Chagigah 19a — the Talmud in English

Here –

for it teaches: “If he intended [this], his hands are pure.” -

for

the eating of

for eating

second tithe.

And from where do you say this,

from where do you have to say

that ordinary produce –

does not require intention

for purification?

For we learned

in tractate Mikvaot:

a wave that was detached [יצא מן הים] [that emerged from the sea],

from the sea,

and it contained forty se’a, and the wave fell

the wave

upon the person and upon the vessels –

these are

pure.

That is, an act of immersion is not required, to enter into the water; rather, even a wave of water that fell upon the person or upon the vessels is considered an immersion.

It teaches

in this Mishna

“person,” analogous to “vessels.”

And from here we have to learn:

Just as vessels

become pure even though

they do not intend

to become pure, for the wave fell upon them without the person intending to immerse them,

so too a person

becomes pure even though

he does not intend

to become pure.

And it follows from here that ordinary produce does not require intention for purification.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

And from what [do you know this],

from where do you assume that the Mishna in tractate Mikvaot is speaking of immersing vessels without intention to purify them?!

Perhaps

it is speaking

a

of a person who

sits and awaits when the wave will be detached

and come upon the person and the vessels, so that they may be immersed in it, through its waters falling upon them, and thereby become pure –

this is what we are dealing with.

And

And if so, you should infer in the opposite manner: we learned

“vessels,” analogous to “person.”

Just as a person is “capable of intention”

to become pure,

so too vessels

become pure only where

he intends for them

to purify them.

And if you would say,

to prove that the Mishna is not speaking of a person awaiting the wave’s fall, since if it were speaking

of one who sits and awaits

to purify them –

what is there to say?!

What novelty is there in the fact that the vessels become pure?

This is not so. For there is a novelty in the law of the Mishna, in that the wave purifies:

Since

it might enter your mind to say

I might have thought that it is necessary

to decree

that the wave should not purify,

lest one come to immerse in a “watercourse of rain.”

Perhaps people will err and come to immerse in a channel of rainwater, in which the rainwater flows from the top of the mountain to its bottom. The water flowing there is unfit for immersion, since it is flowing and does not collect in one place without movement. Rainwater purifies when it is stationary, whereas seawater or spring water purifies even when flowing.

Alternatively,

it might enter your mind to say:

let us decree

against

“heads”

of the wave, that they should not purify,

lest it be confused

with

“arches”

of the wave, which do not purify.

The way of a wave is that it rises and lifts itself up, and afterward bends down, appearing like an arch.

The ends of the wave, which fall and touch the ground, are called “heads,” and these waters are fit for immersion, because they are considered as though they were a ritual bath located upon the ground.

But the water at the height of the wave’s arch is called “arches,” and is not fit for immersion, for the reason that will be explained below: the water at the height of the wave’s arch is considered a “ritual bath in the air,” and therefore is unfit for immersion.

And I might have said that we should decree not to immerse even in the “heads,” as a decree lest people come to immerse in the “arches.”

It teaches us that we do not decree.

And the Gemara explains the reason that one does not immerse at the height of the wave:

And from where do you say

from where do we have to say

that one does not immerse in “arches”?

From this

that it was taught: one immerses in the “heads,” but one does not immerse in the “arches” –

because one does not immerse in the air.

And the waters found at the height of the wave’s arch are considered to be in the air, and not upon the ground, and the Torah did not render a “ritual bath of air” fit for immersion.

And since this is the novelty of the Mishna, one cannot learn from here about intention to become pure through immersion.

Rather,

one should learn that immersion for ordinary produce does not require intention to become pure,

from that which we learned

in tractate Makhshirin:

Foods do not receive impurity unless they were previously “prepared” to receive impurity, by liquid being placed upon them.

This matter is learned from the verse: “And when water is placed upon seed, and afterward something from their carcass [of the creeping creatures] falls upon it – it is impure for you.” And from here the Sages learned that if the seeds [or other foods] were not “prepared” by water [or liquids] being placed upon them, they do not receive impurity.

And likewise the Sages, of blessed memory, expounded: liquids prepare food or fruit to receive impurity only if it was acceptable in the eyes of the owner of the fruit that the water should be upon them. But if he is not pleased that the liquids be placed upon his fruit, they do not become “prepared” to receive impurity.

Fruit that fell

by themselves

into a water channel, and one stretched out –

one whose hands are impure –

his hands into the water channel,

and took them

the fruit from the water, behold:

1.

his hands are pure,

even though he did not intend to purify them.

