Chagigah 18b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A. The Sages made “levels,” one above the other, in the safeguarding of purity of second tithe, teruma, sacred meat, and the waters of purification of the red heifer [to sprinkle from them upon those impure through contact with the dead].

The levels they made are in three areas of purity:

The first: purity of the hands.

The second: a person’s intention of purification at immersion.

The third: purity of the garments of people who eat teruma, tithe, and sacred offerings, and those who handle the waters of purification.

All these “levels” are rabbinic enactments.

Our Mishna mentioned these levels of purity here, concerning the laws of the Festival, since there are differences in the laws of these purities between the days of the Festival and the rest of the year, as will be explained in the following chapter.

B. King Solomon decreed concerning the hands that they should be “impure,” and that they should immerse them for eating sacred offerings.

C. In later generations, the Sages decreed concerning several things that they render the hands that touch them impure [and they are listed in the first chapter of Shabbat, page 13 and onward].

And in still later generations, they decreed impurity even upon ordinary hands, even when no impurity whatsoever was known concerning them, because the hands are “occupied.”

[Rashi, in tractate Shabbat 14a, explained that the hands touch filthy places, such as one’s flesh and the place of filth, and it is disgraceful for impurity that one eat with soiled hands; therefore they decreed impurity upon them as though they had touched impurity.]

D. The Sages made all impurities of the hands according to the law of “second-degree impurity,” which disqualifies the teruma that it touches and renders a sacred offering impure, making it third-degree impurity. And when the sacred offering that has become “third-degree impurity” touches another sacred offering, it makes it “fourth-degree impurity with regard to sacred offerings,” and thereby disqualifies it.

E. It will further be explained in our sugya: the law of second tithe—whether it is like teruma, to be disqualified through contact with second-degree impurity [or to be disqualified through contact with hands that have the status of second-degree impurity], or whether it is like ordinary produce and does not become impure through contact with second-degree impurity or through contact with the hands.

A. And these are the levels that the Sages made with regard to purity of the hands:

Hands are washed,

the fact that the hands can be purified by washing them with water alone, without the need to immerse them in a ritual bath of forty seahs, is only

for

the matter of

ordinary produce, and for

the matter of

second tithe

and

for

the matter of

teruma.

But

if

before

eating [Rashi]

a sacred offering

washing the hands is not sufficient; rather,

they immerse

the hands in a ritual bath of forty seahs.

And immersion of the hands for a sacred offering is a “level in sacred offerings” that the Sages made with regard to purity of the hands.

But

if

with regard to

touching the waters of

purification [the water consecrated with the ashes of the red heifer in order to sprinkle from it upon those impure through contact with the dead], the Sages made a more stringent level —

water sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer in order to sprinkle it upon those impure through contact with the dead], the Sages instituted an even more stringent level —

For

if his hands became impure—

with ordinary hand impurity, which renders only the hands impure—

the entire

body

becomes impure

with regard to touching the waters of purification. For if he touched the waters of purification with his body, he disqualified them until he immerses his entire body. The purification of his hands is not sufficient.

B. And these are the levels that the Sages made with regard to intention at immersion:

If

a person immersed

for

ordinary produce, and

he

was established

[intended] to become purified

for

the purpose of

ordinary produce,

meaning that through his immersion he intended to establish his body in purity for the purpose of ordinary produce—he is

forbidden for second tithe

as the immersion performed with such an intention is not sufficient to purify him with regard to second tithe.

And if

he immersed for second tithe

and

was established

to become purified only

for second tithe

—he is

forbidden for teruma, because the level of teruma is a more stringent level than the level of second tithe.

And if he

And if

he immersed for teruma

and

was established for

the purpose of

teruma,

he is

forbidden for sacred offerings, because sacred offerings have a more stringent level than teruma.

And if he

And if

he immersed for sacred offerings

and

was established for

the purpose of

sacred offerings,

he is

forbidden for

the waters of

purification, because purification has a more stringent level than it.

, because ḥatat has a more stringent level than sacrificial food.

But the reverse is different:

If

he immersed for the more stringent

and was established for it, he is

permitted for the less stringent. For example, if he immersed and was established for the waters of purification, he is permitted for sacred offerings.

