wine etc. may be left for another Festival.
(39) After the Festival and need not leave them over for the next Festival.
(40) Rashi reverses the order of the disputants; cf. p. 165, n. 12.
(41) Lit., ‘removed’, sc. the utensils, which, having been touched during the Festival by ‘amme ha-arez, now become
retrospectively unclean.
(42) Every priest had to make preparations for the Sabbath, in his own home.
(43) But waited tin after the Sabbath.
(44) V. Gemara.
(45) Which, were piled up during the whole of the Festival in the centre of the altar, called Tappuah (Apple); v. Tam. II,
2.
(46) 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.
Talmud – Mas. Chagigah 26b
THAT YE TOUCH NOT THE TABLE [AND THUS RENDER IT UNCLEAN]’.1 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,2
EXCEPT THE ALTAR OF GOLD3 AND THE ALTAR OF BRONZE,4 FOR THEY WERE
ACCOUNTED AS THE GROUND:5 THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ELIEZER. BUT THE SAGES
SAY: BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERLAID [WITH METAL].6
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];7 in connection with the Candlestick, there is not written [the word] ‘Tamid’.8
And the other [Tanna]?9 — Since it is written: And the Candlestick over against the Table,10 it is as
though [the word] ‘Tamid’ were written in connection there-with.11 And the other [Tanna]?12 -That
[verse] comes merely to fix its place. But I can, [on the contrary,] deduce it13 from the fact that [the
Table] is a wooden utensil made for resting [things on it],14 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:15 Just as a sack is movable both fun and empty, so everything that is movable both full and
empty [is susceptible to uncleanness].16 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?17 , 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.18 But
I can deduce this19 from the fact that it is overlaid!20 For behold we have learnt: If a table or a
side-table21 was damaged,22 or was overlaid with marble,23 but room was left24 for setting cups
thereon,it remains susceptible to uncleanness.25 R. Judah said: There must be room [also] for Setting
Portions [of food thereon].26 And should you say, Acacia wood27 is valuable and is not nullified [by
the plating], this would be quite right according to Resh Lakish, who said: They taught this28 only of
utensils of common wood,29 which come from overseas, but utensils of polished wood30 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 fixed31
covering, the other to a covering that is not fixed,32 behold Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: [Does it33
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

---

(1) 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.
(2) On account of the uncleanness contracted during the Festival.
(3) V. Ex. XXX, 1ff.
(4) V. Ex. XXVII, 1ff and I Kings VIII,64.
(5) Utensils of earth are not susceptible to uncleanness;.v. pp. 170- 171 and cf. Sheb. X, 7; Uk, III, 10.
(6) Explained infra 27a; cf. Kel. XI, 2, 4, 6.
(7) V. Ex. XXV, 30 (‘always’).
(8) 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 ).
(9) I.e., why does the Tanna of the Baraitha include the Candlestick?
(10) Ex. XXVI, 35.
(11) I.e., the meaning of the verse is — so.long as the Table is there so long must the Candlestick be over against it.
(12) I.e., why does the Tanna of our Mishnah exclude the Candlestick?
(13) I.e., the insusceptibility of the Table to uncleanness.
(14) So Jast. and Levy; But Rashi explains: a wooden utensil intended to rest in one place; and Goldschmidt translates:
‘Ein ruhendes Holzger_t’.
(15) 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.
(16) 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.
(17) Lev. XXIV, 6.
(18) I Sam. XXI, 7. I.e., it was still ‘hot breath in the day when it was taken away’.
(19) I.e., that the Table was susceptible to uncleanness even though intended for resting things on it (or to rest in one
place).
(20) 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.
(21) hepkus (delphica, sub. mensa) a three-legged table used as a toilet table or a water, contrad. from ijka (eating
table); (last.).
(22) If it is so damaged as to be useless for its original purpose, it becomes insusceptible to uncleanness.
(23) Stone vessels are not susceptible to uncleanness.
(24) I.e., part of the table was left undamaged or uncovered with marble.
(25) Because it is still useful for its original purpose.
(26) 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.
(27) Of which the Table was made: v. Ex. XXV, 23.
(28) I .e., that the covering is an-important and nullifies the wood.
(29) Or foresters’ apparel (i.e.,leather covers), Jast. Aliter (on basis of other reading): camping apparel’, Jast.; Levy:
eingewirkte Kleidungst_cke.
(30) Probably coral-wood (so Jast.). Levy ‘Kostbare Holzart’ (s.v. xnhxn ).
(31) Lit., ‘standing’, i.e., fixed e.g., with nails.
(32) The covering of the Temple Table (of which our Mishnah speaks) was not fixed.
(33) I.e., the Mishnah of the table and side-table, which teaches that the susceptibility of the table to uncleanness