2.

And

and those

fruit,

which fell by themselves into the water –

are not subject to “when water is placed.”

The fruit was not prepared to receive impurity through water being placed upon it, since the water came upon it against his will.

And if,

when he stretched out his hands to take the fruit, his intention was also to place them there

so that his hands would be washed –

then:

1.

his hands are pure.

2.

And

and even

the fruit –

is subject to “when water is placed.”

For he revealed through his intention that he wanted the fruit to fall into the water, so that through their falling he would wash his hands.

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Naḥman,

to his statement that ordinary produce does not require intention, from our Mishna, in which we learned:

An impure person

who immerses

in order to purify himself

for

the eating of

for eating ordinary produce, and established himself [נתכוון] [intended] to purify himself

[intended] to purify himself

for ordinary produce,

he is

forbidden to

eat

forbidden to eat second tithe.

And it follows that even one who immerses for ordinary produce, only if he

established himself

with the intention of his immersion being for purification,

only then

is he pure. But if he

did not establish himself

with the intention of becoming pure,

his immersion did not

benefit him. And it implies that he is not pure even for eating ordinary produce?!

And we reject this:

this is what the tanna says:

one who immerses for ordinary produce without intention to become pure is pure for eating ordinary produce. But

even though he established himself for ordinary produce,

he is still

forbidden for second tithe,

until he immerses with intention to become pure.

And what we learned, “he established himself for ordinary produce,” is not because otherwise he would not be pure even for ordinary produce. Rather, it teaches us that regarding second tithe, nothing is effective unless there was intention to become pure for second tithe; but intention to become pure with regard to ordinary produce is insufficient to purify him for eating second tithe.

Further,

Rava raised an objection

to Rav Naḥman, from another teaching in our Mishna:

He immersed but did not establish himself –

it is as though he did not immerse.

Is it not as though he did not immerse at all!

And he is not pure even for ordinary produce?!

Rav Naḥman answered:

No,

this is not the explanation of the Mishna. Rather, he is

as though he did not immerse for second tithe.

But he did immerse [הועילה לו טבילתו] [his immersion was effective]

[his immersion was effective]

for ordinary produce.

even though he established himself for ordinary produce he did not establish himself for second tithe, and it implies that when he establishes himself for ordinary produce, there is more reason to say that it should be effective for second tithe than when he did not establish himself. This is the opposite of that reasoning. See his words in the Gemara, s.v. “This is what he says.”

And the Gemara brings that

he,

Rava,

thought: Rav Naḥman is merely putting him off,

and his explanation of our Mishna is not true, but rather it is as it appears: it is as though he did not immerse at all, and the immersion was not effective even for ordinary produce.

But afterward

he went out,

Rava went out,

searched and found [חיפש ומצא] [searched and found]

a beraita that explains our Mishna in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s words:

For it was taught: he immersed but did not establish himself

at all,

he is forbidden for second tithe and permitted for ordinary produce.

Rabbi Elazar said: he immersed

in water, and emerged

and came up

from it while he was still wet [Tosafot], this person

establishes himself

now

for the purification of

whatever

for the purity of whatever he wishes [תרומה או קודש] [teruma or sacred food],

even though at the time of the immersion itself he immersed without specification.

An objection was raised:

he was immersing and

one of his feet was still in

within the

water,

and

he established himself for a lesser matter

among the stringencies that the Sages stated, he

establishes himself for a more stringent matter.

But

he came up

from the water,

he no longer establishes himself.

Is it not

when he came up from the water

that he does not establish himself at all!

For even when he did not initially establish himself for a lesser matter, he no longer establishes himself, since intention is effective only at the time of the immersion itself. And this is a difficulty against Rabbi Elazar?!

And we answer:

No!

Rather, even what they said, “he came up from the water, he no longer establishes himself,” is speaking in the same manner as the first clause, namely, when he had already established himself for a lesser matter and attached himself to it; and this is what it says:

While

one of his feet is within the water,

even though he had established himself

already for a lesser matter, he again

establishes himself

for a more stringent matter, because as long as one of his feet is in the water, it is still considered an immersion.

But if he has already

come up

from the water, the law is as follows:

If he did not establish himself

at the time of immersion for anything, he

establishes

himself now for whatever he wishes, in accordance with Rabbi Elazar’s opinion.

And if he established himself

already at the time of immersion for a lesser matter and attached himself to it, he again

does not establish himself

for a more stringent matter.