А если

And if

he immersed but was not established

at all—that is, he intended only for ordinary washing—his law is

as though he had not immersed.

And in the Gemara it will be explained what the tan���� teaches us with this law.

C. And these are the levels that the Sages made with regard to purity of the garments:

A. A person may eat ordinary food both when he is impure and when the food is impure, but a person who conducts himself in this manner is called an “am ha-aretz.”

B. The “perushim” are those people who were careful to eat even their ordinary food in purity. That is, they were careful that the food itself should be pure, and they were careful that their bodies should be pure.

Because of this, the perushim were careful regarding the purity of everything belonging to them, so that their ordinary food would not become impure.

C. But there are those who conduct themselves at a higher level of purity and eat their ordinary food “with the purity of teruma.”

That is, they are careful regarding the purity of their food, even though it is ordinary food, as though it were teruma. And if, assuming that it were teruma, this food would be impure, they do not eat it, even though insofar as it is ordinary food it is entirely pure.

For example, food touched by second-degree impurity: if it is teruma, it becomes third-degree impurity, whereas if it is ordinary food, it does not become third-degree impurity, because there is no concept of third-degree impurity with regard to ordinary food; rather, it is entirely pure. Nevertheless, those who ate their food with the purity of teruma refrained from eating it, as though it were impure teruma.

And they did so in order to train themselves in the purity of teruma, and as a result they were careful regarding the purity of everything belonging to them, so that it would not become impure even with an impurity that disqualifies only teruma.

D. There were those who added purity and were careful to eat their ordinary food with the purity of sacred offerings, whose purity is more stringent than that of teruma [for example: food touched by third-degree impurity, which is not disqualified by becoming fourth-degree impurity unless it was sacred meat; and they did not eat ordinary food touched by third-degree impurity].

The garments of an am ha-aretz,

who are not careful to eat their ordinary food in purity, are considered as though they were impure with the impurity of

“a support for impurity” for

the purpose of

the perushim [those who eat their ordinary food only with the purity of ordinary food].

[who eat their non-sacred food only with the purity of non-sacred food]. "

The “impurity of a support for impurity” by Torah law applies to something upon which a man with a discharge or a menstruant sat or lay, and it is the most severe impurity among the “primary sources of impurity” [apart from a corpse, which is the “primary source of primary sources of impurity”], since it renders a person impure in such a way as to render his garments impure as well. That is, it renders the person who touches it impure in such a manner that not only is he himself impure, but he also renders his garments impure!

Whereas the other “primary sources of impurity” render only the person who touches them impure, and he becomes “first-degree impurity,” but he does not render his garments impure; rather, only food and drink that he touches.

And the reason that the garments of an am ha-aretz are considered impure with the impurity of a support for impurity for the perushim is that we are concerned lest the wife of the am ha-aretz, when she was a menstruant, sat upon those garments, and they became the support of the menstruant, which is a primary source of impurity.

Whereas

the garments of the perushim—

as impure with the impurity of

a support for impurity

they are

for

the purpose of priests

who eat teruma.

And this is a level with regard to teruma: we are concerned about the garments of the perushim, that they became the support of a menstruant, even though the perushim who eat ordinary food with the purity of ordinary food protect their garments from the support of a menstruant, which also renders ordinary food impure.

The garments of those who eat teruma, a support for impurity

they are

for

the purpose of those who eat

sacred offerings.

The garments

of those who eat

sacred offerings, a support for impurity

they are

for

the purpose of the waters of

purification.

And everything stated here consists of rabbinic levels, for they said: The safeguarding of the purity of these is not considered safeguarding with regard to those. And since these are found among those, it is as though they did not safeguard them; therefore they decreed concerning their garments, lest a menstruant’s wife sat upon them, and they are the support of the menstruant.

And the Mishna adds and explains that in this matter honor is not shown to any person [Meiri], and therefore:

Yosef ben Yo'ezer was a pious man among the priesthood,

and he ate terumot in purity [and he was also the nasi. Meiri],

but

nevertheless

his cloth

was impure with the impurity of

a support for impurity with regard to sacred offerings.

