Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 15a
I can have repeated sexual connections without [causing] bleeding;1 or is perhaps the case of Samuel rare?2 He replied: the case of Samuel is rare, but we do consider [the possibility] that she may have conceived in a bath.3 But behold Samuel said: A spermatic emission that does not shoot forth like an arrow cannot fructify! — In the first instance, it had also shot forth like an arrow.
Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Joshua b. Hanania was standing on a step on the Temple Mount, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him.4 So [R. Joshua] said to him: Whence and whither, Ben Zoma?5 He replied: I was gazing between the upper and the lower waters,6 and there is only a bare three fingers’ [breadth] between them, for it is said: And the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters7 — like a dove which hovers over her young without touching [them].8 Thereupon R. Joshua said to his disciples: Ben Zoma is still outside.9 See now, when was it that ‘the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water? On the first day [of Creation]; but the division took place on the second day, for it is written: And let it divide the waters from the waters!’ And how big [is the interval]? R. Aha b. Jacob said, As a hair's breadth; and the Rabbis said: As [between] the boards of a landing bridge. Mar Zutra, or according to others R. Assi, said: As [between] two cloaks spread one over the other; and others say, as [between] two cups tilted one over the other.10
Aher mutilated the shoots.11 Of him Scripture says: Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt.12 What does it refer to? — He saw that permission was granted to Metatron13 to sit and write down14 the merits of Israel. Said he: It is taught as a tradition that on high15 there is no sitting16 and no emulation, and no back,17 and no weariness.18 Perhaps, — God forfend! — there are two divinities! [Thereupon] they led Metatron forth, and punished him with sixty fiery lashes,19 saying to him: Why didst thou not rise before him when thou didst see him? Permission was [then] given to him to strike out the merits of Aher. A Bath Kol20 went forth and said: Return, ye backsliding children21 — except Aher.22 [Thereupon] he said: Since I23 have been driven forth from yonder world,24 let me go forth and enjoy this world. So Aher went forth into evil courses.25 He went forth, found a harlot and demanded her. She said to him: Art thou not Elisha b. Abuyah? [But] when he tore a radish26 out of its bed on the Sabbath and gave it to her, she said: It is another [Aher].27 After his apostasy, Aher asked R. Meir [a question], saying to him: What is the meaning of the verse: God hath made even the one as28 well as the other?29 He replied: It means that for everything that God created He created [also] its counterpart. He created mountains, and created hills; He created seas, and created rivers. Said [Aher] to him: R. Akiba, thy master, did not explain it thus, but [as follows]: He created righteous, and created wicked; He created the Garden of Eden,30 and created Gehinnom.31 Everyone has two portions, one in the Garden of Eden and one in Gehinnom. The righteous man, being meritorious,32 takes his own portions and his fellow's portion in the Garden of Eden. The wicked man, being guilty,33 takes his own portion and his fellow's portion in Gehinnom. R. Mesharsheya said: What is the Biblical proof for this? In the case of the righteous, it is written: Therefore in their land34 they shall possess double.35 In the case of the wicked it is written: And destroy them with double destruction.36
After his apostasy, Aher asked R. Meir: What is the meaning of the verse: Gold and glass cannot equal it; neither shall the exchange thereof be vessels of fine gold?37 He answered: These are the words of the Torah, which are hard to acquire like vessels of fine gold, but are easily destroyed38 like vessels of glass. Said [Aher] to him: R. Akiba, thy master, did not explain thus, but [as follows]: Just as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, though they be broken, have a remedy,39 even so a scholar, though he has sinned, has a remedy.40 [Thereupon, R. Meir] said to him: Then, thou, too, repent! He replied: I have already heard from behind the Veil:41 Return ye backsliding children — except Aher.
Our Rabbis taught: Once Aher was riding on a horse on the Sabbath,42 and R. Meir was walking behind him to learn Torah43 at his mouth. Said [Aher] to him: Meir, turn back, for I have already measured by the paces of my horse that thus far extends the Sabbath limit.44 He replied: Thou, too, go back! [Aher] answered: Have I not already told thee that I have already heard from behind the Veil: ‘Return ye backsliding children’ — except Aher. [R. Meir] prevailed upon him and took him, to a schoolhouse. [Aher] said to a child: Recite for me thy verse!45 [The child] answered: There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked.46 He then took him to another schoolhouse.47 [Aher] said to a child: Recite for me thy verse! He answered: For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before Me, saith the Lord God48 . He took him to yet another schoolhouse, and [Aher] said
(1) I.e., without the woman losing her virginity.
(2) Exceptional cases are not taken into account; the marriage, therefore, would be illegal.
(3) Into which a male had discharged semen.
(4) He was so lost in thought that he failed to show the respect of disciple to master. Cf. the parallel passage, Gen. Rab. II, 4, which contains interesting variants.
(5) l.e., what is the trend of your thoughts? The parallel passage (in Gen. Rab.) has מאין הרגלים, ‘whence the feet’?
(6) V. Gen. I, 6-7.
(7) Ibid. v. 2.
(8) Cf. the parallel passage in J. Hag. II, 1, where B. Zoma quotes Deut. XXXII, 11; and v. Rashi to this verse.
(9) I.e., out of his mind (R. Hai Gaon). The reading in Gen. Rab. is ‘is gone’. (12) Gen. I, 6.
(10) [For an attempt to explain the passage v. Weinstein Zur Genesis der Agada, p. 199, Ben Zoma in his view was an adherent of the view that water was the primordial matter out of which the world was created, V. also Graetz, Gnosticismus, pp. 57, 97. We have, however, lost the key to enable us to explain with certainty the thought-forms underlying this and similar Talmudic passages.]
(11) V. supra p. 91, n. 10.
(12) Eccl. V, 5. (A.V. 6); v. rest of verse.
(13) The name of one of the highest angels. Various derivations of the word have been suggested. Cf. Levy and Jast. s.v. For an illuminating article on the character, activities and identity of Metatron, v. J.E. vol. VIII, p. 519.
(14) The sentence may also be rendered thus: ‘He saw M. to whom permission was given to be seated while writing down etc.’ (Jast.).
(15) I.e., in heaven.
(16) MS.M. (v. Rabb. D.S. a.I.) reads: ‘no standing and no sitting’ i.e., no effort and no rest. This reading, in reverse order, was known to Maim. (Comm. on Mishnah Sanhedrin, ch. 10); but Rashi deletes the words ‘no standing’.
(17) I.e., the angels have faces in all directions (Rashi), Jast. explains i.e., everything is in sight. Maim.
(loc. cit.) renders: ‘no division’.
(18) Maim. ‘no junction’.
(19) I.e., he was beaten with ‘heated disks or rings strung on a lash’ (Jast.). The purpose of the punishment was to show that M. had no more power than others (Tosaf.).
(20) V. p. 73, n. 12.
(21) Jer. III, 22.
(22) According to our passage, Aher was guilty of the heresy of dualism. L. Ginzberg (J.E. vol. V, pp. 138-139) denies all historic worth to the story given here, which, on account of its reference to Metatron — which he declares to be a specifically Babylonian idea — and its lack of connection with the introductory words, he declares to be of late origin. Ginzberg prefers the parallel account in J. Hag. II, l, where it is related that when Elisha saw a scholar he slew him, that he enticed the young from studying the Torah, and that he informed against the Jews when they sought to perform the work they were ordered to do on the Sabbath in a manner not to break the Law, These events undoubtedly refer to the period of the Hadrianic persecutions. In the J.T. two reasons are mentioned for his apostasy: according to some, he saw one man break the precept of Deut. XXII, 7, without coming to harm, and another observe it and get killed; according to others, he saw the tongue of the great scholar R. Judah Nahtum in the mouth of a dog. The J.T. also gives a different version of the verses discussed by Elisha with R. Meir, and of what R. Meir said on his master's death (v. J.E. vol. VIII, p. 434).
(23) Lit., ‘that man’, a frequent euphemism for I or thou (to avoid ominous speech or curse).
(24) I.e. ‘ he would have no share in the world to come (cf. Sanh. 90a
(Sonc. ed., p. 601).
(25) Lit,, ‘evil growth’, hence, ‘evil rearing, manners, ways’. The stories that follow show the expression to mean here moral depravity and apostasy.
(26) Strictly, the soft tuber of the radish; cf. ‘Er. 28b.
(27) ‘Aher’ is thus explained to mean ‘another person’. Ginzberg (op. cit.) takes the view that it is a euphemism for a vile thing (cf. דבר אחר). V. p. 91, n. 3.
(28) Lit., ‘corresponding to’, or ‘over against’.
(29) Eccl. VII, 14.
(30) I.e., Paradise, for the righteous in the life hereafter.
(31) V. p. 82, n. 1; cf. J.E. vol. V, pp. 582f. Whereas R. Meir explains the verse as referring to physical counterparts of nature R. Akiba understands it to speak of moral contrasts with their consequent reward and punishment. Cf. n. 6.
(32) Lit., ‘having been declared innocent, i.e., In the Heavenly Court,
(33) Lit., ‘having been declared guilty’.
(34) I. e., Paradise.
(35) lsa. LXI, 7.
(36) Jer. XVII, 18.
(37) Job. XXVIII, 17.
(38) I.e., forgotten.
(39) I.e., can be repaired.
(40) I.e., can repent.
(41) Heb. פרגוד, from Latin paraganda = a garment ornamented with a border (so called because of its phrygian origin). For other derivations v. Levy s.v. Here pargod denotes the ‘curtain of heaven’ and corresponds to Wilon (v. p. 69, n. 5). V. also p. 101.
(42) V. Bez. V, 2.
(43) V. Glos.
(44) I.e., two thousand cubits (in all directions) from the place where a person makes his abode for the Sabbath, beyond which it is forbidden to go on the day of rest; cf. Shab. XXIV, 5; ‘Er. IV, 3; V, 7.
(45) I.e., the verse which thou hast studied today. The answer thus obtained was considered to have the authority of an oracle.
(46) Isa, XLVIII, 22.
(47) The expression used here and in the rest of this passage is בי כנישתא, lit., ‘House of Assembly, Synagogue’. But above, ‘schoolhouse’ translated בי מדרשא, lit., ‘House of study’. For the use of the Synagogue as a school and for the exact signification of the Aramaic terms v. S. Krauss, TA. III, p. 204f.
(48) Jer. II, 22.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 15b
to a child: Recite for me thy verse! He answered: And thou, that art spoiled, what doest thou, that thou clothest thyself with scarlet, that thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, that thou enlargest thine eyes with paint? In vain dost thou make thyself fair etc.1 He took him to yet another schoolhouse until he took him to thirteen schools: all of them quoted in similar vein. When he said to the last one, Recite for my thy verse, he answered: But unto the wicked God saith: ‘What hast thou to do to declare My statutes etc.?2 That child was a stutterer, so it sounded as though he answered: ‘But to Elisha3 God saith’. Some say that [Aher] had a knife with him, and he cut him up and sent him to the thirteen schools: and some say that he said: Had I a knife in my hand I would have cut him up.
When Aher died,4 they said:5 Let him not be judged, nor let him enter the world to come. Let him not be judged, because he engaged in the study of the Torah; nor let him enter the world to come, because he sinned. R. Meir said: It were better that he should be judged and that he should enter the world to come. When I die I shall cause6 smoke to rise from his grave.7 When R. Meir died, smoke rose up from Aher's grave. R. Johanan said: [What] a mighty deed to burn his master! There was one amongst us, and we cannot save him;8 if I were to take him by the hand, who would snatch him from me! [But] said he:9 When I die, I shall extinguish the smoke from his grave.10 When R. Johanan died, the smoke ceased from Aher's grave. The public mourner11 began [his oration] concerning him12 thus: Even the janitor13 could not stand before thee, O master!
Aher's daughter [once] came before Rabbi and said to him: O master, support me! He asked her: ‘Whose daughter art thou?’ She replied: I am Aher's daughter. Said he: Are any of his children left in the world? Behold it is written: He shall have neither son nor son's son among his people, nor any remaining in his dwellings.14 She answered: Remember his Torah15 and not his deeds. Forthwith, a fire came down and enveloped Rabbi's bench.16 [Thereupon] Rabbi wept and said: If it be so on account of those who dishonour her,17 how much more so on account of those who honour her!
But how did R. Meir learn Torah at the mouth of Aher? Behold Rabbah b. Bar Hana said that R. Johanan said: What is the meaning of the verse, For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts?18 [This means that] if the teacher is like an angel of the Lord of hosts, they should seek the Law at his mouth, but if not, they should not seek the Law at his mouth! — Resh Lakish answered: R. Meir found a verse and expounded it [as follows]: Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thy heart unto my knowledge.19 It does not say, ‘unto their knowledge’, but ‘unto my knowledge’.20 R. Hanina said, [he decided it] from here: Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house etc.21 The verses contradict one another!22 There is no contradiction: in the one case Scripture refers to an adult,23 in the other to a child. When R. Dimi came [to Babylon] he said: In the West,24 they say: R. Meir ate the date and threw the kernel25 away.