And we explain:

Who is the tanna [of the teaching]: while one of his feet is in the water

he establishes himself, because as long as his foot still touches the water, it is still considered the beginning of immersion?

Rabbi Pedat said: it is Rabbi Judah.

For we learned

in tractate Mikvaot:

A ritual bath that was measured, and contained exactly forty se’a [בצמצום] [precisely],

[precisely],

and two people descended and immersed one after the other –

then

the first,

who immersed in a ritual bath containing the requisite measure, is

pure.

the

And

the second,

who immersed in it, is

impure,

since the first reduced the measure of the ritual bath by the amount of water upon him.

Rabbi Judah said: if

the second immersed when

the feet of the first were still touching

still

the water –

the second is also pure.

Because the water upon the first is still connected to the ritual bath, and we say: “draw down,” draw the water upon him down into the ritual bath.

It follows that according to Rabbi Judah’s opinion, whenever the foot of the one immersing is still touching the water, and the water upon him is connected to the ritual bath, this is like the beginning of immersion. Since the water upon him joins the ritual bath, the person’s body—which is located within the water upon his body—is as though it is now immersing in the ritual bath and has not yet emerged from it. [According to the Turei Even]

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

The dispute

between Rabbi Judah and the Sages in the Mishna in Mikvaot—according to Rabbi Judah, “draw down” is said—applies only

to rabbinic stringencies,

when he immerses only because of a stringency instituted by the Sages, whereas according to Torah law he is not impure.

But

one who immerses

from impurity

of the Torah

for purification –

according to everyone, the second is impure.

Even when the feet of the first are touching the water.

And we learn from his words that the Sages did not validate [the immersion] even for rabbinic stringencies.

And this is Rabbi Pedat’s [opinion],

for he too holds that according to the Sages the second person’s immersion is ineffective even for rabbinic stringencies.

Some say: Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: the dispute

between Rabbi Judah and the Sages applies specifically

from impurity

of the Torah

for purification.

But for rabbinic stringencies –

according to everyone, the second is also pure.

And this disagrees

with this statement of Rav Naḥman, with

Rabbi Pedat’s [statement].

For Rabbi Pedat holds that the Sages did not permit it even for rabbinic stringencies.

Ulla said: I asked [ב"ח, שאלתי] [according to the correct version, “I asked”]

[in the standard printed text: I asked]

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

According to Rabbi Judah,

who says that whenever the feet of the first are touching the water, we say “draw down,” thereby rendering the water of the ritual bath below fit for immersion in it –

what is the law regarding immersing needles and small tubes [כמין מזלג קטן מאד שטווין בו זהב] [a kind of very small fork with which gold is spun]

[a very small type of fork used for spinning gold]

upon the head of

the person immersing

first,

while his feet are touching the water and the water upon his body is connected to the water of the ritual bath?

That is: are the waters above fit for immersion in them?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the doubt:

Is it only the law of

“draw down,” [משוך והורד את המים שעל גופו למקוה שלמטה] [draw the water upon his body down to the ritual bath below] that

[draw the water upon his body downward into the ritual bath below] that

Rabbi Judah holds,

and this is effective only to render the ritual bath below fit?

But regarding the law of

“gud asik”

[draw up and raise the water], and thereby render the upper water on his body fit for immersing in it

—it does not hold.

Or perhaps: “gud asik” too it does hold

according to Rabbi Judah?

He said to

Rabbi Yohanan to Ulla:

You have learned it

We have learned the solution to the problem in the Tosefta of tractate Mikvaot:

Forty seahs of water gathered in one place are the measure of water of a mikveh.

And it was taught: If there were

three hollows

[pits] of water

in a stream:

the upper, the lower, and the middle,

and the hollow was

the upper and

the hollow

the lower,

each

of twenty twenty seahs

which by themselves do not have the measure of a mikveh,

and

if the hollow

the middle

was

of forty seahs, and a rainwater torrent

[a channel of rainwater]

was passing between them,

and connecting them.

Rabbi Judah says: Meir used to say: One immerses

even

in the upper,

since we say “gud asik” [and all the more so is the lower fit, by virtue of “gud achit”].

And since Rabbi Judah did not say: “And I disagree with Rabbi Meir,” it follows that he agrees with him.

And it is proven that, in Rabbi Judah’s view, we also say “gud asik.”

Ulla said to Rabbi Yohanan:

But it was taught

in another beraita, that this is only Rabbi Meir’s opinion. But Rabbi Judah himself disagrees with him:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Judah says: