Chagigah3

1MISHNAH: Sancta are more stringent than heave in that one may immerse vessels inside vessels [Vessels immersed in a miqweh to be pure for use with sancta must be immersed singly. For heave one may immerse vessels inside vessels if only it is possible for the water to touch each vessel fully inside and out.] for heave but not for sancta. One considers back [Clay vessels by biblical standards become impure only from inside a cavity. Any impurity on the concave parts of the outside is rabbinical.] , inside, and finger-holes [Holes on the outside of a pot or cup into which one puts his fingers to hold the cup are independent cavities. For heave, all these rules of rabbinic impurity are observed. For sancta any impurity of any source disqualifies the vessel.] for heave but not for sancta. He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta [A person may carry both the shoe of a sufferer from gonorrhea and heave if both of them are placed on wooden planks (impervious to impurity) and the carrier never touches shoe and heave.] . The garments of eaters of heave are “support” for sancta [Mishnah 2:7.] . The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties before immersing whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse [For heave one may assume that the water penetrates any rope with which immersed vessels are tied. For sancta this assumption may not be made.] .

2HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant [Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.] . Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta [If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.] . Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it [The permission for eaters of heave to immerse a smaller vessel inside a larger one holds only if the smaller vessel weighs less than one Roman pound. Cf. Babli 21a.] . Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket [Greek γύργαθος.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there [Mishnah Miqwaot 8:5.] , “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure [If his hands block the access of the water in the miqweh to even the smallest part of the surface area, the immersion is ineffective. According to R. Simeon it is possible to hold something in the miqweh without obstructing the access of the water.] . Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon [Abba Shaul holds that joint immersion is possible only if the outer vessel is permeable; hands are not permeable.] . The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior [Finger-holes while cavities cannot be used to store anything since they have no bottom; they are irrelevant by biblical standards. But it is agreed in the Mishnah that for vessels used for sancta, rabbinic impurity is treated as biblical.] .

3Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon [In the South of Judea at a time when the main Jewish settlement was in the Galilee.] . Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave [In all Mishnaiot together. The main difference seems to be whether back and finger-holes are one or two subjects.] ? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting [He served standing as a member of his household whereas R. Meïr was a student in R. Aqiba’s classes. Therefore his contact was more intensive and extensive.] . They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard [Is. 5:1.] . They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter [Convening a meeting at a far-out place in order to proclaim an intercalary month.] ? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe [Ex. 34:17–18.] . They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails.

4Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it [Cleanly people hold the cup on the outside, so that their fingers do not touch the drink. The problem with finger-holes is that they are cavities, and as such potential subjects of biblical impurity, but since the cavities are horizontal, not vertical, they are not containers and therefore impervious to biblical impurity. Babli 22b.] . Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry [Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra 3:9. Since unwashed hands rabbinically are impure in the second degree, when dry they have no influence on the status of vessels. (By touching they still disqualify heave and make sacrificial food impure.)] . In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure [In this case it is certain that the fluid touched the hand. By rabbinic tradition any such fluid is impure in the first degree and so is the vessel containing it.] . But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid [In the case of isolated spots of fluids one cannot say that the fluids merge; the rules of the Mishnah are reasonable if applied to this situation.] .” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place [Mishnah Idiut 8:4; Kelim 15:6. Even though water and blood are the essential agents of biblical impurity, water used at the slaughtering place in the Temple and blood spilled there are pure, i. e., impervious to impurity and do not act to prepare food to possible impurity.] . As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place [Outside of the Temple they just are regular fluids subject to all their rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17a.] , [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned [If they somehow re-entered the Temple domain while pure by outside standards, they regain their immunity from the rules of impurity.] . If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure [The slaughtering place is in the place of the Cohanim, the highest in the Temple domain. The question is the definition of the domain in which the fluids are exempt from the rules of impurity. In one opinion it only is the Cohanim’s courtyard, in the other it is the entire space inside the enclosure of the Temple, including the courtyards accessible to Israel men and women.] .

5Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: About fluids which became impure from solid food. But fluids impure from crawling things are impure [This is a new remark, about the Mishnah. The impurity discussed is of rabbinic nature, such as derivative impurity of foodstuffs; but biblical impurity, such as caused by the carcasses of crawling animals, is transmitted to vessels by biblical rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17b.] .

6There, we have stated [Mishnah Kelim25:7.] : “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough [All vessels become impure, possibly by different rules, inside and out. But finger-holes apply only to heavy wooden troughs used to prepare dough.] . Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups [The rules of finger-holes also apply to earthenware cups. The rules essentially state that finger-holes, being horizontal cavities, are rabbinic transmitters of impurity and therefore subject to rabbinic disregards of rabbinic rules.] . Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands [Following R. Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the back of the cup pure. If his hands were pure and the back of the cup impure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the hands pure. Following R. Yose only the second case holds.] .” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure [Since the finger-hole is a separate entity, for R. Meïr impurity of the back of the vessel is a separate affair not influenced by anything in the finger-hole, even if some of the fluid is in the finger-hole.] . Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place [Since it was stated that the fluid does not become impure in the finger-hole, is this a statement about the fluid or about the finger-hole? In the second case the fluid will be impure in the moment it flows out of the finger-hole.] ? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure [Since any impure fluid is impure in the first degree, even if made impure by secondary impurity.] . In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup [The formulation excludes finger-holes; the statement was about the fluid.] . But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure [If the fluid is on the hand outside the finger-hole, if the back of the cup is impure and it touches at the outside of the finger-hole, will the hand become impure?] ? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand [According to R. Meïr there cannot be connection for impurity between fingers in finger-holes and any other part of the cup.] . And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure [For R. Yose, the exemption of finger-holes only works to protect the fingers from impurity on the back of the cup.] . Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place [Same question as Note 35.] ? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand [Same answer, in cases relevant for R. Yose, as Note 39.] . But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure [Contrary to the opinion of R. Meïr, R. Yose holds that impurity can be transmitted through finger-holes.] .