Raba expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: I went down to the garden of nuts, to look at the green plants of the valley etc.?26 Why are the scholars likened to the nut? To tell you that just as [in the case of] the nut, though it be spoiled with mud and filth, yet are its contents not contemned, so [in the case of] a scholar, although he may have sinned, yet is his Torah not contemned.
Rabbah b. Shila [once] met Elijah.27 He said to him: What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing? He answered: He utters traditions in the name28 of all the Rabbis, but in the name of R. Meir he does not utter. Rabbah asked him, Why? — Because he learnt traditions at the mouth of Aher. Said [Rabbah] to him: But why? R. Meir found a pomegranate; he ate [the fruit] within it, and the peel he threw away! He answered: Now29 He says: Meir my son says: When a man suffers,30 to what expression does the Shechinah give utterance? ‘My head is heavy, my arm is heavy’.31 If the Holy One, blessed be He, is thus grieved over the blood of the wicked, how much more so over the blood of the righteous that is shed. Samuel found Rab Judah leaning on the door-bolt weeping. So he said to him: O, keen scholar,32 wherefore dost thou weep? He replied: Is it a small thing that is written concerning the Rabbis?33 Where is he that counted, where is he that weighed? Where is he that counted the towers?34 ‘Where is he that counted?’ — for they counted all the letters in the Torah. ‘Where is he that weighed?’ — for they weighed the light and the heavy35 in the Torah. ‘Where is he that counted the towers?’ — for they taught three hundred halachoth36 concerning a ‘tower which flies in the air’.37 And R. Ammi said: Three hundred questions38 did Doeg39 and Ahitophel40 raise concerning a ‘tower which flies in the air’. Yet we have learnt: Three kings and four commoners41 have no share in the world to come. What then shall become of us? Said [Samuel] to him. O, keen scholar, there was impurity42 in their hearts. — But what of Aher?43 — Greek song did not cease from his mouth.44 It is told of Aher that when he used to rise [to go] from the schoolhouse,45 many heretical books46 used to fall from his lap.
Nimos the weaver47 asked R. Meir: Does all wool that goes down into the [dyeing] kettle come up [properly dyed]?48 He replied: All that was clean on its mother49 comes up [properly dyed], all that was not clean on its mother does not come up [properly dyed].
R. Akiba went up unhurt and went down50 unhurt; and of him Scripture says: Draw me, we will run after thee.51 And R. Akiba too the ministering angels sought to thrust away; [but] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Let this elder be, for he is worthy to avail himself of My glory.
(1) Ibid. IV, 30.
(2) Ps. L, 16.
(3) The child pronounced ולרשע (‘and unto the wicked’) like ולאלישע (‘and unto Elisha’). Note that א and ר are both gutturals.
(4) Lit,, ‘his soul rested’.
(5) I.e,, in heaven,
(6) By my prayer.
(7) I.e., as a sign that he was judged and punished for his sins.
(8) I.e., one scholar among us went astray, yet all of us together have not the power to save him!
(9) Var. lec. omit ‘said he’,
(10) I.e., as a sign that he was forgiven.
(11) V. S. Krauss, T.A. II, p. 68.
(12) I.e., R. Johanan.
(13) I.e., of hell.
(14) Job. XVIII, 19. The verse forms part of a description of the fate of the wicked; cf. v. 5. In the eyes of Bildad (v. I), Job was an infidel.
(15) I.e., his vast knowledge of the Torah. Though theory should not be divorced from practice, the study of the Torah is in itself a merit: cf. Ab. IV, 5.
(16) Cf. p. 89.
(17) I.e., the Torah.
(18) Mal. II, 7.
(19) Prov. XXII, 17.
(20) Since the heart may not be applied to their knowledge, it shows that the acts of the wise men referred to must be wicked. Nevertheless, their words may be listened to. Thus R. Meir could learn from Aher, provided he did not imitate the latter's deeds.
(21) Ps. XLV, 11. I.e., hearken to the words of the wise, but forget their actions, if they are wicked.
(22) I.e., the two verses contradict Mal. II,7 quoted above.
(23) An adult, unlike a child, can use discrimination, and avoid the teacher's wrongdoing; hence the last two verses permit him to learn even from a heretic.
(24) I.e., Palestine, which is west of Babylonia.
(25) So Rashi and Levy; Jast. trans., ‘peel’. V. D.5. a.I. n. 30.
(26) Cant. VI, 11.
(27) For Elijah in Rabbinic literature v. J.E. vol. V, pp. 122ff (especially p. 124).
(28) Lit., ‘from the mouth’.
(29) I.e., since you have pleaded for him,
(30) The passage refers to capital punishment, v. Sanh. 46a.
(31) Lit., ‘I am lighter than my head etc.’, a euphemistic expression for feeling heavy, giddy. weak; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., pp. 304, 306. The anthropomorphism is intended to show how near God is to man and how real is His sorrow for him in the time of his trouble, even though he be a delinquent and fully deserve his punishment.
(32) Shinena, lit., ‘sharp one’; aliter ‘man with long (sharp) tooth’.
(33) I.e., about those who went astray into evil courses.
(34) Isa. XXXIII, 18.
(35) I.e., expounded the Torah according to the hermeneutical rule of קל (light, unimportant) וחומר (heavy, important) i.e., by arguing from minor to major and vice versa.
(36) I.e., fixed traditional laws, V. Glos.
(37) An obscure expression for which Rashi both here and Sanh. 106b (Sonc. ed., p. 727) offers several interpretations, The most likely explanations relate the ‘flying tower’ to the laws of defilement. It could then mean: (a) A portable turret-shaped conveyance, in which an Israelite entered heathen land, which is regarded as levitically unclean; v. Tosef. Oh. and Rashi to Sanh. l.c. ‘Flying’ will thus mean ‘moving’ i.e., being carried. (b) An open chest or cupboard containing a levitically unclean object, which stands in an open space; v, Oh. IV, If. In this case, it is best to read ‘open’, or, as in the Mishnah ‘standing’. The following are less plausible explanations: — (a) The upper stroke of the letter lamed, i.e., they taught three hundred traditions concerning so insignificant a matter. (b) The tower of Babel. (c) A tower suspended in mid-air by magic. Cf. Sanh. 68a (Sonc. ed., p. 462), concerning the planting of cucumbers by magic.
(38) An indication of their profound learning. V. the variant reading in Sanh, l.c.
(39) Cf. I Sam. XXI, 8 where ‘the chiefest of the herdmen’ is explained by Rashi as ‘the head of the Beth din’.
(40) Cf. II Sam. XVI, 23.
(41) The three kings are, Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh; the four commoners, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel and Gehazi, Thus their profound learning did not save Doeg and Ahitophel. V. Sanh. 90a, (Sonc. ed,, pp. 602f).
(42) Lit., ‘clay’, i.e., heathen sensuality (Jast.). Aliter: ‘gnawing worm’; ‘jealousy’, i.e., evil thoughts (Levy). Whatever the exact rendering, the meaning is: They were wickedly inclined from the beginning, hence their knowledge of the Torah could not protect them.
(43) I.e., why did not his study of the Torah save him?
(44) Rashi reads: ‘from his house’. Why Greek song should have been the cause of Aher's corruption is not clear. Rashi says that he transgressed the prohibition against music after the destruction of the Temple (v. Git. 7a; cf. Isa. XXIV, 9). Maharsha rightly objects that this does not explain the word Greek: the Gemara could have simply stated that song did not cease from his mouth. He suggests, therefore, that the Greek songs were tainted by heresy. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Aher's devotion to Greek literature eventually led him to accept ideas which were contrary to Jewish teaching.
(45) I.e., before his apostasy.
(46) Lit., ‘books of Minim’ (v. Glos. s.v. Min).
(47) גרדי, Lat. gerdino. Cf. R. Isaac the Smith, R. Johanan the Sandalmaker etc. Being a weaver, the allegory employed by Nimos is appropriate. But Jast. holds that גדרי equals (by transposition) גדרי and means ‘of Gadara’. He also regards נימום as a shortened form of אבנימום (cf. Gen. Rab. s. 65), who, he thinks, is to be identified with the cynic philosopher Oenomaus.
(48) Rashi explains: does the study of the Torah serve to protect all students from sin? Jast.: i.e., does every student of mystic philosophy escape death or scepticism? (So too Aruch). Note Oenomaus was a cynic.
(49) I.e., when the sheep was sheared, i.e., all who begin the study of the Torah when they are free from sin; or
(following Jast. and Aruch), all who engage in mystic speculation in perfect purity, like R. Akiba. Cf. Ab. III, 9 (Sonc. ed., p. 32).
(50) Cf. ‘entered . . . departed’ supra pp. 90-91.
(51) Cant. I, 4. I.e., R. Akiba was able to follow God right into Paradise, or (according to the other opinions) into the deepest mysteries of theosophy.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 16a
— By what Biblical exposition was he able to learn this?1 Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said that R. Johanan said: And He came from the myriads holy2 — He is the Sign3 among His myriad. And R. Abbahu said: He is preeminent above ten thousand4 — He is the Example5 among His myriad. And Resh Lakish said: The Lord of hosts is His names6 — He is the Lord among His host. — And R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: But the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was ‘not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.7 And behold, the Lord passed by.8
Our Rabbis taught: Six things are said concerning demons:9 in regard to three, they are like the ministering angels; and in regard to three, like human beings. ‘In regard to three they are like the ministering angels’: they have wings like the ministering angels; and they fly from one end of the world to the other like the ministering angels; and they know what will happen like the ministering angels. [You say], ‘They know’ — you cannot mean that!10 — Rather, they hear from behind the Veil11 like the ministering angels. ‘And in regard to three, they are like human beings’: they eat and drink like human beings; they propagate like human beings; and they die like human beings. Six things are said of human beings: in regard to three, they are like the ministering angels, and in regard to three, they are like beasts. ‘In regard to three, they are like the ministering angels’: they have understanding like the ministering angels; and they walk erect like the ministering angels; and they can talk in the holy tongue12 like the ministering angels. ‘In regard to three, they are like beasts’: they eat and drink like beasts; and they propagate like beasts, and they relieve themselves like beasts.
WHOSOEVER SPECULATES UPON FOUR THINGS, IT WERE A MERCY IF13 HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD etc. Granted as regards what is above, what is beneath,14 what [will be] after,15 that is well. But as regards what was before — what happened, happened!16 — Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish say: It is like a human king who said to his servants: Build for me a great palace upon the dunghill.17 They went and built it for him. It is not the king's wish [thenceforth] to have the name of the dunghill mentioned.
WHOSOEVER TAKES NO THOUGHT FOR THE HONOUR OF HIS MAKER, IT WERE A MERCY IF HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD. What does this mean? R. Abba said: It refers to one who looks at the rainbow. R. Joseph said: It refers to one who commits transgression in secret. ‘One who looks at a rainbow’, for it is written: As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.18 R. Joseph said: ‘It refers to one who commits a transgression in secret’, in accordance with R. Isaac's teaching. For R. Isaac said: When anyone commits a transgression in secret, it is as though he thrust aside the feet of the Divine Presence, for it is said: Thus saith the Lord: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool.19 But is this so? For behold R. Elai the elder said: If a man sees that his [evil] inclination is prevailing upon him, let him go to a place where he is not known, and put on black garments,20 and wrap himself up21 in black garments, and let him do what his heart desires;22 but let him not profane the Name of Heaven publicly! — There is no contradiction. The one case speaks of one who is able to overcome23 his [evil] inclination; the other case of one who is not able to overcome his [evil] inclination.