Yohanan ben Gudgeda used to eat

his ordinary food

with the purity of sacred offerings all his days.

But

nevertheless

his cloth

was considered impure with the impurity of

a support for impurity with regard to

one who touches the waters of

purification; [but not with regard to sacred offerings, for there is no difference between one who eats ordinary food with the purity of sacred offerings and sacred offerings themselves, as is explained in the Gemara].

Гемара:

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Hands are washed for ordinary produce and for second tithe:

And we raise an objection: Is it so that

ordinary produce and second tithe

—

do they require the washing of the hands

at all?!

After all, hand impurity has the status of second-degree impurity, and second-degree impurity renders impure only sacred offerings and teruma, as is explained in the Mishna that the Gemara cites; therefore, what need is there for washing the hands for ordinary produce and second tithe?!

And we raise a contradiction

to this from the Mishna in tractate Bikkurim:

For we learned there:

Teruma and first fruits:

A.

Are liable

non-priests

for them—

if they ate them intentionally—

death

at the hands of Heaven.

B.

And

non-priests who ate teruma and first fruits unintentionally are liable to pay the principal, with an additional payment of

a fifth

of the principal that they pay.

C.

And non-priests are forbidden

to eat teruma and first fruits, with a prohibition, as it is stated: “And no non-priest shall eat sacred offerings.”

D.

And they—

teruma and first fruits, once they have been given to a priest—

are the property of a priest,

for they are considered his complete property, to betroth a woman with them and to purchase with their value slaves, land, and impure animals [Rashi].

E.

And they are annulled

[when mixed with ordinary produce] only

in one hundred and one

[one hundred of permitted substance corresponding to one of prohibited substance]. But with less than this, they are not annulled; rather, all the ordinary produce is forbidden to non-priests, and it is not like other prohibitions, which are annulled by an ordinary majority, one to two.

F.

And they require—

teruma and first fruits—

the washing of the hands

before one touches them, since the Sages decreed upon the hands that they have the status of second-degree impurity. And every second-degree impurity disqualifies teruma.

G.

And

one who became impure with a Torah impurity and immersed

requires the setting of the sun

of the same day on which he immersed, for only once that day has passed and the sun has set does he become pure to eat teruma and first fruits.

These are,

all the laws stated, applicable exclusively

to teruma and first fruits, unlike second tithe

.

Second tithe may be eaten by non-priests; therefore death and a fifth do not apply to its eating. And the fifth that one must add when redeeming second tithe is not the subject of this beraita, since teruma and first fruits are not redeemed at all.

Likewise, second tithe is not the property of its owner, enabling him to purchase with it whatever he wishes, since second tithe may be used only for eating, drinking, and anointing.

Likewise, an impure person who immersed and came to eat second tithe does not require the setting of the sun; rather, once he has immersed, he eats second tithe.

Thus we have that this Mishna maintains that second tithe does not require washing of the hands for its eating,

and all the more so with ordinary produce

there is no need for washing of the hands for it. And since this is so:

Second tithe presents a difficulty,

for our Mishna states that it requires washing of the hands,

against second tithe

in the Mishna in Bikkurim, which makes clear that it does not require it?!

And likewise,

ordinary produce presents a difficulty,

for our Mishna requires washing of the hands for it,

against ordinary produce

in that Mishna, which implies that it is exempt from washing?!

And we explain:

Granted, second tithe against second tithe is not difficult,

for one can distinguish:

This—

the Mishna in Bikkurim, which does not require washing of the hands for second tithe—

is Rabbi Meir

.

And this—

our Mishna, which requires washing of the hands for second tithe—

is the Rabbis,

who maintain that every second-degree impurity, including the hands, disqualifies even second tithe, and not only teruma and sacred offerings [as Rabbi Meir maintains. Tosafot].

And we find the method of Rabbi Meir, who does not require washing of the hands for maaser, in tractate Parah,

as we learned in it:

there:

Anyone who requires immersion in water by rabbinic enactment,

Every person who is impure with an impurity that is only by rabbinic enactment, and is not an impurity from the Torah, and it was the Sages who required him to enter the water and become pure—and included in this is one whose hands are impure with hand-impurity, which is nothing other than rabbinic—his status is that of a “second [degree] of impurity.” Therefore he:

a.