7“He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta [A person may carry both the shoe of a sufferer from gonorrhea and heave if both of them are placed on wooden planks (impervious to impurity) and the carrier never touches shoe and heave.] . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, because of a happening. It happened to a person that his amphora sprung a leak and he plugged it with his sandal [Which was impure by “load” and made the contents of the amphora biblically impure. Babli 22b (end).] . Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he transgressed and carried it, it is pure. This follows what Rebbi Eleazar said: some say, he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is impure. [But some say,] he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is pure [Since these statements refer to Temple practice, not to biblical laws, they are not subject to discussion. Babli 23a.] . Rebbi Ze`ira said in front of Rebbi Mana [R. Mana I.] does this not imply that they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea [Therefore one may answer a question raised earlier.] ? [If you would say, they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea,] then if he transgressed and carried he would be impure. He answered him, explain it if it is connected to sancta [If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.] [This implies nothing in the general case.] .

8“The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties the strings and wipes the holes and then ties whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse. [Tosephta 3:6.] ” Eaters of heave are vigilant and they hollow [Before any use they meticulously clean the interior of any vessel used for heave.] it but eaters of sancta are not vigilant [Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.] and do not hollow.

9MISHNAH: Implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave. A vessel combines its contents for sancta but not for heave [A vessel contains disjoint morsels of food. If one piece becomes impure, this in general has no influence of the other pieces since derivative impurity of food cannot make the vessel impure and even rabbinically the other pieces are two touchings distant from the impure piece. The only exception are sancta for which there exists a fourth degree of impurity. Therefore morsels of sancta in the same vessel as a second degree impure piece of food are disqualified even if they are all physically separated.] . For sancta the fourth degree is disqualified and the third for heave [Chapter 2, Note 162.] . For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure, but for sancta he immerses both. One hand makes the other impure for sancta but not for heave [Since the impurity of hands is rabbinic of the second degree, the prior argument applies.] .

10HALAKHAH: It was stated [Tosephta Kelim Bava Batra 1:2–3; Babli 20a.] : “It happened that a woman was weaving cloth in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating her, she said to him, a menstruating woman came and helped me stretching the rope [If the menstruating woman alone had stretched the warp, it would certainly be impure because moved by a person whose impurity is from her own body. Since it was a joint effort, it is possible that the warp, and therefore the cloth, was impure, but it cannot be determined whether it is. In order to be sure it is pure it has to be immersed.] . At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ Another happening: a woman was weaving a shawl in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating him, she said to him, a thread broke and I tied it with my mouth [Chapter 2, Notes 231–232.] . At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ ”

11[Chapter 2, Notes 231–232.] If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to here about sanctified Temple sancta. From here on, about profane food prepared in the purity of sacrifices [Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.] .

12Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony [Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.] . As we have stated there [Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.] , “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified [This statement is implied by the statement of our Mishnah that vessels do combine for sancta. Therefore Mishnah 2 must have been formulated posterior to R. Aqiba.] .” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel [Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.] . Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals [These are not foods and not subject to the rules of impurity of foodstuffs up to the fourth degree.] . One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals [They should be impervious to impurity.] ? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up [The coals which the High Priest on the Day of Atonement has to scoop up with a fire-pan and carry into the holiest of holies with the incense (Lev. 16:12). These are the only coals which become disqualified if outside a dedicated Vessel of Service.] . But [not] [Corrector’s addition, making explicit the text’s meaning.] about every day’s coals. As we have stated there [Mishnah Tamid 5:5.] , “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler [Greek ψυκτήρ, a big metal vessel.] . Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel [He holds that the Mishnah in Idiut applies to all coals removed from the altar. The rule is that the burned-out charcoal remainders have to be removed in dedicated fire-pans. Even if the later are spilled and swiped into the water canal crossing the inner courtyard, they were removed in a dedicated vessel, and in this case the vessel combines all its contents. The same holds for a large private flour offering, not subject to the amounts prescribed for public offerings, and which might be presented in two or more vessels. In that case, each vessel separately transmits disqualification from a part of its contents to all of it.] .

13Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels [The regular discipline of flour offerings is that flour and oil are mixed in one sanctified vessel, then the priest takes a fistful, deposits it into a second vessel which he carries to the altar and empties into the flames. Since in any case a second vessel is involved, may the offering be brought from the start in two vessels, and the fistful taken from one and deposited into a third permits the contents of both original vessels to be consumed by the priests?] ? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel [Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.] . Here also because they have to be in their vessel [If the offering from the start is in two separate vessels, where is the one vessel which combines the contents such that if part becomes disqualified everything is disqualified? As before the answer is that since no offering may be presented without being in a vessel, that vessel is a necessity of the service and the multitude of original vessels is irrelevant.] . Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines” [The previous argument is extended from flour offering to incense, which at least for the shewbreads always is in multiple containers, and the other offerings.] . Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl [The scribe’s text is the correct one, confirmed by the Babli (Menaḥot 7a,24a/b). The corrector’s change is erroneous.] , if one became impure did the other become impure [While an argument may be made that if part of a flour-offering becomes disqualified the whole becomes disqualified, does the argument extend to actual impurity (or order <4), so that the contents of a vessel can cause impurity or disqualification to anything it comes in contact with, without ever having been touched by anything impure?] ? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump [From one vessel to another with which it is not in contact.] ? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question.] ? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there [Mishnah Menaḥot 3:3.] , “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately [If the materials of the two offerings are recognizable as distinct.] they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other [One has to say that the statement that the vessel combines is a biblical one; therefore on the one hand the vessel transmits disqualification from one piece to a disjoint one, and on the other hand permits to take a fistful from the offering although certainly parts of the offering are mixed with another, which without the combining action of the vessel would disqualify.] ? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other [Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels.] , if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup [Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels.] ? Which makes its contents one. [Sifry Num. 49, Babli 23b. The reference is to the offerings of the heads of tribes for the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Num.7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80). It would have been sufficient to state that each of them brought “a cup full of incense”. The emphasis 12 times on “one cup full of incense” is explained by that the cup makes the offering an indivisible entity.] ” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it [He denies that impurity may be transferred by action at a distance.] .

14Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Does a dry piece of flour-offering start a count [A flour offering in general needs to be mixed with oil. As noted later, food becomes susceptible to impurity only by contact with water or one of the fluids compared to water in a biblical verse, including olive oil. This contact is called “preparation for impurity”, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 141. The question now is whether flour never in contact with a fluid, which becomes disqualified by being in a combining vessel, also becomes impure to count derivative impurity of degrees 1,2,3,4 or not. Babli Ḥulin 36a.] ? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is it not written [Lev. 11:34.] , of all foodstuff which is edible on which comes water is susceptible to impurity. Any whose impurity is caused by water starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by water starts a count. Rebbi Yose objected: Is there not a carcass of a kosher bird which causes impurity of foodstuff without preparation and without impurity, because it ends up causing severe impurity [The meat of a kosher bird which was not slaughtered once it is in the mouth makes not only the eater but also his garments causes of original biblical impurity. The garments cause impurity to anything potentially susceptible to impurity, without “preparation.”] ? What about this? Of all foodstuff which is edible, any whose impurity is caused by the category of edibles [Even if the particular item is not kosher to eat.] starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by edibles the category of starts a count.

15Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave [Babli Ḥulin 35a. Since the third degree of impurity disqualifies but does not induce impurity for heave, the person is permitted in principle to touch heave but not to eat it.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there [Mishnah Taharot 2:2.] , “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree. [R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.] ” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave [While in theory he could touch heave without bad effects, since touching could lead to eating we tell him to stay away from heave in all respects. This is not a biblical rule.] . And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following [Mishnah Parah 11:5.] : “But the Sages forbid for tithe. [The Mishnah states that anybody needing immersion in water for rabbinic impurity may without immersion eat profane food and Second Tithe according to R. Meïr, but the majority forbids him Second Tithe.] ” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe [There should not have been any question since the problem already was solved in a Mishnah known to all.] . And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta [A quote from Halakhah 3, Note 136. The reference is to a deep mourner who is obligated to see to the burial of a close relative and is forbidden any sacral act. As stated here, it implies that the person eating disqualified sancta is forbidden any sacral act.] . This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there] [Mishnah Ḥulin 2:5.] : “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter [For the majority, slaughtered meat is prepared for impurity (Note 80) either by the blood spilled in the act of slaughter or by cutting the animal into pieces, or by later contact with water. Since meat eaten otherwise than raw must be kashered in water, the Mishnah implies that meat not prepared by blood may be eaten raw with unwashed hands and remain untouched by impurity.] .” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua [R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.] . Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta [R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.] ? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He [Rebbi in the baraita.] tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified. [Mishnah Taharot 1:9. Bread baked to accompany sancta is prepared for impurity both by the water used in making the dough and by the fact that it is used in the Temple. If the bread is leavened, as required for thanksgiving offerings (Lev. 7:13), and some moisture remains in bubbles inside the loaves, it is considered as if outside. If the loaf is touched by disqualified (4th order impure) food, the moisture becomes impure in the first degree and the loaf actually impure; while totally dry food is not impacted by the touch of disqualified food.] ” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid [“Fluid by his pronouncement” is profane food intentionally prepared by the standards of sancta. “Sanctified fluid” is fluid actually used in the Temple.] ? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there [In Mishnah Parah Chapter 10.] , one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah [Mishnah Taharot 2:2.] which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta [The Mishnah text is R. Joshua’s. Since he formulates it for profane food prepared in the standards of heave, it is clear that he excludes profane food prepared in the standards of sancta; his statement requires equal treatment for actual sancta, possible only in the Temple, and food prepared in the standards of sancta, possible everywhere in the Holy Land at all times (subject to the availability of ashes of the Red Cow.)] . From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta [As stated in the Mishnah there.] . But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta [But nothing implies that this also is valid for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta.] .