R. Judah b. R. Nahmani, the speaker24 of Resh Lakish expounded: Anyone who looks at three things, his eyes become dim; at the rainbow, and at the Prince,25 and at the priests. At the rainbow, because it is written: As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain . . . This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.26 At the Prince, for it is written: And thou shalt put of thy honour upon him.27 One who looks at the priests — at the time when the Temple existed, when they stood upon their platform28 and blessed Israel with the Distinguished Name29 [of God]. R. Judah son of R. Nahmani, the speaker of Resh Lakish expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a familiar friend.30 If the evil inclination say to thee: Sin and the Holy One, blessed be He, will pardon, believe it not, for it is said: ‘Trust ye not in a friend’, and ‘friend’ [Rea’] means none other than one's evil inclination, for it is said: For the inclination31 of man's heart is evil [Ra’].32 And ‘familiar friend’ means none other than the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said: Thou art the familiar friend of my youth.33 Perhaps thou wilt say: Who testifies against me? The stones of a man's home and the beams of his house testify against him, for it is said: For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it.34 But the Sages say: A man's soul testifies against him, for it is said: Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.30 What is it that lies in a man's bosom? You must say, it is the soul. R. Zerika said: Two ministering angels that accompany him testify against him, for it is said: For He will give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.35 But the Sages36 say: A man's limbs testify against him, for it is said: Therefore ye are My witnesses,37 saith the Lord, and I am God.38
MISHNAH. JOSE B. JO'EZER39 SAYS THAT [ON A FESTIVAL-DAY] THE LAYING ON OF HANDS [ON THE HEAD OF A SACRIFICE]40 MAY NOT BE PERFORMED;41 JOSEPH B. JOHANAN SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED.42 JOSHUA B. PERAHIA SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT RE PERFORMED; NITTAI THE ARBELITE43 SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. JUDAH B. TARBAI SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; SIMEON A. SHETAH SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. SHEMAIAH SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED; ABTALION SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED.44 HILLEL AND MENAHEM DID NOT DIFFER. MENAHEM WENT FORTH,45 SHAMMAI ENTERED.46 SHAMMAI SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; HILLEL SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED.
(1) Lit., ‘what did he expound’? i.e., from which verse did R. Akiba learn to distinguish God's Presence so as to avoid Aher's error of dualism, or (according to another interpretation of Rashi) so as not to look in the direction of the Shechinah (Divine Presence)?
(2) Deut. XXXIII, 2.
(3) ואתה (‘and He came’) is explained as ואתה (‘and His sign’). Jast. translates: ‘He is the ensign among his myriad’. Goldschmidt: ‘He is distinguished among his myriads’.
(4) Cant. V, 10.
(5) Heb. דוגמא. There is a play here on the text דגול מרבבה (‘pre-eminent among the thousand’) from which דוגמא is derived. The expositions of the different Rabbis have the common object of showing that God's Presence could be distinguished from his myriad attendants; fine shades of difference are not necessarily to be sought. But for the thought underlying this particular homiletical play, cf. Lev. XIX, 2. Jast. translates: ‘He is exemplified by His myriad (of angels)’, i.e., the Divine nature is recognized indirectly from the nature of His ministering angels, v. Cant. Rab. to V, 9. But this seems hardly in keeping with the line of thought demanded by the context. Goldschmidt: ‘He is marked out among his myriads’.
(6) Isa. XLVIII, 2.
(7) 1 Kings XIX, 11, 12. Thus the Divine Presence could be distinguished from the rest of the theophany.
(8) .Ibid. v. 11; in the Bible this clause precedes the previous quotation.
(9) V. J.E. vol. IV, pp. 514f, and Nachmanides on Lev. XVII, 7.
(10) Prescience is a divine attribute,
(11) V. p. 95, n. 10.
(12) The power of learning to speak the Hebrew language is common to all men.
(13) The wording here is slightly different from the Mishnah text (s.v.), but does not alter the meaning.
(14) Cf. p. 59, n. 7 and Deut. XXXIII, 27.
(15) I.e., in the hereafter.
(16) I.e., it is no longer a secret.
(17) The dunghill here represents the primordial chaos; the palace, ordered creation.
(18) Ezek. I, 28. Since the rainbow was symbolic of the Divine Glory, it was irreverent to gaze at it.
(19) Isa. LXVI, 1. But he that sins in secret denies this, for he implies that God has no access to his hiding-place.
(20) In the hope that exile and mourning clothes (cf. Shab. 114a, Jannai's request) would cool his passion and cause him to abandon his wicked intention.
(21) To produce a serious frame of mind; cf p. 88, n. 9.
(22) I.e., should his passion remain unmastered, let him at least commit the sin in secret. But R. Hananel deprecates the thought that the Talmud permits sin even in such circumstances and interprets our passage thus: certainly the effect of exile and dark garments will be to conquer the man's evil inclination, so that he will then be able to do what his heart truly desires, i.e., serve God.
(23) Lit., ‘bend’.
(24) Methurgeman. Lit., ‘interpreter’, used here in the sense of Amora, ‘speaker’; v. J.E. vol. VIII, p. 521.
(25) Heb. Nasi; v. infra p. 105, n. 6.
(26) Ezek. I, 28.
(27) Num. XXVII, 20. Moses’ face could not be gazed at; v. Ex. XXXIV, 29-35. A part of Moses’ honour belonged not merely to Joshua but to every Jewish leader.
(28) V. J.E. vol. V, p. 9 (s.v. Dukan).
(29) I.e., pronounced the Shem ha-meforash, the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), instead of the usual substitute אדני when uttering the sacerdotal blessing. Num. VI, 24-26. cf. Sot. VII, 6; and Sanh. 90a (Sonc. ed., p. 602). The exact meaning of the term Shem ha-meforash is obscure: v. Levy and Jast and J.E. vol. XI, pp. 262f. Tosaf, (a.l.) points out that outside the Temple too, e.g., in the provinces, it was forbidden to look at the priests during the pronouncement of the sacerdotal blessing, the reason according to the J.T. being to prevent the distraction of the people's attention.
(30) Mic. VII, 5.
(31) E.V. ‘imagination’.
(32) Gen. VIII, 21, Only the vowels differentiate רע (friend) from רע (evil).
(33) Jer. III, 4.
(34) Hab. II, 11.
(35) Ps. XCI, 11.
(36) In Ta'an. the reading is, ‘Some say’ = R. Nathan (v. Hor. 13b; cf. p. 14, n. 5).
(37) I.e., ye yourselves (sc. your very bodies) testify to your own sins.
(38) Isa. XLIII, 12.
(39) In Tem. 16a: Joseph b. Jo'ezer. For the successive generations of scholars mentioned here v. Aboth I, 4-12 (Sonc. ed., pp. 3-8 and nn. a.l.).
(40) Cf. Lev, 1, 4.
(41) The same restrictions regarding work applied to Festival-days as to the Sabbath, except in respect of work essential to the preparation of food, which was permitted on the Festivals (v. Bez. V, 2). Now the ‘laying on of the hands’ had to be performed with all one's strength, so that the weight of the person was supported by the animal; and this was considered an infringement of the Sabbath rule not ‘to make use’ of an animal. The point of the controversy, therefore, is this: Had the laying on of the hands to be done immediately prior to the slaughter, and consequently could be regarded as essential to the preparation of food, i.e., the sacrificial meal; or could this be done on the preceding day, so that the profanation of the holyday by this act became unnecessary, although the slaughtering took place on the Festival day? V. Bez. II, 4 and Bertinoro a.l.
(42) In the J. Hag. II, 2 we are told: At first there was no controversy in Israel except over the laying on of the hands alone. But Shammai and Hillel arose and made them four (in Bab. Shab. 14b, only three points of dispute are mentioned; cf. Tosaf. to our passage). When the disciples of the School of Hillel increased, and they did not study sufficiently under their masters (lit., ‘did not sufficiently minister to their masters’), the controversies in Israel increased, and they became divided into two companies, the one declaring unclean, the other declaring clean. And (the Torah) will not again return to its (uncontroversial) place until the son of David (i.e., the Messiah) will come. For the meaning and importance of this controversy v. further Weiss, Dor I, 103f; Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam pp. 43-44; Jacob Levi, in Ozar Nehmod III, Vienna 1860. [The controversy has also been ingeniously interpreted as referring to the question of ‘acceptance of authority’ and not the laying on of hands. V. Zeitlin, JQR, (N.S.) VII, pp. 499ff; Sidon A, Gedenkbuck Kaufmann, pp. 355ff and Bornstein, A. Hatekufah IV, p. 396.]
(43) I.e., of Arbel, on the borders of Lake Galilee. V. Ab. I, 6 (Sonc. ed., p. 5, n. 3.).
(44) This pair is exceptional in so far as the first Sage permits and the second prohibits.
(45) V. p. 108.
(46) I.e., in the former's place as Head of the Court.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 16b
THE FORMER [OF EACH] PAIR WERE PRINCES1 AND THE LATTER WERE HEADS OF THE COURT.2
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The three of the former pairs3 who said that the laying on of the hands may not be performed, and the two of the latter pairs who said that it may be performed, were Princes, and the others were Heads of the Court — this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Judah b. Tabbai was Head of the Court, and Simeon b. Shetah was Prince. Who taught the following teaching of our Rabbis? R.4 Judah b. Tabbai said: May I see consolation,5 if I did not have a Zomem6 -witness put to death as a demonstration7 against the Sadducees8 who said that Zomemim-witnesses were not to be put to death unless [through their false evidence] the accused had [already] been put to death. Said Simeon b. Shetah to him: May I see consolation, if thou didst not shed innocent blood. For the Sages said: Zomemim-witnesses are not put to death until both of them have been proved Zomemim; and they are not flogged9 until both of them have been proved Zomemim; and they are not ordered to pay money [as damages]10 until both of them have been proved Zomemim. Forthwith Judah b. Tabbai undertook never to give a decision except in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah.11 All his days Judah b. Tabbai prostrated himself on the grave of the executed man, and his voice used to be heard. The people believed that it was the voice of the executed man; [but] he said to them: ‘It is my voice. Ye shall know this [by the fact that] on the morrow [when] I die my voice will not be heard’.12 R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: But perhaps he13 appeased him, or [the deceased] summoned him to judgment!14 — According to whom will this15 be? Granted, if you say [it is according to] R. Meir, who said that Simeon b. Shetah was Head of the Court [and] R. Judah b. Tabbai was Prince, that is why he decided points of law in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah; but if you say [it is according to] the Rabbis, who say that Judah b. Tabbai was Head of the Court [and] Simeon b. Shetah was Prince, how may the Head of the Court decide points of law in the presence of the Prince!16 — No,’he undertook’ is to be understood with reference to association. [He said]: I will not even join [with other judges to give a decision, unless Simeon b. Shetah is present].17 MENAHEM WENT FORTH AND SHAMMAI ENTERED etc. Whither did he go forth? Abaye said: He went forth into evil courses.18 Raba said: He went forth to the King's service. Thus it is also taught: Menahem went forth to the King's service, and there went forth with him eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk.
R. Shimon b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: Never let [the principle] of Shebuth19 [Rest] be unimportant in thy eyes. For the laying on of the hands [on a Festival-day] is [prohibited] only on account of Shebuth, yet the great men of the age differed thereon.20 But is this not already quite clear!21 — It is required on account of a precept [the fulfilment of which is prohibited] as Shebuth.22 But is not that too quite clear!23 — [It is required] to contradict the view that they differ regarding the laying on of the hands itself: thus he teaches us that it is in regard to Shebuth that they differ.24
Rami b. Hama said: You can deduce from this25 that the laying on of hands must be done with all one's strength; for if you suppose that one's whole strength is not required, what [work] does one do by laying on the hands?26 An objection was raised: [It is written]: Speak unto the sons of Israel . . . and he shall lay his hands.27 The sons of Israel lay on the hands but the daughters of Israel do not lay on the hands. R. Jose and R. Simeon28 say: The daughters of Israel lay on the hands optionally.29 R. Jose said: Abba Eleazar told me: Once we had a calf which was a peace-sacrifice, and we brought it to the Women's Court,30 and women laid the hands on it — not that the laying on of the hands has to be done by women, but in order to gratify the women.31 Now if you suppose that we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, would we, for the sake of gratifying the women, permit work to be done with holy sacrifices!32 Is it to be inferred, therefore, that we do not require all one's strength? — Actually, I can answer you that we do require [it to be] with all one's strength, [but the women] were told to hold their hands lightly.33 If so, [what need was there to say], ‘not that the laying on of the hands has to be done by women’? He could [more simply] have pointed out that it was no laying on of the hands at all! R. Ammi said: His argument runs: Firstly and secondly. Firstly, it was no laying on of the hands at all, and secondly, it was [done] In order to gratify the women.34
R. Papa said: One may conclude from this35 that it is forbidden [on a holy day to make use of] the sides [of an animal].36 For if you suppose that it is permitted [to make use of] the sides, let the hands be laid on the side.37 It must be concluded, therefore, that it is forbidden to make use of the sides.38
(1) Heb. Nasi, i.e., President of the Sanhedrin. V. J.E. vol. IX, pp. 171-2; and Strack's Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, p. 1072, n. 3.
(2) Heb. Ab beth din, Father of the Court; i.e., Vice-president of the Sanhedrin; cf. p. 75, n. 5.
(3) Heb. זוגות (Zugoth), Grk. **. The term is applied only to the five pairs of leading teachers mentioned in our Mishnah (cf. Pe'ah II, 6); they were followed by the period of the Tannaim (v. Glos.). V. Ab. I, 4 (Sonc. ed., p. 3. n. 8); and supra p. 105, n. 6.