Renders sacred things impure

making them a third [degree] of impurity, and when the third [degree] of impurity touches another sacred thing, it disqualifies it.

b.

Disqualifies teruma [

but that teruma does not render another teruma impure, for there is only a third [degree] of impurity in teruma; therefore it is called “disqualifies” and not “renders impure”].

c.

And it is permitted

even for eating

ordinary food and second maaser,

second [maaser],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages prohibit—

one who became impure with a rabbinic impurity, including the hands—

with regard to second maaser

even by mere touching.

And our Mishna, which required washing for second maaser, is in accordance with the Sages. And the Mishna in tractate Bikkurim, which does not require washing of the hands for second maaser, is in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rather,

what we raised as a contradiction between the Mishnayot from

ordinary food concerning ordinary food—

still

is difficult?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here—

our Mishna, which required washing for ordinary food—is speaking

with regard to eating,

and even for eating produce of ordinary food, and not specifically bread, washing of the hands is required.

Here—

the Mishna in tractate Parah, which does not require washing for ordinary food—is speaking

with regard to touching

alone.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised an objection against it:

Behold,

the Sages did not disagree with Rabbi Meir

in the Mishna in Parah—

except

with regard to

“eating maaser!”

For even according to the Sages, the prohibition against eating without washing of the hands applies only to eating second maaser, for one who became impure with a rabbinic impurity, including the hands—[here the Gemara retracts its previous understanding of the position of the Sages concerning maaser, that it applies even to touching].

But with regard to touching second maaser

second,

and with regard to eating ordinary food—

everyone

does not disagree

that hand-impurity does not prevent it.

For since the Mishna did not say, “And the Sages disqualify” concerning second maaser, but rather, “And the Sages prohibit” concerning second maaser, it follows that even with regard to second maaser, the Sages prohibited only eating, and did not speak of the disqualification of touching.

And it follows from all this that they prohibited eating only with regard to second maaser; but with regard to ordinary food, even eating is permitted.

And since this is so, our Mishna, which required washing for ordinary food—even if you interpret it as referring to eating—will be difficult: In accordance with whom is it?!

Rather

It may be said that

this one,

this is our Mishna,

and this one,

and this is the Mishna in tractate Parah, both of them are speaking

with regard to eating:

And now the Gemara retracts its answer to the question of maaser concerning maaser, which it answered at the beginning of the sugya: This one is Rabbi Meir, and this one is the Sages.

Rather, our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds in the Mishna in tractate Parah that washing is not required for second maaser, even for eating, and all the more so for ordinary food.

And

what our Mishna said, that washing is required for maaser and for ordinary food—

is not difficult!

Here—

our Mishna, which required washing for ordinary food and for second maaser, is speaking

with regard to eating bread [

bread], for the Sages required washing of the hands before eating bread, even bread of ordinary food, because of “the association with teruma,” so that those who eat teruma would become accustomed to washing their hands before eating teruma [Hullin 106a].

Here—

the Mishnayot in tractate Bikkurim and in tractate Parah, in which Rabbi Meir did not require washing for maaser and for ordinary food, are speaking

with regard to eating produce [

eating produce].

For Rav Nahman said: Anyone who washes his hands for produce is one of the “haughty of spirit””,

who pretends to conduct himself with piety in a matter in which there is no obligation.

The Sages taught: One who washes his hands:

If

he intended

by their washing to purify them, then

his hands are pure.

But if

he did not intend

to purify them, then

his hands

continue to be

impure.

And likewise, one who immerses his hands

in a ritual bath containing forty seah:

If

he intended

to purify them, then

his hands are pure;

but if

he did not intend

to purify them, then

his hands are impure.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught: Whether he intended or whether he did not intend—

his hands are pure?!

Rav Nahman said: It is not difficult:

Here—

where it teaches that even if he did not intend, his hands are pure—

for

eating bread of

ordinary food.