16[This is copied from Soṭah 5:2 (Notes 93–106, ס). In this paragraph, the corrector’s changes are copied from Soṭah and have to be accepted.] “Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation [If a person is healed whose body was an original source of impurity, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30 for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure (after the following sundown) at any place other than the Sanctuary.] is not disqualified for heave [Tosephta 3:17.] but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [In the text here “fourth order,” not corrected by the corrector. The translated text here is from Soṭah.] [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse [Mishnah Sotah 5:3 following R. Aqiba.] and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom [Cf. Chapter 1, Note 168.] is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food [Tosephta 3:16; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(8). It is proved that sacra are not in all respects more restrictive than heave. It is remarkable that the Babli does not argue against the thesis of R. Yose since it clearly violates the rule “it is enough if inference drawn from an argument be equal to the premise ” (Babli Bava qamma 25a). According to this rule, a passive impurity in the minor cannot become an active one in the major. The Yerushalmi knows no such rule; it needs the counter-example of R. Joḥanan. The difference between the Talmudim is that for the Yerushalmi, de minore ad majus is a rhetorical device but for the Babli it is part of a meta-logical system (cf. the author’s Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966 pp. 171–196.)] . Rebbi Ḥananiah [In Sotah: R. Ḥiyya, the only possible reading since R. Ḥananiah was a teacher, not a student, of R. Joḥanan.] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse [Lev. 7:19; Sifra Ṣaw Parasha 9. A similar interpretation is given as an additional baraita in the Babli 24a, Pesaḥim 18b/19a, Sotah 29b.] : Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile [A dead reptile from the kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.] . What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile [Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grand-father” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.)] to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: [Lev. 7:19.] Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument [It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zevaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.] ? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices [Tosephta 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical.] .

17“For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure.” “To make sancta impure, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, to disqualify sancta. [Tosephta 3:10; Babli 24a. The text of the Tosephta is: A person who immerses one hand and prepares food in purity, any food prepared until he immerses the other hand is impure since one hand makes the other impure to make sancta impure …” The Tosephta implies that if one hand is impure, in preparation of sancta the other is impure in the second degree for Rebbi, in the third for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah.] ” How? Following Rebbi Joshua? As we have stated there [Mishnah Yadaim 3:2.] , “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree, and one hand makes the other one impure, the words of Rebbi Joshua.” And Rebbi Joshua says more than Rebbi, since what Rebbi said refers to sancta, but Rebbi Joshua refers to heave [Therefore the Mishnah here which treats heave (disqualified by second degree impurity) more leniently than sancta (disqualified by third degree impurity) cannot be R. Joshua’s.] .

18Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they only stated “the other”, not a stranger’s [This refers to the statement that for sancta both hands have to be washed since otherwise one impure hand causes the other hand also to be impure. The problem is whether the other hand, which was not exposed to impurity, is impure in the second degree as impure hand, or of the third as derivative of second degree impurity. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that it is impure in the third degree, R. Joḥanan that it is second.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, even a stranger’s. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a loaf. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan retracted this; when he said so it was before he changed his mind. He only said to make a loaf impure, because of “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree.” Therefore to make a loaf impure everybody agrees that it does not make impure [For anything but the other hand of the person one follows the rule that induced impurity is one degree more than the inducing one. Therefore the second hand may disqualify a loaf of sancta but cannot possibly make it impure.] , since “no second degree creates second degree. [Mishnah Yadaim 3:2.] ”

19MISHNAH: One eats dry food [Which somehow never was wetted and therefore is impervious to impurity. But all food eaten with sacrifices is subject to the rules of impurity.] with dirty hands [Which are second degree impure and therefore have no influence on profane food, only on heave and sancta.] with heave but not with sancta. The deep mourner [Who somehow is not impure in the impurity of the dead.] and one who lacks expiation need immersion for sancta but not for heave [They are forbidden sancta but permitted heave. The immersion before their disability was removed is not counted.] .

20HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos said, do dry foods exist for sancta [Anything used with sacrificial food is susceptible to impurity; its use makes it susceptible.] ? He impales the flat piece [Usually this word denotes a flat pitta bread. But here this cannot be the intended meaning since any kind of bread is made from dough containing water and therefore automatically susceptible to impurity. The reference is to a piece of food which never was in contact with any external fluid.] on the spit [Which as a flat wooden implement is impervious to impurity.] and eats with it an olive-sized bit of meat of heave but not of sancta. [Tosephta 3:12; Babli 24b.] ”

21There we have stated [Mishnah Kelim 8:10.] : “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, … [R. Meïr declares the fig cake impure but R. Jehudah pure. They disagree about the status of the saliva of a pure person. As noted later, saliva in the mouth does not prepare for impurity; otherwise a person never could eat in purity. R. Jehudah holds that saliva in the mouth is immune from impurity; for him the problem does not exist. R. Meïr holds that saliva is a fluid subject to the rules of impurity since the spittle of a person sick with gonorrhea is a source of biblical impurity. Since unwashed hands are impure of second degree, the saliva in his mouth makes them impure in the first degree. If then he again touches the fig cake it will be impure in the second degree.] ” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah [Mishnah Kelim 8:10.] disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure. [The stove is made of clay. Biblically clay vessels become impure if and only if impurity is placed into its concavity with or without touching. The person himself would make the stove impure only if most of his body were inside but since the food in his head is moist and impure, putting his head inside makes the stove biblically impure. If therefore a pure person with food in his mouth puts his head inside the stove, the food becomes impure and makes the person impure.] ” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva [Since as explained in Note 129, saliva in a pure person’s body is pure and does not prepare for impurity.] ! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food [Which somehow never was wetted and therefore is impervious to impurity. But all food eaten with sacrifices is subject to the rules of impurity.] with dirty hands [Which are second degree impure and therefore have no influence on profane food, only on heave and sancta.] with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws [He throws the food into his mouth so it is swallowed immediately without being wetted.] . If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant [Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.] and he forgets.

22There we have stated [Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:1.] : “The deep mourner touches but may not sacrifice nor take his part of meat in the evening. [Usually the deep mourner Cohen, the mourner before the burial, will be impure in the impurity of the dead since it is obligatory for a Cohen to defile himself for the burial of a close relative (Lev.. 21:1–4). In case he is prevented from participating in the burial (usually by being far from the place of burial) and is pure, he still is forbidden before the burial to participate in any religious rite. If he is in Jerusalem and pure, at the time of distribution of the sacrificial meat he is barred from participating even if a short time later he will be able to resume all his functions.] ” There you are saying, he may touch. But here you are saying, he is forbidden to touch. Rebbi Yannai said, here when he put his mind to other things, but there if he did not put his mind to other things [The Mishnah in Zevaḥim permits the deep mourner to touch sancta, but the Mishnah here requires him to immerse himself, which implies that after immersion he still is prohibited touching sancta until sundown. This glaring contradiction can be explained in that the Mishnah here prescribes immersion for a person not directly involved in the Temple service. Babli Zevaḥim 99a.] . Rebbi Yose asked, if he put his mind to other things should he not also be forbidden heave? How is this? As Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: They treated him like one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta [Which is disqualified for sancta but not for heave. “He” is the deep mourner not impure in the impurity of the dead.] . This implies that one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. And here he is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. There we have stated [Mishnah Niddah 10:7.] : “For the House of Shammai are saying, she needs immersion at the end, but the House of Hillel are saying, she does not need immersion at the end. [The Mishnah explains the rules of the purity of women after childbirth. The verse (Lev. 12:2–6) declares her impure in the impurity of menstruation for 7 days after the birth of a son and 14 days after the birth of a daughter. At the end of this period she has to immerse herself. For the following 33 days after the birth of a son and 66 after that of a girl she is impervious to impurity from genital bleeding. She still is barred from the Temple and sancta until she has brought her sacrifice of expiation. The Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on whether after the expiration of her days of purity (i. e., when she again becomes susceptible to impurity) she needs another immersion.] ” Where do we hold? If about eating heave it is difficult for the House of Shammai; if about eating sancta it is difficult for the House of Hillel [In the Mishnah it is stated as unanimous opinion that the deep mourner needs immersion for sancta but not for heave.] . Does she not lack expiation? Do people lacking expiation not need immersion for sancta [Since the verse requires a sacrifice of expiation at the end of her period of purity it should be clear that she is lacking expiation and following the Mishnah here needs immersion for sancta but not for heave.] ? If you are saying that there one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated here the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. If you are saying that here one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated there the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute [In the first case, the statement here about immersion is the House of Hillel’s. In the second case, the reference to the first part is Mishnah Niddah 10:6.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said before Rebbi Mana, we are dealing with heave. There the reason of the House of Shammai is because of the unlearned [Greek ’ιδιώτης.] , that they should not say, we saw a woman losing blood and eating heave [There is no reason in the rules of impurity preventing a woman with genital bleeding to eat heave in the days of her purity. They forbid it only so people should not draw the wrong inferences, not knowing that she is impervious to this kind of impurity.] .

23MISHNAH: One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy about purity of wine and oil the entire year [This is a rule for Temple times since, as explained in the Halakhah, wine and oil for use in the Temple had to be brought from Judea. Therefore all farmers in Judea were careful in preserving the purity of oil and wine.] but about heave {only} at the time of grape and olive harvest [Since every farmer wanted to produce his heave in purity.] . If the time of grape and olive harvest is passed and he [The vulgar, negligent in matters of purity.] brought him [The Cohen, observing the rules of purity.] a barrel of heave wine he should not accept it but let it stay until the next grape harvest. Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy [Since the Temple wine makes him observant of the rules of purity.] . One is trustworthy about wine and oil barrels used for heave [Which in Ex. 22:28 is called דמע .] at the time of grape and olive harvest and sixty days preceding the grape harvest.

24HALAKHAH: “One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy.” Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Because a strip of Samaritans interrupts [This statement must be late Amoraic, after the exclusion of Samaritans from Judaism according to its rabbinic interpretation (cf. Avodah zarah 3:1 Note 27). The correct version is Rashi’s reading in the Babli: “A strip of Gentile territory”, which is impure in the general impurity of lands outside Jewish Palestine; cf. Dikduke Sopherim Ḥagigah 25a Note 8.] . But did we not state [Mishnah Menaḥot 8:3.] , “the second best is Regev in Transjordan”? Without this would not a strip of Samaritans interrupt [This statement must be late Amoraic, after the exclusion of Samaritans from Judaism according to its rabbinic interpretation (cf. Avodah zarah 3:1 Note 27). The correct version is Rashi’s reading in the Babli: “A strip of Gentile territory”, which is impure in the general impurity of lands outside Jewish Palestine; cf. Dikduke Sopherim Ḥagigah 25a Note 8.] ? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it if he brings whole olives [Which never were wetted and therefore are impervious to impurity.] and pounds them there. And in Judea one is trustworthy about the wine but not about the flasks. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Southerner who said, I brought this from Galilee is trustworthy; a Galilean who said, I brought this from Judea is not trustworthy [In both cases the heave is impure unless under control of a trustworthy person.] .

25Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, only heave prepared in the purity of sancta [Since the Mishnah connects purity of food prepared by the non-observant to the preparation of oil and wine for the Temple, it seems rational to restrict the entire Mishnah to food prepared to Temple standards.] . Therefore not in its own. Rebbi Yose said, even if prepared in its own [If R. Jeremiah were correct, one could not say that the standards of heave are more strict than those of sancta.] . A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose [Mishnah Taharot 10:3. The Mishnah prescribes that in preparation of the olive and grape harvests one requests the workers, presumed to be vulgars who do not observe the rules of purity in their daily lives, to immerse themselves in a miqweh. For R. Meïr it is enough if the employer leads them to the miqweh, but R. Yose the Tanna requires that he observe their immersion. This clearly means that the workers in olive or wine presses are not presumed to follow strictly the rules of purity.] : “He has to watch them until they immersed themselves.” Explain it: not in the time of the olive harvest. Could you say not in the time of the grape harvest [Olives which remain intact being harvested may be stored and later be pressed but grapes must be pressed immediately after being harvested. Therefore the Mishnah in Taharot which mentions wine-press workers must refer to the time of the grape harvest.] ? Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, if food prepared in purity touched it before three people used it, at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure, not at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure [Since clay utensils cannot be purified other than being broken, it does not make any sense to consider clay olive and grape presses pure one day and impure the next. Mishnaiot Hagigah 3:4 and Taharot10:3 are incompatible.] ? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it before the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is impure and then pure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was full the food prepared in purity remains pure. If he cleared it, the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was empty the food prepared in purity becomes impure. If he filled it, the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind [There is no formulation able to bridge the conceptual contradictions between the two Mishnaiot.] ?

26[A somewhat fuller version of a text from Eruvin9:4 (Notes 60–69). The implication here is that the Mishnah in Taharot presents a rabbinic restriction. Since this is not a matter of logic, there is no contradiction in the basic legal foundations of both Mishnaiot.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, costos, and hollowed squash, and alley, and convert, and vulgar, are restrictive.

27Costos as we have stated [Mishnah Uqeṣin 3:5. Costos,-i, f., Greek κόστος, an Oriental aromatic plant.] , “costos, and cardamon, and important spices, [The spices mentioned are not food but may be used as additives in the preparation of food.] and benjamin, and asa foetida, and peppers, and safflower cakes, may be bought with tithe money [Money dedicated as Second Tithe which may be spent only on pure food or drink in Jerusalem.] but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive [The Mishnah is stated as an argument, not as a statement, to permit in practice to accept each argument even though this results in two mutually contradictory restrictions.] : they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money.

28Hollowed squash as we have stated [Mishnah Parah 5:3. “Sanctify” means to put some of the ashes of the Red Cow into the water to use it to purify from the impurity of the dead. This water has to be taken from flowing water (Num. 19:17). Since the squash, used as a pot, will absorb of this water, immediately after it has been immersed in flowing water it might be used in the ceremony, but later the water retained in its walls will invalidate new water drawn by the hollowed squash. In the Mishnah, R. Joshua argues that if at the start the squash was acceptable it always should be acceptable, if later it is not acceptable neither should it be at the start (since the point in time when it becomes unacceptable is not well defined.)] : “A hollowed squash which one immersed in water is suitable for sanctification, and one uses it to sanctify until it becomes impure. Once it is impure one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Joshua says, if one uses it to sanctify at the start then also at the end. If one does not use at the end then also not at the start.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end.

29Alley, as we have stated there [Eruvin Mishnah 9:4. If the beam was in place at the start of the Sabbath, an argument is made that in the alley it closes one may continue to carry on this Sabbath.] , “or an alley whose beam was removed, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath.

30Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others [As wine prepared by a Non-Jew, cf. Avodah zarah, Chapters 2–5.] , by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

31Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow [A fellow is a person observing all rules of purity in the absence of a Temple, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.] has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

32Rebbi Yannai said, the youngsters [The sons of R. Ḥiyya the Elder, Ḥizqiah and Jehudah. Since in the absence of a Temple no ruling is required about the meaning of the Mishnah, none is given.] said, only heave prepared in the purity of sancta [Since the Mishnah connects purity of food prepared by the non-observant to the preparation of oil and wine for the Temple, it seems rational to restrict the entire Mishnah to food prepared to Temple standards.] . Therefore not in its own. But I am saying, even if prepared in its own [If R. Jeremiah were correct, one could not say that the standards of heave are more strict than those of sancta.] . Rebbi Yose follows Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Jeremiah the youngsters.

33“Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy [Since the Temple wine makes him observant of the rules of purity.] .” Since he is trustworthy for the sanctum he is trustworthy for heave [Babli 25b.] .

34“One is trustworthy about wine and oil barrels used for heave.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, those in which one heats heave.

35MISHNAH: From Modiin and closer one is trustworthy about clay vessels, but from Modiin and outside one is not trustworthy. How is this? The potter [Who usually is a vulgar, not trustworthy in matters of purity.] who sells pots [The kinds used to cook sancta in. The problem with clay vessels is that they cannot be made pure once they are impure. Now the remainders of meat absorbed in the porous walls of clay vessels become forbidden and impure leftover meat after the time allotted to its consumption and therefore must be broken (Lev.6:21). If only fellows could supply clay vessels for sancta, everybody would have to use expensive metal vessels.] , if he is inside from Modiin then the potter, the pots, and the buyers [The buyer who affirms that he bought the pot at a place closer to Jerusalem than Modiin.] , are trustworthy. If he left he is not trustworthy [Even about pots he sold at a place closer to Jerusalem than Modiin.] .

36HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is about small clay vessels. The Mishnah implies this: “the potter, the pots, and the buyers.” And are pots not small clay vessels [Vessels of daily use, not large vats. Babli 26a.] ?

37If food prepared in purity touched it, from Modiin and closer the fluid made the vessel impure [While the vulgar is to be believed if near Jerusalem he stated that a clay vessel was pure, this refers only to empty vessels. If the vessel contains food, according to R. Joḥanan one says that since he is trustworthy about the vessel he also is trustworthy for its contents. This is denied by R. Simeon ben Laqish; therefore the statement under consideration is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s, not accepted by R. Joḥanan. The text mentions fluid because impure fluids always are impure in the first degree and make clay vessels impure in their interior.] . If it was filled with water, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is trustworthy about the vessel but not trustworthy about the fluid. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trustworthy about both. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy [Since the Temple wine makes him observant of the rules of purity.] .” Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it about one who said, I separated it when I was fellow [The vulgar is not trusted if he affirms that the food was prepared under the supervision of a fellow.] . The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, there is no fellowship for water [He holds that even on a holiday, on which all of Israel are considered fellows, no vulgar is trustworthy to testify about water.] .

38MISHNAH: Tax collectors [Vulgar Jews entering the house of a fellow.] who entered a house, and also tax collectors who returned implements, are trustworthy if they say “we did not touch”. And in Jerusalem they [Every Jew.] are trustworthy about sancta, and on holidays also about heave.

39HALAKHAH: “If tax collectors entered a house, the house is impure. If they are accompanied by a Gentile they are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch. [Mishnah Taharot 7:6. Tosephta Taharot 8:5 explains that even though the Gentile is no formal witness, the tax collectors fear to lie in the presence of people who know better.] ” One may explain this by two explanations. They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch if witnesses know of it [Probably this should be read as “no witnesses know of it.” In this case it would be an application of the principle, “the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits.” If no witness knows that he entered, the house would be impure only by his testimony. But if one believes him in this one also must believe him that he did not touch and therefore the house is pure.] . And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it. One may explain by another explanation: They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch. This is necessary {to be stated} even if witnesses know of it. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it.

40Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Jerusalem, built like a city which combines in fellowship [Ps. 122:3. The Babli 26a quotes another verse.] , the city which confers fellowship on all of Israel [All of Israel are presumed to strictly observe all rules of purity.] . Then even on all other days of the year? Rebbi Ze`ira said, in the time when the tribes ascended [Ps. 122:4, the holidays of pilgrimage.] .

41MISHNAH: If one [A fellow grocer selling wine or a fellow baker selling dough to vulgars on the holiday. On the holiday itself the touch of the vulgar does not make impure. For R. Jehudah therefore at the end of the holiday everything is pure but for the Sages the impurity only is suspended during the holiday but re-appears after the holiday if the remainders of wine or dough are offered for sale.] opens a barrel, or one starts to sell his dough, on the holiday, Rebbi Jehudah says, he may finish, but the Sages say, he may not finish. After the holiday one proclaims the purity of the courtyard [One alerts the Cohanim and Levites that following the Sages, all utensils which were used during the holiday must be purified by immersion in a miqweh after the holiday.] . If the holiday was over on a Friday one did not go over it because of the honor of the Sabbath [So not to interfere with the preparations for the Sabbath.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, also not if the holiday was over on Thursday since the priests are not free [On the holiday an enormous amount of ashes collected on the altar which has to be removed on the first day after the end of the holiday. There would be no manpower for the purifying of the courtyards.] .

42HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted its end because of its beginning. Since if you would tell him that he may not finish he would not open [If the grocer is not sure that he may sell the entire contents of a new barrel, nobody would expect him to supply wine or oil towards the end of the holiday.] . Let him not open! Then he diminishes the enjoyment of the holiday.

43Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? About a wine barrel. But about an oil barrel everybody agrees that he does not finish. What does he do? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he pours it out. Bar Qappara stated, he breaks it. However Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated, he leaves it for the next holiday [R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul is a contemporary of R. Ḥiyya and Bar Qappara. His statement is the only one agreeing with R. Joḥanan’s statement since oil in contrast to wine may be kept in open barrels for a greater amount of time. Therefore his statement must be practice. R. Ḥiyya’s statement seems impractical since he eliminates the now impure oil but retains the impure barrel, whereas Bar Qappara sees to it that the barrel is purified by breaking it.] .

44Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If a holiday falls on a Friday, one eats making Sabbath after the holiday like the holiday [The reference is to the last day of a holiday. If that day is a Friday, on the following Sabbath by necessity one eats the food of the holiday. Therefore on this Sabbath the vulgar still must be considered as a fellow and his touch does not cause impurity.] . Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita states this: The eve of Passover is like Passover [Since the Pesaḥ sacrifice on the 14 of Nisan follows holiday rules.] , the day of slaughter [The day following the one-day festival of Pentecost, when the pilgrims bring all sacrifices which cannot be brought on the holiday itself. Therefore the day must have the status of the holiday itself to allow full participation of all Jews.] is like Pentecost. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, we also stated more than this: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also not if the holiday was over on Thursday since the priests are not free [For R. Jehudah the Friday following a holiday of Thursday always has the status of the holiday which by the argument of Note 193 implies that the following Sabbath also has the same status.] .”

45MISHNAH: How does one proclaim the purity of the courtyard [One alerts the Cohanim and Levites that following the Sages, all utensils which were used during the holiday must be purified by immersion in a miqweh after the holiday.] ? One immerses all vessels in the Temple [After the end of the holiday. The Mishnah in the Babli makes it clear that the purification is because of the impurity of the vulgar which only was suspended, not eliminated during the holiday. Since the Mishnah in the printed Yerushalmi is not from the ms. on which the text of the Halakhah is based, one cannot infer too much from differences in the text of the Mishnah. However, since the Halakhah strictly follows the text of the Mishnah here and its first paragraph makes it clear that the reason for the purification is that one suspects that in the throng of holiday traffic a vessel might have become impure by biblical standards it is clear that the Yerushalmi does not accept the argument of the Babli. This supports the thesis that the picture of relations between Pharisees and non-Pharisees given in the Babli cannot be accepted as historical fact; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.] . There were seconds and thirds, that in case the first ones became impure one would bring the seconds in their place. All vessels in the Temple need immersion except the golden altar and the copper altar since they are like soil [And therefore not susceptible to impurity.] , the words of Rebbi Eliezer, but the Sages are saying, because they are plated [Therefore one never touches the altar itself but only the cover which cannot transmit impurity to the altar.] .

46HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon [While the expression “sprinkled upon” refers to water with the ashes of the Red Cow needed to purify the impurity of the dead, clearly here it cannot refer to a procedure that extends for a week but is taken as general expression for purifying biblical impurity. However, if the immersion is for biblical impurity, the vessel returns to a status of purity only after the following sundown. Then the question arises, how was the Temple service performed for the remainder of the day of immersion if there were no pure vessels available? The answer is given in the Mishnah, that there were reserve vessels available which had not been used during the holiday.] . Then should we not suspect all of them [The answer given in the preceding Note seems to be invalid since one refers to pre-existing biblical impurity. Then the second and third vessels should also be immersed and not only after a holiday but every day of the year. While the second objection may answered that daily immersion clearly is impractical, the first objection remains unanswered.] ? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure [A woman after childbirth or after an extended period of menstrual impurity regains her right to participate in sacra only by a sacrifice of a couple of birds, a “nest”. These sacrifices have to be brought after the woman was purified by immersion in a way which shields the Cohanim (Mishnah Šeqalim 6:8), here one refers to a Cohen who counsels a woman still impure as zavah, whose body fluids are primary sources of biblical impurities, on the ways of purification.] . Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status [Which are impure in the first degree by rabbinical convention only. Then it is reasonable to restrict the general immersion to holidays since at all other days precautions can be taken that such a case does not occur in the Temple.] . There we have stated [Mishnah Taharot 4:9. The Mishnah seems to imply that the case envisaged by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya cannot occur since possible rabbinic impurity does not cause certain impurity of implements known to be pure.] : “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure.” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta.

47It was stated [Tosephta 3:35.] : “If the table became impure one immerses it at its time, even on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, immediately.” [The table in the Sanctuary is movable, therefore it is an implement and subject to impurity, e. g., by contact with a dead reptile. In the case of biblical impurity it should be impossible to return it to its place before sundown; this is R. Meïr’s position. The Sages require that it be returned immediately, as soon as it is no longer impure even if it is not yet pure, since the verse requires that the shew-bread be “always” on the table, i. e., every day and certainly at sundown and sunrise.] You find to say, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it makes two breads impure; in the rabbis’ opinion it only makes one bread impure [The biblically impure table makes the bread it touches biblically impure. For the rabbis the higher degrees of impurity are rabbinic (or rather, conventional), to be disregarded in the Sanctuary. For R. Meïr one accepts at least one degree of conventional impurity (but not all three additional ones.)] . Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose, even according to Rebbi Meïr it makes only one bread impure. Explain it if it became impure by fluids of questionable status [If the impurity of the table from the start was not clearly biblical, R. Meïr accepts the rabbis’ point of view.] . “Once they immersed the candelabrum. The Sadducees said, look the Pharisees immerse the ball of the sun. [Tosephta 3:35.] [They object to conventional extensions of the notions of impurity.] ”

48There we have stated [Mishnah Tamid 3:4.] : “They entered the storage room of the vessels and brought out 93 silver and gold vessels.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 93 Names written in the Chapters of Haggai, Zacharia, and Malachi [“Name” usually is reserved for the Tetragrammaton. Here certainly “Zacharia” should be deleted since his text contains 132 times the Tetragrammaton. The count is correct if one considers only Haggai and Malachi and also allows Elohim as a Name.] . Rebbi Ḥuna said, I computed them and they are only 83, corresponding to the 83 signatures written in Ezra [Those mentioned in Nehemiah 10.] where each of them declared the Unity of the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and signed. Some want to say, corresponding to the day when the daily sacrifices were the most, corresponding to thirteen bulls, fourteen sheep, two rams, and one goat [All 93 vessels are only needed on the first day of Tabernacles.] .

49Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold [Ex. 30:3.] , etc. The Torah called it real estate [Since the Torah mentions its roof and its walls, it is described as a house.] . So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square [Ex.30:3 (the golden altar), 27:1 (the brass altar).] . Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis [These rabbis are not mentioned in the Mishnah. The argument is that the Sages mentioned in the Mishnah could use R. Eliezer’s argument in the inverse direction to establish their rule.] , the altar is of wood, three cubits its height [Ez. 41:22. The altar there is called “table”, a movable implement.] , etc. The Torah called it movable [In the Torah both altars are movable, to be carried travelling in the desert.] . So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it [If the cover could not stand alone it cannot be separated from the implement it covers which is a rectangular box of wood, enclosing a volume and therefore susceptible of impurity.] ? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar [The only honest gold denar minted during the military anarchy (in the 240’s by Gordianus III.) The implication is that the gold cover could stand by itself; the objection cannot be sustained.] Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it [The previous argument can be reinforced; the gold is the essential carrier of the altar and the wood is ancillary.] . This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke [Ex. 30:1.] is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense [No fire was used on the golden top of the altar (which if used would have melted the top in no time). The golden top transformed the incense into smoke.] . But is it not like a table [Latin tabula.] made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure [In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.] ? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims [The table was not fixed; it cannot be considered a fixed part of the building. In addition, the rim around the table makes it a container which is “impure”. But once a permanent Temple was built, the altars are fixed and should be “pure” as fixtures of the building.] ? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure [In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.] ? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there, [Mishnah Kelim24:9.] “there are three baskets [A basket for manure may become impure by body fluids, a box for straw only becomes impure by the impurity of the dead, a cover for camels is pure.] ”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales [Since the Mishnah classifies the baskets by their use, also here the altar has to be classified by the “impure” incense.] .