(4) [Var. lec. rightly omit: ‘R’].
(5) A euphemistic form of oath, meaning, ‘may I not live to see the consolation of Zion’. According to this explanation
(given by Tosaf. and Jast.), Judah b. Tabbai and his colleague looked forward to fuller restoration of Israel's glory than was achieved in their day, v. Mak., Sonc. ed., p. 27, n. 7. Levy, however, trans: ‘May I not behold the eternal salvation (ewige Heil) etc.’; and Rashi (Mak. 5b, the alternative explanation), interprets thus: He swore by the life of his children; might he receive condolences on their passing (if etc.).
(6) Lit., ‘planning (evil)’. with reference to Deut. XIX, 19; hence the technical name for false witnesses whose evidence has been refuted by other witnesses testifying that the former were with them at another place at the time of the crime, v. Mak. 5a (Sonc. ed., p. 19f). If the Zomemim secure by their false testimony the conviction (but not the punishment) of an innocent person, the Rabbis held them to be amenable to the law of retaliation; v. Deut. XIX, 21 and Mak. 5b (Sonc. ed., p. 25).
(7) Lit., ‘in order to remove (the false opinion) from their heart’.
(8) V. the usual works of reference, and R. Leszynsky, Die Sadduzaer.
(9) V. Deut. XXV, 2-3 and Mak. 22af (Sonc. ed., p. 155f, and notes a.l).
(10) Each of the three punishments referred to is retaliatory, i.e., the Zomemim-witness had intended to secure a false conviction involving the said penalty. The flogging of Zomemim-witnesses, however, may not always represent the carrying out of the lex talionis: lashes were sometimes inflicted as a substitute penalty; cf. Mak. I, If.
(11) Who would correct him, if necessary.
(12) The text is idiomatically in the third person.
(13) I.e., Judah b. Tabbai.
(14) R. Aha's point is that the cessation of the voice on Judah b. Tabbai's death is no proof that it was his. For the phenomenon might be explained in this way: whilst Judah was alive, the wrongfully executed man cried out his protest from the grave; but when Judah b. Tabbai died he ceased to call either because he had been appeased by him, or because he had now been able to summon him before the Heavenly Tribunal.
(15) I.e., the Baraitha about Judah b. Tabbai.
(16) Cf. the principle invoked against the youthful Samuel in Ber. 31b
(Whoever decides a point of law in the presence of his teacher deserves death). Cf. also J. Hag. II, 2 ed. 77d, where historical evidence is cited in favour of the view that Judah b. Tammai was Prince, and also in support of the opposite opinion (Tosaf.).
(17) So Rashi; but Tosaf. explains that he undertook never to join in voting against R. Simeon b. Shetah's opinion. According to either interpretation, the purpose of the answer is to show that Judah b. Tabbai could have been the Head of the Court, for his vow did not imply that he ever gave or proposed to give a decision in the presence of his superior, the Nasi.
(18) V. p. 94 n. 3
(19) שבות, lit., ‘rest, abstention from secular occupation’, hence, ‘an occupation, on the Sabbath and Festivals, forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of harmony with the celebrations of the day’ (Jast.) Cf. Ex. X, 3, 15.
(20) V. Bez. V, 2. By laying on the hands on an animal with pressure, one ‘makes use of it’, and therefore infringes the principle of Shebuth, just as much, as by riding on it, which is prohibited in the above Mishnah.
(21) I.e., Shebuth is clearly mentioned in the Mishnah; v. n. 3.
(22) Otherwise one might have thought that the importance of the religious act would override the prohibition of Shebuth.
(23) I.e., from the Mishnah; v. n.3
(24) V. Bez. 20a, where the opinion of R. Jose b. R. Judah is mentioned, viz., that the point of difference between Shammai and Hillel is whether obligatory peace-offerings require laying on of hands, the view of Shammai being that only freewill-offerings require it.
(25) Lit., ‘hear from it!’, i.e., from R. Johanan's statement, which makes Shebuth the ultimate point of dispute in the Mishnah.
(26) All should agree, therefore, to permit it on the holy day.
(27) Lev. I, 2-4.
(28) This, and not ‘R. Ishmael’, is the correct reading; cf. ‘Er. 96b, and R.H. 33a, etc.
(29) I.e., it is neither an obligatory precept (חובה) nor a meritorious religious act (מצוה), but a religiously indifferent act which women are permitted to perform for their own gratification.
(30) V. Mid. II,5.
(31) So that they should feel that they have had a share, like men, in the sacrificial rites of their offering.
(32) Laying on the hands with all one's strength is work (cf. p. 108, n. 3), which must not be performed with animals once they have been dedicated to the Temple. (Cf. Deut. XV, 19 and Bek. II, 2-3).
(33) Lit., ‘cause to float’.
(34) [MS. M.: ‘Thus he says not that the laying on of hands by women is deemed valid, since there was no laying on of hands at all, but (the object was) to gratify the women’. A reading which is preferable to that of cur. edd. V. D.S.]
(35) V. p. 108, n. 8.
(36) Similarly of the sides of a tree etc.; v. Shab. 154b-155a, and p. 108, n. 3.
(37) [Rashi reads simply: ‘Let the hands be laid on’, i.e., since the head on which the laying on of the hands is done is like the sides of the animal.]
(38) Actually, the laying on of the hands had to be performed on the side, i.e., of the head.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 17a
R. Ashi said: You may even say that it is permitted [to use] the sides,1 but all that is connected with the back2 is as the back.3
MISHNAH; BETH SHAMMAI SAY: PEACE-OFFERINGS4 MAY BE BROUGHT [ON THE FESTIVAL-DAY],5 AND THE HANDS NOT LAID THEREON;6 BUT NOT BURNT-OFFERINGS!7 AND BETH HILLEL SAY: BOTH PEACE-OFFERINGS AND BURNT-OFFERINGS MAY BE BROUGHT,8 AND THE HANDS LAID THEREON. IF THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS9 FELL ON A FRIDAY,10 BETH SHAMMAI SAY: THE DAY FOR SLAUGHTER11 , IS AFTER THE SABBATH. AND BETH HILLEL SAY: THE DAY FOR SLAUGHTER IS NOT AFTER THE SABBATH.12 THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF IT FALL ON THE SABBATH, THE DAY FOR SLAUGHTER IS AFTER THE SABBATH.13 THE HIGH PRIEST DOES NOT [IN THAT CASE] PUT ON HIS [SPECIAL] ROBES,14 AND MOURNING15 AND FASTING16 ARE PERMITTED, IN ORDER NOT TO CONFIRM THE VIEW OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS [INVARIABLY] FOLLOWS THE SABBATH.17
GEMARA. R. Eleazar said that R. Oshaia said: Whence is it to be deduced that [the offerings of] the Feast of Weeks can be made good throughout seven days? It is said: On the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles;18 thus [Scripture] compares the Feast of Weeks with the Feast of Unleavened Bread: just as [the offerings of] the Feast of Unleavened Bread can be made good throughout seven days,19 so too [the offerings of] the Feast of Weeks can be made good throughout seven days. But let me say that [Scripture] compares [the Feast of Weeks] to the Feast of Tabernacles; just as [the offerings of] the Feast of Tabernacles can be made good throughout eight days, so too [the offerings of] the Feast of Weeks can be made good throughout eight days! — The eighth day is a festival by itself.20 [But] is not21 the statement that the eighth is a festival true only in regard to22 the Balloting [by the watches],23 [the recital of the benediction of] the Season,24 [the name of] the Festival,25 [the prescribed number of] Sacrifices,26 the [Temple] Song,27 and the Blessing;28 but regarding the making good [of the offerings] it makes good for the first [day of Tabernacles].29 For we have learnt: He who did not bring his festal offering on the first festival day of the Feast, may bring it during the whole of the Festival even on the last festival day!30 If you take hold of much, you do not hold it; but if you take hold of a little, you hold it.31 For what legal instruction, then, did the Divine Law write [again here] the Feast of Tabernacles?32 — To compare it with the Feast of Unleavened Bread: just as the Feast of Unleavened Bread requires [the pilgrim] to stay the night [in Jerusalem], So too, the Feast of Tabernacles requires [the pilgrim] to stay the night.33 And whence do we deduce it in the case of the former?
(1) As a matter of fact, R. Ashi holds the reverse view, i.e., he agrees with R. Papa (v. Shab. 155a); nevertheless he shows here that the conclusion cannot be drawn from R. Johanan's statement (Tosaf.).
(2) I.e.,is parallel with the back, like the head.
(3) Which may not be made use of on holy days.
(4) I.e., festal-offerings and offerings of rejoicings (v. pp. 2, n. 3 and 30. n. 1 and Pes. 119a).
(5) Because they are required for food (v. p. 104, n. 12). V. Bez. 19af; there Tosaf. points out, is the original and proper place of our passage, whereas here it is introduced only incidentally. The fuller discussion on the Mishnah found in Bez. further tends to show that the latter tractate was complete before Hag. (Tosaf.).
(6) V. p. 104 and nn. 11,12. Since Beth Shammai held that the slaughtering of the animal need not necessarily follow immediately upon the laying on of the hands, the latter rite could be performed on the eve of the Festival, and the former on the Festival-day itself.
(7) I.e., the pilgrimage burnt-offerings; v. p. 2, n. 1. By emphasizing the expression ‘unto you’ in Ex. XII, 16, it was deduced that only food for human needs could be prepared on the Festival, but not altar-food. Since burnt-offerings were wholly consumed on the altar and no part reserved for human consumption (as in the case of the sacrifices), they could not, according to the Shammaite view, be brought by individuals. The statutory public burnt-offerings, however, were permitted.
(8) For the reason v. Bez. 19a. The Hillelites agreed, however, that vow and freewill-offerings could not be offered up.
(9) Heb. עצרת, lit., ‘(sacred) assembly’; v. p. 27, n. 3.
(10) Lit., ‘eve of Sabbath’.
(11) I.e., of the pilgrimage burnt-offerings, which, according to Beth Shammai, could not be offered up on the Festival day and a fortiori on the Sabbath; hence the offering was postponed till Sunday, for the Pentecost sacrifices could be offered throughout seven days in the same way as the Passover and Sukkoth offerings (v. pp. 111f and cf.pp.43f).
(12) But on the Festival day. Var. lec., ‘it has no day for slaughter’ (omitting the words, ‘after the Sabbath’); v. p. 113, n. 6.
(13) No private offering, except the Passover sacrifice, could override the Sabbath.
(14) According to Rashi, this refers to his private festival garments worn by him at home and in the street; when people would see the High Priest in his ordinary clothes, they would realize that the day was not, as the Sadducees maintained (v. infra, n. 5) a holy day. But Tosaf. argues that the reference is to the High Priest's eight sacerdotal vestments, which he wore on Festivals when he would officiate at the Temple service (v. Yoma VII, 5)’ and adduces the J.T. in support of this view.
(15) Heb. הספד: for its exact signification v. S. Krauss, T.A. II, p. 68; cf. also Jast. and Levy, s.v.
(16) Both mourning and fasting are prohibited on a festival-day.
(17) I.e., the Sadducees, who understood the word ‘Sabbath’ in Lev. XXIII, 11, 15 literally, and hence maintained that Pentecost must always fall on a Sunday, for it is written: ‘And ye shalt count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath . . . even unto the morrow after the seventh week shall ye number fifty days’ (Lev. XXIII, 15-16). But the Pharisees explained the word ‘Sabbath’ to mean ‘day of rest’, i.e., ‘holy day’ (cf. Lev. XXIII, 32, 39; Ibn Ezra to v. 11 (ibid.) and Men. 65a), and referred it to the first festival day of Passover. This same controversy formed part of the dispute between the Rabbanites and the Karaites some eight hundred years later.
(18) Deut. XVI, 16.
(19) Cf. pp. 43f.
(20) I.e., it does not form part of the Feast of Sukkoth.
(21) Lit., ‘say’.
(22) The following six points of difference are expressed in the original by the abbreviation פז״ר קש״ב, formed out of the initials of the Hebrew words; v. fol. nn.
(23) פײם; the ballot or allotment in regard to the Temple services decided by a show of fingers on the part of the priests present; cf. Yoma II, 1f. Throughout the seven days of Sukkoth, the public sacrifices were offered up by the priest-watches according to rota; but on the eighth day the offerings were allotted by ballot. (V. Suk. 55b).
(24) זמן (cf. Eccl. III, 1): the blessing at the end of the benediction recited on the entrance of a festival, which refers to the return of the festival season, viz., ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who hast kept us alive, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this season’. The recital of this blessing on the eighth day of Sukkoth distinguishes it as an independent festival from the other days of Tabernacles. On the last day of Passover, on the other hand, it is not said, because the seventh day is regarded as an integral part of the Feast of unleavened Bread. V. also n. 6.
(25) רגל ‘pilgrimage-festival’. Three explanations of the meaning of the term have been suggested (v. Tosaf. a.I.). Rashi: It is a distinct festival in as much as it enjoys a special name, viz., Shemini ‘Azereth and not Sukkoth. R. Tam: It is a separate festival in the sense that it requires the pilgrim to spend the night following its termination in Jerusalem (Suk. 47a). R. Hananel: It is a separate festival in regard to the thirty days of semi-mourning for the dead. If the period of mourning began on the eve of Sukkoth, it is able to annul seven days out of the thirty in addition to the fourteen cancelled by the end of the first seven days of Tabernacles (cf. M.K. 24a).
(26) קרבן V. Num. XXIX, 12-38.
(27) שיר: Tosaf. (s. v. פז״ר) suggests that Ps. XII (note the caption) was said (cf. Sof. XIX and J.T.); and whereas the Psalms allocated for the different weekdays of Tabernacles were not completed each day but spread over two days (v. Suk. 55a), on the eighth day the psalm was completed.
(28) ברכה: according to Rashi, the people blessed the king on the eighth day, as it is written I Kings VIII, 66; according to R. Tam (l.c.) this refers to the special mention of Shemini ‘Azereth in the Grace after meals and in the ‘Amidah (v. Glos.); cf. Suk. 47a.
(29) I.e., Shemini ‘Azereth is a continuation of Sukkoth, and if the private offerings due on the first could not be brought till the eighth day, they may still be offered up then.
(30) V. p. 43. Since in regard to making good the offerings the eighth day is an essential part of Sukkoth, then the question (p. 111). Why not compare Pentecost with Sukkoth instead of Passover, still stands.
(31) A popular proverb meaning that one can make sure of a little, but not of much, i.e., when one is confronted, as in our case, with two possibilities, one greater than the other, the smaller should be chosen for safety, for it is bound to be right in so far as it is included in the greater: thus we cannot go wrong by comparing Pentecost with the seven days of Passover, but we may err in comparing it with the eight of Tabernacles. For the proverb cf. ‘every one who adds, lessens’ (Talmud) and the French, ‘qui trop embrasse mal etreint’.
(32) If it is not to teach us about Pentecost, It seems superfluous, for it has already been mentioned elsewhere; and it is a rule that nothing in the Torah is redundant.
(33) I.e., of the weekday of the Festival.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 17b
— It is written: And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go into thy tents.1
We have learnt: IF THE FEAST OF WEEKS FALL ON A FRIDAY, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: THE DAY FOR SLAUGHTER IS AFTER THE SABBATH. AND BETH HILLEL SAY: IT HAS NO DAY FOR SLAUGHTER. Surely [this means] that it has no day for slaughter at all!2 — No, [it means] that it does not require a [special] day for slaughter.3 But what then does it teach us, that we can offer up [the sacrifice] on its proper day?4 Behold they already dispute thereon once; for we have learnt: Beth Shammai say: Peace-offerings may be brought [on the Festival-day] and the hands not laid thereon; but not burnt-offerings. And Beth Hillel say: Both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings may be brought, and the hands laid thereon!5 — [Both statements are] required. For if [the Mishnah] had taught us [only that they differ] in the [latter] case,6 [I might have thought] in that case [only] Beth Shammai hold this view, because it is possible [to bring the offerings] on the following day: but in the [former] case,7 I might have thought that they agreed with Beth Hillel.8 And if [the Mishnah] had taught us [only that they differ] in the [former] case, [I might have thought] in this case [only] Beth Hillel hold this view, because it is not possible [to bring the offering] on the following day; but in the [latter] case, I might have thought that they agree with Beth Shammai.9 [Therefore both statements are] required.
Come and hear: He who does not bring his festal-offering during the seven days of Passover, or the eight days of Tabernacles, or on the first10 festival-day of the Feast of Weeks, can no longer bring his offering. This must surely mean on the festival-day [proper] of the Feast of Weeks!11 — No, [it means] on the day for the slaughter.12 If so, let us conclude therefrom that there is [only] one day for slaughter!13 — Read, ‘on the days for slaughter’14
Come and hear: Rabbah b. Samuel learnt: Count the days,15 and sanctify the New Moon Day;16 Count the days,17 and sanctity the Feast of Weeks.18 Just as the New Moon Festival belongs to its class [of days] by which it is determined,19 so the Feast of Weeks belongs to its class20 by which it is determined. Surely [then the Feast of Weeks] is compared with the New Moon Festival because just as [the offerings of] the New Moon Festival [are to brought] on one day, so too [the offerings of] the Feast of Weeks [are to be brought] on one day!21 — Raba answered: How can you think so? Do we then count for the Feast of Weeks [only] the days and not the weeks? Behold Abaye said: It is a precept to count the days,22 for it is written: Ye shall number fifty days;23 and it is a precept to count the weeks,24 for it is written: Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee.25 Furthermore, it is written: The Feast of Weeks.26
The School of R. Eleazar b. Jacob taught:27 Scripture says: And ye shall make proclamation,28 and And when ye reap.29 Which is the Feast on which you proclaim and reap? You must say: It is the Feast of Weeks.30 [Now] when? Should one say on the Festival-day [itself], is reaping then permitted on the Festival-day! It must refer, therefore, to [the period after the Feast] when the offerings can still be made good.31
Now although the statement of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Oshaia has been quoted,32 [the teaching] of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is also required. For if we had [only] the statement of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Oshaia, I might say: Just as [in the period] during which the offering can be made good in the case of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it is forbidden to do work,33 so too [in the period] during which the offering can be made good in the case of the Feast of Weeks, it is forbidden to do work; therefore we are told the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. And if we had [only] the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob
(1) Deut. XVI, 7. But the preceding night must be spent in Jerusalem.
(2) I.e.,if the sacrifice was not offered up on the festival-day. it cannot be made good later. This contradicts R. Oshaia's statement, p. 111.
(3) Since the offering can be brought on the festival-day; but actually the offering can be made good throughout seven days, as R. Oshaia taught.
(4) I.e., on the festival itself, that is, according to Beth Hillel.
(5) In view of this statement of the point at issue between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel at the beginning of the Mishnah, why does the Mishnah teach us later that they differ in regard to Pentecost which fell on a Friday, if the point of dispute, according to the interpretation just given, is exactly the same?
(6) I.e., where a Festival does not fall on a Friday.
(7) I.e., where Pentecost falls on a Friday.
(8) Because, since the sacrifice could not be offered up the following day, which was the Sabbath, and consequently would have to be left over till the Sunday, there was the danger that the pilgrim might neglect to bring it altogether.
(9) Because it was possible to bring the offering the following day, and negligence, therefore, need not be feared.
(10) [Omitted in MS.M.]
(11) Thus the offerings of Pentecost cannot be made good after the festival, which refutes R. Oshaia.
(12) The festival sacrifices, therefore, can be made good on the day for slaughter; thus the objection against R. Oshaia's statement falls away.
(13) Whereas R. Oshaia argued that the Pentecost sacrifices could be made good throughout seven days.
(14) The plural could include seven days.
(15) The Torah nowhere actually enjoins the counting of the days of each month: the expression is an instance of Midrashic licence. The Hebrew months, being lunar, vary in length from twenty-nine to thirty days (v. J.E. s. Calendar).
(16) By the offering of ‘additional sacrifices’ (v. Num. XXVIII, 11-15).
(17) I.e., fifty, v. infra, n. 8.
(18) By offering the festival sacrifices.
(19) Lit., ‘belongs to its numbered ones, i.e., it is determined by numbering units of days, on one of which it falls.
(20) I.e., the period during which the festival sacrifices can be brought is equal to the class or unit by which it is determined. If the latter is a week, the sacrificial-period is a week; if it is a day, the offering-period is also a day; cf.R.H., Sonc.ed., p. 14, nn. 10 and 11.
(21) This would contradict the view that the Pentecost sacrifices can be made good the whole week.
(22) In order that we may sanctify the Feast of Weeks on the fiftieth day (Tosaf.).
(23) Lev. XXIII, 16.
(24) To teach us that the period in which the festival sacrifices may be made good is a full week.
(25) Deut. XVI, 9.
(26) Ibid. v. 10.
(27) I.e., derived the post-festal sacrificial period of the Feast of Weeks in the following way.
(28) Lev. XXIII, 21. I.e., proclaim a holy convocation or festival.
(29) Ibid, v. 22.
(30) To which the Biblical passage refers.
(31) Which supports R. Oshaia.
(32) V. p. 111.
(33) For the prohibition of work during the mid-festival period, v. infra and pp. 117f.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 18a
, I would not know how many [days];1 therefore we are told the statement of R. Eleazar In the name of R. Oshaia.
Resh Lakish said: [It is written]: And the Feast of Harvest.2 Which is the Feast on which you feast and harvest? You must say: It is the Feast of Weeks. [Now] when? Should one say on the festival-day [itself]? Is reaping then permitted on the festival-day? It must refer, therefore, to [the period after the Feast] when the offerings can still be made good. Said R. Johanan [to him]: Now accordingly, [since it is written], the Feast of Ingathering3 [one can likewise argue thus]: ‘Which is the Feast on which there is ingathering? You must say: It is the Feast of Tabernacles. When? Should one say on the festival-day [itself]. is work then permitted on a festival-day! It must refer, therefore, to the mid-festival days’.4 But is [work] then permitted on the mid-festival days? It must mean, therefore, the Feast that comes at the season of ingathering. Similarly here [it means] the Feast that comes at the season of reaping.5
It follows therefore that both6 are of the opinion that on the mid-festival days it is forbidden to do work. Whence is this derived? — For our Rabbis taught: The Feast of Unleavened Bread shalt thou keep; seven days.7 This teaches concerning the mid-festival days that work thereon is forbidden:8 this is the view of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says: This is unnecessary.9 [It can be proved by] an argument a minore ad majus. If on the first and seventh days, which have no sanctity10 before or after them, work is forbidden, how much more so is it right that work should be forbidden on the mid-festival days, which have sanctity before and after them. — But the six working days11 disprove12 [this argument] for they have sanctity13 before them and after them, and yet work thereon is permitted! — [No], whereas [this applies] to the six working days which have no additional sacrifice, can you say [the same] of the mid-festival days which have an additional sacrifice?14 — But the New Moon Day disproves this [argument]; for it has additional sacrifices, and yet work thereon is permitted! — [No], whereas [this applies] to the New Moon Day which is not called a ‘holy convocation’, can you say [the same] of the mid-festival days which are called ‘holy convocation’?15 Since it is called ‘holy convocation’ it is only right that work thereon should be forbidden.
Another [Baraitha] taught: Ye shall do no matter of servile work16 — this teaches that it is forbidden to do work on mid-festival days:17 this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says: This is unnecessary. It is said: These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, etc.18 Whereof does the verse speak? If of the first day, behold it has already been said: Solemn rest.19 If of the seventh day,20 behold, it has already been said: Solemn rest.21 The verse, therefore, must speak only of the mid-festival days, to teach thee that it is forbidden to do work thereon.
Another [Baraitha] taught: Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; and on the seventh day shall be restraint [of work]22 unto to the Lord.23 Just as the seventh day is under restraint [in respect of work],24 so the six days are under restraint [in respect of work] — If [you should think that] just as the seventh day is under restraint in respect of all manner of work, so the six days are under restraint in respect of all manner of work; therefore Scripture teaches: ‘And on the seventh day shall be restraint [of work]’ — only the seventh day is under restraint in respect of all manner of work, but the six days are not under restraint in respect of all manner of work. Thus Scripture left it to the Sages25 to tell you on which day [work] is forbidden, and on which day it is permitted;26 which manner of work is forbidden, and which is permitted.27
AND MOURNING AND FASTING ARE PERMITTED, IN ORDER NOT TO CONFIRM THE VIEW OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS [INVARIABLY] FOLLOWS THE SABBATH: But behold it is taught:28 It happened that Alexa29 died at Lod, and all Israel assembled to mourn for him, but R. Tarfon did not permit them, because it was the festival-day of the Feast of Weeks. [Now] can you possibly suppose that it was [actually] the festival day? How could they come on the festival-day? You must say, therefore, because it was the day for slaughter!30 — There is no contradiction: in the one case,31 the festival-day [of the Feast of Weeks] fell after the Sabbath;32 in the other case,33 the festival-day fell on the Sabbath.34
(1) Sc. are allowed for making good the offerings of the Feast of Weeks.
(2) Ex. XXIII, 16.
(3) Ibid. and XXXIV, 22.
(4) Lit., ‘the profane part of the festival’, i.e., the six half-festive days between the first day of Tabernacles, which is a festival-day proper, and the Eighth Day of Solemn Assembly, which is likewise a festival-day. The same term applies also to the five intermediate days of Passover. This period would correspond to that after the Feast of Weeks when the offerings can still be made good.
(5) And not, as Resh Lakish would have it, a festival time at which feasting and reaping are combined.
(6) Since Resh Lakish does not object to R. Johanan's statement regarding the prohibition of work on the mid-festival days, it follows that he must agree.
(7) Ex. XXIII, 15.
(8) ‘Keep’ is taken invariably to imply prohibition of work. By connecting the words ‘seven days’ with the verb ‘keep’, the prohibition is extended to the mid-festival days.
(9) I.e.,the verse is not needed for the proof.
(10) I.e., holy days.
(11) Lit., ‘six days of the beginning of (creation)’; cf Ex. XX, 9-11.
(12) Lit., ‘prove’ sc. the contrary.
(13) I.e., the Sabbath.
(14) V. Num. XXVIII, 19-24, and XXIX, 13-16.
(15) V. Lev. XXIII, and Num. XXVIII and XXIX. ‘Holy’ implies the prohibition of work.
(16) Lev. XXIII, 7.
(17) This teaching is deduced by connecting the end of v. 7 with the words ‘seven days’ in the following verse.
(18) Ibid. v. 4 and 37.
(19) Lev. XXIII, v. 39.
(20) V. next note. The reading should be emended to the ‘eighth day’ (v. R. Hananel a.I.), for nowhere is the term ‘solemn rest’ applied to the seventh day of a festival.
(22) E.V. ‘a solemn assembly’!
(23) Deut. XVI, 8.
(24) For the verse concludes: ‘Thou shalt do no work therein’.
(25) I.e., since the verse indicates only that the prohibition of work does not apply uniformly to all the days of the festival, it must be the intention of Scripture to let the Sages decide how the prohibition did apply.
(26) I. e., which day is a festival day proper, and which only a mid-festival day. For the fixing of the calendar, V. J.E. vol. III, pp. 498f.
(27) I.e., on mid-festival days: work which could not be postponed without incurring irretrievable loss was permitted.
(28) This is the correct reading viz., והתניא (‘it is taught’ by the Tannaim), not והאיתמר (‘it is stated’ by the Amoriam).
(29) Abbreviated form of the name Alexander. (12) Lydda in South Palestine (Roman name, Diospolis).
(30) Thus R. Tarfon forbade mourning on the slaughtering day, which contradicts the Mishnah.
(31) I.e., the case of Alexa.
(32) I.e., in the middle of the week, so that the slaughtering day was not on a Sunday. Mourning, therefore, was prohibited in accordance with regular Jewish law.
(33) I.e., that of the Mishnah.
(34) Consequently the slaughtering day was on a Sunday, and, therefore, as a demonstration against the erroneous view of the Sadducees, the ordinary rule prohibiting mourning on the slaughtering day was waived.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 18b
MISHNAH. THE HANDS HAVE TO BE RINSED1 FOR [EATING] UNCONSECRATED [FOOD],2 AND [SECOND] TITHE,3 AND FOR TERUMAH [HEAVE-OFFERING];4 BUT FOR HALLOWED THINGS5 [THE HANDS] HAVE TO BE IMMERSED.6 IN REGARD TO THE [WATER OF] PURIFICATION,7 IF ONE'S HANDS BECAME DEFILED, ONE'S [WHOLE] BODY IS DEEMED DEFILED.8 IF ONE BATHED9 FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY10 FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF SECOND] TITHE.11 IF ONE BATHED FOR [SECOND] TITHE, AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR [SECOND] TITHE, ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF] TERUMAH. IF ONE BATHED FOR TERUMAH, AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR TERUMAH, ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF] HALLOWED THINGS. IF ONE BATHED FOR HALLOWED THINGS, AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR HALLOWED THINGS ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [TOUCHING THE WATERS OF] PURIFICATION. IF ONE BATHED FOR SOMETHING POSSESSING A STRICTER [DEGREE OF SANCTITY], ONE IS PERMITTED [TO HAVE CONTACT WITH] SOMETHING POSSESSING A LIGHTER [DEGREE OF SANCTITY]. IF ONE BATHED BUT WITHOUT SPECIAL INTENTION,12 IT IS AS THOUGH ONE HAD NOT BATHED. THE GARMENTS OF AN AM HA-AREZ13 POSSESS MIDRAS14 -UNCLEANNESS FOR PHARISEES;15 THE GARMENTS OF PHARISEES POSSESS MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR THOSE WHO EAT TERUMAH; THE GARMENTS OF THOSE WHO EAT TERUMAH POSSESS MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO EAT] HALLOWED THINGS; THE GARMENTS OF [THOSE
it yet does not render the person fit to eat food possessing any degree of sanctity. Similarly, in the cases that follow, intention for one degree of sanctity does not enable one to partake of food having a higher degree of sanctity. WHO EAT] HALLOWED THINGS POSSESS MIDRAS — UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO OCCUPY THEMSELVES WITH THE WATERS OF] PURIFICATION. JOSE B. JO'EZER16 WAS THE MOST PIOUS IN THE PRIESTHOOD, YET HIS APRON WAS [CONSIDERED TO POSSESS] MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO ATE] HALLOWED THINGS. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA USED ALL HIS LIFE TO EAT [UNCONSECRATED FOOD] IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURITY REQUIRED FOR HALLOWED THINGS, YET HIS APRON WAS [CONSIDERED TO POSSESS] MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO OCCUPIED THEMSELVES WITH THE WATER OF] PURIFICATION.
GEMARA. Do unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe then require rinsing of the hands? Now we can show this to conflict with [the following Mishnah]: For terumah and first fruits17 one may incur the penalty of death,18 or [a fine of] an [added] fifth,19 and they are prohibited to non-priests20 and they are the property of the priest,21 and are neutralized in one hundred and one [parts],22 and require rinsing of the hands,23 and sunset;24 these [rules] apply to terumah and first fruits but not to [Second] Tithe.25 How much less then to unconsecrated food. Thus there is a contradiction in regard to [Second] Tithe and a contradiction also in regard to unconsecrated food! Granted that in regard to [Second] Tithe [it can be shown that] there is no contradiction: the one [Mishnah]26 is according to R. Meir and the other is according to the Rabbis. For we have learnt: Whosoever requires immersion by enactment of the Scribes27 defiles hallowed things28 and invalidates terumah,29 but is permitted30 [to eat] unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe — this is the view of R. Meir; but the Sages prohibit in the case of [Second] Tithe. In regard to unconsecrated food, however, there is a contradiction! — There is no contradiction: the one case31 refers to eating [unconsecrated food] and the other to touching [it]. To this R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred: The Rabbis differ from R. Meir only in regard to the eating of [Second] Tithe, but in regard to the touching of [Second] Tithe and the eating of unconsecrated food they do not differ!32 — Both [Mishnahs], therefore, must refer to eating; but there is no contradiction: the one33 refers to the eating of bread, the other34 refers to the eating of fruit. For R. Nahman said: Whosoever rinses his hands for fruit belongs to the haughty of spirit.35
Our Rabbis taught: He who raises his hands, if he did so with intention,36 his hands are [levitically] clean; but if he did so without intention, his hands are unclean. Similarly one who bathes37 his hands, if he did so with intention, his hands are clean, but if he did so without intention his hands are unclean. — But behold it is taught: Whether he did it with intention or without intention, his hands are clean! — R. Nahman answered: There is no contradiction: the one [statement]38 refers to unconsecrated food,
(1) I.e., in the manner prescribed in Yad. I, 1. Lit., ‘take for the hands’, an elliptical phrase for ‘take water for the hands’.
(2) As opposed to tithe etc.; cf. p. 35, n. 6.
(3) V. p. 35, n. 8.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) I.e., such as are offered in the Temple, and if not wholly devoted to the altar, have to be eaten in the Temple Court.
(6) I.e., in a valid immersion pool (Mikweh) containing not less than forty se'ahs of undrawn water (cf. Trac. Mikwa'oth).
(7) V. Num. VIII, 7 (A.V. ‘purifying’; R.V. ‘expiation’) and ibid. XIX.
(8) In regard to lesser degrees of sanctity, it is possible for the hands only to become defiled e.g., by touching unclean food etc.; but in this case the whole body would require ritual immersion.
(9) V. n. 11.
(10) The clause, ‘and intended . . . solely’ translates only one Heb. word הוחזק, denom. of חזקה (v. Dictionaries) = lit., ‘presumed or considered himself (to have taken the ritual bath) etc.’
(11) Actually, unconsecrated food does not require ritual immersion, unless one desires to eat it in purity, and even so the immersion does not require intention’; but even if there is definite intention to eat ordinary food in purity,
(12) I.e., merely for the sake of physical cleanliness: such an immersion does not fit one for any sanctified food.
(13) Lit., ‘people of the land’, hence generally ‘illiterate, ignorant’, (opp. to Talmid Hakam1, ‘a disciple of the wise’). Here it is used in a technical sense, and refers to one who is ignorant of the Torah and fails to observe the laws of purity and impurity, and is not scrupulous in setting aside the tithes from his produce (opp. to Haber, ‘an associate’, who strictly observes the Law). V. Glos.
(14) Lit., ‘place of treading or pressure’, denotes levitical impurity arising in an object from contact with gonorrhoeist who sits, lies, rides upon or leans against it; in general = אב הטומאה, the first degree of impurity. V. Lev. XII, 2; XV, 2-25; and cf. Nid. VI, 3 with explan. ibid. 49b. The reason for this Rabbinic enactment is the fear that the wife of the Am ha-arez may have sat on the garments when she was in a menstruous condition. V. Hul. 35 (and infra 19b. Tosaf. s. בגדי ).
(15) Those who strictly observe the Mosaic Law and the Rabbinic regulations, particularly in regard to tithing and purity. To their body belong also the Haberim (Associates); v. Mishnah Dem. II, 3, and Moore III, 26. For further information, v. J.E. vol. IX, pp. 661f, and R. T. Herford's ‘The Pharisees’.
(16) V. Aboth I, 4 (Sonc. ed., p. 3, nn. 4-6).
(17) Deut. XXVI, 1ff. For the analogy between terumah and first fruits v. Mak. 17a (Sonc. ed., pp. 121-2).
(18) I.e., if a non-priest eats thereof of set purpose; v. Lev. XXII, 9, 10, the context of which refers particularly to terumah. Cf. also Hul. I, 9.
(19) I.e., if a non-priest eats thereof in error he must not only pay the value of the amount consumed but must also add thereto a fifth of the value by way of fine; v. ibid. v. 14. This fifth is not analogous to the added fifth that must be paid in redeeming Second Tithe in order that the produce may be eaten outside Jerusalem and the redemption money spent in food and drink in Jerusalem: hence the Mishnah excludes Second Tithe from all these rules.
(20) I.e., by a prohibitory law of the Torah.
(21) I.e., he may sell them and purchase with the money whatever he desires, e.g., land, slaves, unclean animals etc.; or he may betroth a woman therewith.
(22) E.g., if one se'ah of terumah fell into one hundred se'ahs of unconsecrated produce making one hundred and one in all, any one se'ah may be taken out and given to a priest and the rest is permitted to a non-priest. But if there are not at least one hundred se'ahs of terumah the whole produce becomes prohibited to non-priests.
(23) The hands are considered, by Rabbinic enactment, to suffer levitical impurity in the second degree, and therefore, unless washed, can invalidate terumah by defiling it with impurity in the third degree.
(24) If a priest became unclean through some defilement mentioned in the Torah, he not only requires ritual immersion, but he must also wait till sunset before he may partake of terumah. V. Yeb. 74b.
(25) Here the Mishnah ends, excluding explicitly from the above rules, which include the rinsing of the hands, Second Tithe and also by obvious implication — as the Gemara goes on to point out — ordinary food.
(26) I.e., the latter.
(27) I.e., although ritually clean from the point of view of the Biblical law. This category includes those who eat or drink what is unclean; vessels that have touched unclean liquids; and the hands: these are all unclean in the second degree. V. Zab. V, 12 and Shab. 14b.
(28) Being impure in the second degree he is able to impart impurity to hallowed things in the third degree: in turn the hallowed things are capable of disqualifying in the fourth degree.
(29) The terumah becomes itself disqualified but cannot disqualify anything else.
(30) This positive expression (as opposed to the negative formula ‘but does not disqualify’) implies permission to eat as well as touch,
(31) I.e., our Mishnah, which requires rinsing of the hands for ordinary food.
(32) V. supra, n. 6; similarly the phrase, ‘but the Sages prohibit’, refers only to eating Second Tithe but not to touching it. But regarding unconsecrated food there is no dispute: even the Sages agree that it may be eaten without rinsing of the hands. The original question, therefore, remains: the Mishnahs contradict one another!
(33) Our own Mishnah, which requires rinsing of the hands for unconsecrated food.
(34) The second Mishnah quoted, which excepts Second Tithe (and consequently unconsecrated food) from rinsing of the hands and the other regulations applying to terumah and first fruits.
(35) I.e.,is affectedly or ostentatiously scrupulous.
(36) Cf. our Mishnah p. 120, n. 1.
(37) I.e., in a ritual bath containing at least forty se'ahs of water: this represents a higher degree of purification.
(38) I.e., the second Baraitha, which does not require intention.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 19a
the other to [Second] Tithe. — And whence do you infer that unconsecrated food does not require intention?1 — For we have learnt: If a wave was sundered [from the sea] and contained forty se'ahs2 and it fell upon a person or upon vessels [that were unclean], they become clean. Thus a person is likened to vessels: just as vessels have no intention3 so too [the Mishnah] speaks of a person who had no intention. But why so? Perhaps we are dealing with a case where one was sitting and waiting for the wave to become sundered, and so vessels are likened to a person; just as a person is capable of intention, so too in the case of the vessels one had intention with regard to them! And should you say: If it is a case of one who sits and waits [for the wave to be sundered], what need is there to teach it?4 [I will answer]: You might have thought it should be prohibited, as a preventive measure, [to bathe in a detached wave] lest one come to battle in a torrent of rainwater,5 or that we ought to prohibit, as a preventive measure, [immersion in] the ends6 [of the wave] on account of the crest,7 therefore [the Mishnah] teaches us that we make no such prohibition. — (And whence do you infer that one may not immerse [vessels] in the crest [of the wave]? — For it is taught: One may immerse [vessels] in the ends [of the wave] but not in the crest, because one may not immerse in the air.)8 — Rather [is it9 to be inferred] from that which we have learnt: If produce fell into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out [his hands] and took it, his hands became clean10 and [the law], if [water] be put on,11 does not apply to the produce;12 but if [he did so] in order that13 his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean, but [the law], ‘If [water] be put on’, applies to the produce.14
Rabbah15 put an objection to R. Nahman: IF ONE BATHED FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD], ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM [PARTAKING OF SECOND] TITHE.16 [Thus] if one intended to be rendered fit [therefor], One may [eat unconsecrated food], but if one did not intend to be rendered fit [therefor], one may not [eat unconsecrated food]!17 — This is the meaning: Even though one had intention for unconsecrated, one is still prohibited from [partaking of Second] Tithe.18
He put [another] objection to him: IF ONE BATHED, BUT WITHOUT SPECIAL INTENTION, IT IS AS THOUGH ONE HAD NOT BATHED. Surely it means that he is as though he had not bathed at all!19 — No, [it means that] he is as though he had not bathed for [Second] Tithe, but did bathe for unconsecrated food. He20 thought [at first] that he21 was merely putting him off,22 [but] he went forth, examined [the matter] and found that it is taught: If one bathed, but without special intention, one is prohibited [from partaking of Second] Tithe, but one is permitted [to partake of] unconsecrated [food].
R. Eleazar said: If a man bathed and came up,23 he may intend to be rendered fit for whatever he pleases. An objection was raised: If he still has one foot in the water, and he had intended to be rendered fit for something of lesser [sanctity], he may intend to be rendered fit for something of higher [sanctity]; but once he has come up he can no longer have intention. Surely [it means that] he can no longer have any intention at all!24 — No, [it means that] if he still [has one foot in the water] even though he intended to render himself fit [for a lesser degree of sanctity], he may still intend to render himself [fit for a higher degree of sanctity];25 but once he has come up, if he had no intention to be rendered fit [for anything at all], he may now intend to be rendered fit, but if he had intention to be rendered fit [for any particular degree of sanctity] he may no longer intend to be rendered fit [for any higher degree of sanctity].26 — Who is the author of the teaching: ‘If he still has one foot in the water etc.’?27 R. Pedath said: It is according to R. Judah. For we have learnt: If an immersion pool was measured and found to contain exactly forty se'ahs [of water], and two persons went down and immersed themselves therein one after the other, the first person is clean, but the second is unclean.28 R. Judah said: If the feet of the first person were [still] touching the water [when the second person immersed himself] the second person is also clean.29 R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute30 concerns [only] the Rabbinical degrees [of purity],31 but in a case of purification from [real] uncleanness,32 all would agree that the second person remains unclean. This then is in agreement with the view of R. Pedath.33 Another version is: R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute concerns purification from [real] uncleanness, but in regard to the Rabbinical degrees [of purity], all would agree that the second person too becomes clean. Thus he differs from the view of R. Pedath.34
‘Ulla said: I asked R. Johanan: According to R. Judah, is it permissible to immerse needles and hooks in the [wet] head of the first [bather]?35 Does R. Judah accept [only] the principle of connecting downward,36 but not of connecting upward;37 or, perhaps, R. Judah accepts the principle of connecting upward as well? — He replied: Ye have learnt it; If a wady has three depressions, one at the top, one at the bottom and one in the middle, the one at the top and the one at the bottom containing twenty se'ahs each and the middle one forty se'ahs, and a torrent of rainwater passes between them,38 R. Judah says: Meir used to say: One may immerse in the top one.39
(1) On immersion.
(2) The minimum quantity required for ritual immersion. For se'ah, v. Glos.
(3) On being immersed.
(4) I.e., since the immersion was intentional, the case is ritually quite normal and requires no specific mention.
(5) Rashi gives two reasons for the unsuitability of a torrent of rainwater, containing forty se'ahs, for ritual immersion;
(a) since the water flows down a steep incline, the forty se'ahs cannot be regarded as being in one place or connected (v. Toh. VIII, 9), and consequently the bather does not immerse himself in forty se'ahs of water at one and the same time; (b) rain-water can be used for immersion only in the form of a stagnant pool but not when it forms a flowing current (v. Supra to Lev. XI, 36).
(6) Lit., ‘heads’ i.e., the lower part of the wave as it reaches the ground.
(7) Lit., ‘arches, bows’ i.e., caps of a wave, billow-crests, surf.
(8) Though the ends of the wave have touched the ground, the crest of the wave is regarded as still being suspended in the air, and consequently may not be used for immersion, for no immersion may take place in the air.
(9) That no intention is required for unconsecrated food.
(10) Though the person's intention was solely to take out the produce and not to purify the hands. Thus it is seen that unconsecrated food does not require intention.
(11) Lev. XI, 38.
(12) I.e., the produce does not become, through contact with the water, susceptible to defilement in accordance with law referred to in the verse. Only when the owner is pleased with the wetting of the produce does it become susceptible to defilement (v. Kid. 59b), which is not the case here. The Mishnah text (Maksh. IV, 7) reads ‘are clean’ for ‘the law, "If water be put on ",does not apply to the produce’.
(13) The Mishnah text reads: ‘he purposed, intended’ for ‘in order that’.
(14) Since he took the produce out of the water with the purpose of cleansing his hands, it is clear that he is pleased with the wetting of the produce, for he benefits by it; consequently, the produce becomes susceptible henceforward to defilement.
(15) Var. lec. Raba.
(16) The Hebrew here is identical with the Mishnayoth version, which differs very slightly from our own Mishnah reading.
(17) This shows, apparently, that intention is required even for unconsecrated food.
(18) But actually unconsecrated food does not require intention.
(19) I.e., he is not rendered fit even for unconsecrated food.
(20) I.e., Rabbah.
(21) I.e., R. Nahman.
(22) I.e., with casuistical arguments, which, in point of fact, were untrue.
(23) I.e., left the water completely. Some texts known to Tosaf. actually added the words, ‘and is still wet’; but in any case it has to be understood in this sense.
(24) I.e., no new intention of his is of any effect.
(25) I.e., he may now decide for which degree of sanctity he wishes the immersion to serve.
(26) For with the completion of immersion the first intention becomes effective.
(27) V. p. 125 (end).
(28) Inevitably some water clings to the body of the first bather; consequently the second bather immerses himself in less than the prescribed minimum of forty se'ahs of water.
(29) On the principle that the water connects downward’ (v. p. 127. n. 2), i.e., since the feet of the first bather are still in the immersion pool, the water on his body is regarded as forming part of the water in the pool, thus helping to restore the required volume of forty se'ahs.
(30) I.e., between R. Judah and the Rabbis.
(31) E.g., the specific degrees of purity discussed in our Mishnah.
(32) I.e., defilement according to the law of the Torah.
(33) Who explains the Baraitha, ‘If he still has one foot etc.’ to be according to R. Judah and not the Rabbis: thus he holds that the Rabbis reject the principle of ‘connecting downward’ even in regard to the Rabbinical degrees of purity, for the whole question of intention in regard to any specific degree of purity is based on Rabbinic enactment.
(34) For according to R. Nahman, the Baraitha ‘If he still has one foot etc.’, represents the view of the Rabbis as well as of R. Judah, for he holds that in regard to the Rabbinical degrees of purity, the Rabbis agree with R. Judah in accepting the principle of ‘connecting downward’.
(35) Whilst he is still in the water.
(36) Lit., ‘stretch, bring down’.
(37) I.e., does R. Judah accept the principle of connecting only in the downward direction, as in the case of the two bathers above, where the water on the body of the first bather is regarded as connected with the water in the pool; but not in the upward direction, so that the water in the pool should be considered as connected with the water on the bather's head, and thus enable needles etc. to be purified in the water clinging to the bather's head.
(38) Thus connecting them.
(39) And, of course, in the bottom one; for those who hold the principle of ‘connecting upward’, certainly accept the principle of ‘connecting downward’. Since R. Judah quoted R. Meir s view without contradicting it, the presumption is that he concurs in it. This explanation follows Rashi's text and interpretation. For a different reading and explanation v. Tosaf. s. רבי
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 19b
— But it is taught: R. Judah said: Meir used to say: One may immerse in the top one, but I say: [One may immerse only] in the bottom one, but not in the top one! He1 replied: If it is [expressly] taught, it is taught.2
IF ONE BATHED FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD] AND INTENDED TO BE RENDERED FIT SOLELY FOR UNCONSECRATED [FOOD] etc. According to whom will our Mishnah be? — [Presumably] it is according to the Rabbis, who distinguish between unconsecrated [food] and [Second] Tithe.3 — But [then] how will you understand the second part [of the Mishnah]? THE GARMENTS OF AN ‘AM HA-AREZ POSSESS MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR PHARISEES; THE GARMENTS OF PHARISEES POSSESS MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR THOSE WHO EAT TERUMAH:4 this will be according to R. Meir, who said that unconsecrated [food] and [Second] Tithe are [in this respect] the same. Thus the first part [of the Mishnah] will be according to the Rabbis and the second part according to R. Meir! — Indeed, the first part [of the Mishnah] is according to the Rabbis and the second part according to R. Meir. R. Aha b. Adda teaches [also] in the second part [of the Mishnah] five degrees5 and attributes it all to the Rabbis. R. Mari said: It follows that unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things6 is like hallowed things. Whence [is this to be inferred]? —
(1) I.e., R. Johanan.
(2) I.e., I am prepared to retract.
(3) V. p. 122 (‘For we have learnt: Whosoever requires. . . Tithe’).
(4) But not Second Tithe, which shows that it belongs to the same category as unconsecrated food.
(5) I.e., he adds those who eat Second Tithe, as representing a separate degree of purity, in between the Pharisees and those who eat terumah.
(6) A person who is accustomed to eat hallowed things would make it a rule to eat even unconsecrated food according to the purity required by hallowed things, so that his household should be well-trained in the vigilance necessary for the higher degree of purity.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 20a
From the fact that [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree [of purity].1 — But perhaps the reason why [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree of purity is because if it is like terumah, behold [the Mishnah] deals with terumah; and if it is like unconsecrated [food], behold [the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated [food]!2 For it is taught:3 Unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like unconsecrated [food]. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok says: It is like terumah. — Rather [is it to be inferred] from the second part [of the Mishnah].
JOSE B. JO'EZER WAS THE MOST PIOUS IN THE PRIESTHOOD, YET HIS APRON WAS [CONSIDERED TO POSSESS] MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS [FOR THOSE WHO ATE] HALLOWED THINGS. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA USED ALL HIS LIFE TO EAT [UNCONSECRATED FOOD] IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURITY REQUIRED FOR HAllowed THINGS, YET HIS APRON WAS [CONSIDERED TO POSSESS] MIDRAS-UNCLEANNESS FOR [THOSE WHO OCCUPIED THEMSELVES WITH THE WATER OF] PURIFICATION. [Only] for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification, but not for hallowed things; thus [the Mishnah] holds that unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like hallowed things.
R. Jonathan b. Eleazar said: If a man's wrap4 fell from off him, and he said to his fellow,5 ‘Give it to me’, and he gave it to him, it is unclean.6 R. Jonathan b. Amram said: If by mistake a man put his Sabbath garments on instead of his weekday garments, they become unclean.7 R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: Once two scholarly8 women took one another's garments by mistake in the bathhouse, and the matter came before R. Akiba, and he declared them unclean. To this R. Oshaia demurred: If so, if a man stretched forth his hand to the basket with the intention of taking wheat bread and there came up in his hand barley bread, has it also become unclean? And should you say ‘It is so’; then behold it is taught: If one guards a jug on the assumption that it is [a jug] of wine, and it is found to be [a jug] of oil, it is clean so as not to defile! — But according to your reasoning, how do you understand the concluding clause [of the Baraitha]: But it may not be consumed? Why? — Said R. Jeremiah: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it against anything that might defile it,9 but not against anything that might invalidate it.10 But can anything be half-guarded? — Indeed; for it is taught: If a man stretched forth his hand into the basket, and the basket was on his shoulder and the shovel was in the basket, and his mind was on the basket but not on the shovel, the basket is clean and the shovel is unclean. [Now it says] ‘The basket is clean’? [Surely] the shovel should make the basket unclean! — One vessel does not make another unclean.11 Then it should make the contents12 of the basket unclean! — Rabina said: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it [the shovel] against anything that might defile it, but not against anything that might invalidate it.13 In any case, there is a contradiction!14 And furthermore, Rabbah b. Abbuha raised an objection: Once a woman came before R. Ishmael and said to him: Master, I have woven this garment in purity,15 but it was not in my mind to guard it in purity.16 But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael subjected her, she said to him: Master, a menstruous woman pulled the cord17 with me. Said R. Ishmael: How great are the words of the Sages, who used to say: If one had the intention to guard a thing, it is clean; if one did not have the intention to guard it, it is unclean. There was another story of a woman who came before R. Ishmael. She said to him: Master, I wove this cloth in purity, but it was not in my mind to guard it. But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael subjected her, she said to him: Master, a thread broke18 and I tied it with my mouth.19 Said R. Ishmael: How great are the words of the Sages who used to say: If it is in one's mind to guard a thing it is clean; if it is not in one's mind to guard it, it is unclean.20
Granted in regard to [the teaching of] R. Eleazar b. Zadok, [it can be explained that] each one [of the women] says [to herself]: ‘My companion is the wife of an ‘am ha-arez’; and [consequently] she takes her mind off it. In regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Amram too [it can be explained that] since a man takes special care of Sabbath garments,21 [it is as though] he took his mind off them. But in regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Eleazar [it can be objected] that he could [still] guard it in the hand of his companion! — R. Johanan answered: It is a presumable certainty that one does not guard what is in the hand of his companion. — Indeed no?
(1) Viz. that the garments of Pharisees who eat unconsecrated food in ordinary purity possess midras-uncleanness for those who eat unconsecrated food according to the purity required by hallowed things. The omission of this category proves, according to R. Mari, that it belongs to the same degree of purity as hallowed things themselves, which are already mentioned in the Mishnah.
(2) I.e., the fact that unconsecrated food prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is not mentioned in the Mishnah as a separate degree of purity does not necessarily prove that it is like hallowed things. On the contrary, it may belong to one of the other degrees of purity specified in the Mishnah, such as ordinary unconsecrated food or terumah.
(3) I.e., we actually find Tannaim disputing as to whether it is like ordinary food or like terumah; but no one takes the view that it is like hallowed things.
(4) So Jast.; Levy, ‘Hulle’; Goldschmidt, ‘Kopftuch’. Cf. אפר (‘headband’) in I Kings XX, 38, 41, which belongs to the same root as our word מעפרת, with interchange of א and ע
(5) I.e., one as observant of the laws of purity as himself (R. Hananel).
(6) Even though the person, who picked it up was clean, for we cannot assume that he took it upon himself to guard it from impurity whilst he handled it, since the owner did not inquire whether he was clean or not; nor can we say that the owner guarded it against defilement whilst it was not in his possession (v. R. Johanan's answer p. 131).
(7) This apparently teaches the principle that if a man guards something on the assumption that it is one thing and finds it to be another, it is unclean.
(8) Lit.,’associates i.e., knowing and observing the Laws of purity. V. p. 120, n. 4.
(9) I.e., so that in turn it could make other things unclean.
(10) I.e., from being used, but would not make it capable of imparting impurity. This shows that although the keeper may be mistaken regarding the identity of the object guarded, his guarding nevertheless remains effective for the purpose intended, which, in this case, was that the oil should not be defiled.
(11) Although a vessel can defile food.
(12) Figs (Rashi).
(13) From being used at the outset in connection with clean foodstuffs. The shovel, being ‘a utensil’, can only be invalidated by unclean liquids (Tosaf). Rashi suggests, alternatively, that ‘it’ may refer to the food adhering to the shovel. — This Baraitha thus shows that a thing can be guarded ‘by half’.
(14) I.e., the statement in the Baraitha that the oil remains clean supports R. Oshaia and contradicts the view that a mistake in regard to the identity of an object serves to make it unclean.
(15) I.e., I know, as a matter of fact, that from the moment three fingers by three of cloth — the minimum area susceptible to defilement — were woven it was not made unclean.
(16) I.e., I did not actually intend to guard it against defilement.
(17) So that uncleanness may have been communicated through her shaking the web.
(18) Before she commenced to weave: the rules of uncleanness did not yet apply then.
(19) She had not yet purified herself by immersion from the impurity of her menstruous condition, so that her saliva possessed uncleanness in the first degree (אב הטומאה). Thus although to begin with the moistened thread could not affect the purity of the cloth (hence she paid no attention to it), nevertheless if the thread remained wet when the web was three fingers by three it would defile the cloth, although the woman had since purified herself by immersion. So Rashi; for another explanation v. Tosaf. s. v. נימא
(20) From all this, It is clear that the deciding factor in keeping an object clean is the intention to guard it against uncleanness; but it is not necessary to know the identity of the object guarded.
(21) Whereas he thought them to be his week-day clothes.
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
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. חומר) they do not involve the risk of an eventual violation of the law of purity (דררא דטומאה).
(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. מאי) only the interior vessels re unclean.
(14) בית הצביטה ‘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 הציצה (‘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. אונן, opposed to אבל, 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. דררא; for a discussion of the latter five distinctions v. Tosaf. s.v. בתרײתא
(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. דתנן 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. לא; 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. שלא, 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. לגין = לוגין (the usual and correct form) of the Mishnah and MS.M.; larger than a כום (cup) and smaller than a כד (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. כלום), 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.) צובעין, prob. denominative from אצבע, ‘finger’ (cf. Aramaic צבעא) i.e., grip with fingers (v. Levy s.v.). J.T. has בית הצביעא in the Mishnah instead of our בית הצביטה; undoubtedly, R. Johanan, the editor of the Pal. Talmud, was explaining the J.T., rather than the Babylonian reading. According to Rashi, מטבילין = צובעין 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 צובטין ; 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. ונפסקה ).
(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. יטמא; in the verse וטמא (‘and shall be unclean’).
(9) This is deduced apparently from the word ישב (‘sat’), which, being vocalized as the imperfect instead of the perfect (ישב), 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 כלי (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 דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון (‘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. בתי בורין) 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. אחד 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. לא) 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. כרכר; Levy reads, כרכד 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. שביהודה). 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 [explanation],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. המדומעות In (‘mixed up’) is f. pl. part. pu'al, from (pi'el), denom. of דמע = ‘(sacred) fruit’, from rt דמע = ‘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. כותי
(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. שונין an unusual expression for a Baraitha teaching, for which the most common formula is תניא, (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. לעני (ה)כהן (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, לעיני הכהן, ‘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 ברירה (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) פרם == ‘half’ sc. furrow (cf Tosef. Neg. VII, 10, where Peras == ‘half a loaf’. בית פרם (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. פרם) and adopts the reading חצי מענה (‘half a furrow’) instead of the usual reading מלא מענה (‘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) הכרת = כרת (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 מיתה 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. וכרת); (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 אחרי).
(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. טבל).
(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) אפיקרסותו; also אפקרסין = אפקרסותו; cf. Peshita to Judg. XIV, 2 for Heb. סדינים, 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. הגבאין), 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. מנורה).
(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) דולפקי (delphica, sub. mensa) a three-legged table used as a toilet table or a water, contrad. from שלחן (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. תפארת ישראל 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. מסימם).
(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 depends on the covering.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 27a
for the Divine Law cans it Wood.1 For it is written: The altar, three cubits high, and the length thereof two cubits, was of food, and so the corners; the length thereof and the walls thereof, were also of wood; and he said unto me: ‘This is the table that is before the Lord’.2 — [The verse] begins with the altar and ends with the table! R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both explain: At the time when the Temple stood, the altar used to make atonement for a person; now a person's table makes atonement for him.3
ALL THE VESSELS IN THE TEMPLE HAD SECOND SETS ETC. THE ALTAR OF BRONZE’4 for it is written: An altar of earth5 thou shalt make unto Me.6
‘THE ALTAR OF GOLD’, for it is written: The candlestick and the altars;7 thus, the altars are likened one to another.
BUT THE SAGES SAY: BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERLAID [WITH METAL]. On the contrary, since they were overlaid, they were susceptible to uncleanness!8 — Read: ‘But the Sages declared them Unclean because they were overlaid’. Or, alternatively, I can explain: The Rabbis say it to R. Eliezer: What have you in mind?9 The fact that they were overlaid?10 But their Plating was quite nullified in regard to them.11 R. Abbahu said that R. Eleazar said: The fire of Gehinnom12 has no power over the Scholars. It is an ad majus conclusion [to be drawn] from the salamander.13 If now [in the case of] the salamander, which is [only] an offspring of fire, he who anoints himself with its blood is not affected by fire, how much more so the Scholars, whose whole body is fire, for it is written: Is not My word like as fire? saith the Lord.14 Resh Lakish said. The fire of Gehinnom has no power over the transgressors of Israel. It is an ad majus conclusion [to be drawn] from the altar of gold. If the altar of gold, on which there is only a denar thickness of gold,15 is not affected through so many years by the fire, how much less so the transgressors of Israel, who are full of good deeds16 as a pomegranate [is of seeds]; for it is written, Thy temples are like a pomegranate split open.17 Read not ‘thy temples’ [rakkathek] but ‘thy worthless ones’ [rekanim shebak].18
(1) Even when overlaid. Hence, it has to be regarded as a wooden utensil made for resting things on it, and, but for the fact that it used to be lifted to exhibit the showbread on it, would not be susceptible to uncleanness.
(2) Ezek. XLI, 22.
(3) Through the hospitality shown to poor guests. Cf. R. Johanan's statements about ‘a mouthful of food’ at the end of San. 103b (Sonc. ed., p. 705).
(4) Sc. is accounted as the ground.
(5) Understood here to refer to the altar of bronze; but v. Tosaf s.v. מזבח
(6) Ex. XX, 24.
(7) Num. III, 31.
(8) For were they not overlaid with metal, they would belong to the category of wooden utensils made for resting things on them which are insusceptible to uncleanness (v. p. 168).
(9) I.e., what is your reason for declaring the altars to be insusceptible to uncleanness solely on the ground that Scripture terms them earth, but not because they are utensils made for resting things on them?
(10) And are consequently to be regarded as metal vessels, which are susceptible to uncleanness.
(11) Because Scripture terms them ‘wood’ (Ezek. XLI, 22; cf. p. 170).
(12) V. p. 82, n. 1.
(13) A fabulous animal generated in fire which, according to the Midrash, must burn incessantly for seven days and nights; but Rashi here postulates seven years, and the Aruch (s.v.) seventy years. For a fun account of the legend, v. J. E. vol. X, pp. 646-7.
(14) Jer. XXIII, 29.
(15) Denarius, v. Glos. For Moses wonder at the miracle, v. Tosaf. s.v. ושאין
(16) Lit., ‘precepts’.
(17) Cant. IV, 3.
(18) Lit., ‘thy empty ones’. The thought is the reverse of Eccl. VII, 20; there is none in Israel that sinneth, and yet doeth not good, for even the transgressors, devoid of merit as they may seem, still have innumerable good deeds to their credit.
Directory of Sedarim and Tractates