Chagigah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

Here –

for it teaches: “If he intended [to immerse them], his hands are pure” –

for

the eating of

second tithe

.

And from where do you say this

do you know to say

that non-sacred produce –

does not require intention

for purification?

As we learned

in tractate Mikvaot:

A wave that was detached

from the sea,

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

the wave

upon a person and upon utensils –

these are

pure.

That is, there is no need for an act of immersion, entering into the water; rather, even a wave of water that fell upon a person or upon utensils is considered an immersion.

It teaches

in this Mishna

“person” in the manner of “utensils”.

And from here we can learn:

Just as utensils

become pure even though

they did 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 did not intend

to become pure.

This proves from here that non-sacred produce does not require intention for purification.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

And from where

where do you assume that the Mishna in tractate Mikvaot is speaking of immersing utensils without the intention of purifying them?!

Perhaps

it is speaking of

a

person who

sits and waits for the moment when the wave will be detached

and come upon the person and the utensils, so that they will be immersed in it when its waters fall upon them, and thereby become pure –

that is the case.

And

if so, you should infer the opposite: It teaches

“utensils” in the manner of “person”.

Just as a person is “capable of intention”

to become pure,

so too utensils

become pure only when

he intends for them

to purify them.

And if you would say

to prove that the Mishna is not dealing with a person waiting for the wave to fall, since if it is speaking

of “one who sits and waits”

to purify them –

what is it teaching us?!

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

That is not so. There is a novelty in the law of the Mishna, namely, that the wave purifies:

Since

it might enter your mind

to say that it is necessary

to decree

that the wave should not purify,

lest one come to immerse in a “channel of rainwater”.

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

hardelit, a stream flowing down from the height of a mountain [Rashi, Chullin 31b]. Alternatively,

it might enter your mind to say:

Let us decree

concerning the

“heads”

of the wave, that they should not purify,

lest

it be confused with the

“domes”

of the wave, which do not purify.

The nature of a wave is that it rises and towers upward, and afterward bends over, appearing like a dome.

The ends of the wave, which fall and meet the ground, are called “heads.” These waters are fit for immersion, because they are considered as though they were a ritual bath situated on the ground.

But the water at the height of the wave’s dome is called “domes,” and is unfit for immersion for the reason that will be explained below: the water at the height of the wave’s dome is considered a “ritual bath in the air,” and is therefore unfit for immersion.

And it might have been thought that we should decree against immersing even in the heads, lest people come to immerse in the domes.

This teaches us that we do not decree.

The Gemara explains the reason that one may not immerse at the height of the wave:

And from where do you say this

from where do we know to say

that one may not immerse in the “domes”?

From this,

as it was taught in a beraita: One may immerse in the heads, but one may not immerse in the domes –

because one may not immerse in the air.

The water found at the height of the wave’s dome is considered to be in the air, rather than on the ground, and the Torah did not deem a “ritual bath in the air” fit for immersion.

And since this is the novelty of the Mishna, one cannot derive from it anything concerning the intention to become pure through immersion.

Rather,

one should learn that immersion for non-sacred produce does not require intention for purification

from this that we learned

in tractate Makhshirin:

Edible items become susceptible to ritual impurity only if they were first “prepared” to receive impurity, by liquid being placed upon them.

This is derived from the verse: “And when water is placed upon seed, and any of their carcasses [of the creeping creatures] falls upon it, it is impure for you.” From here the Sages learned that if seeds [or other edible items] were not “prepared” by water [or another liquid] being placed upon them, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Sages likewise expounded: Liquids do not prepare food or produce to receive impurity unless the owner of the produce is pleased that the water should be upon it. But if he does not desire the liquid being placed upon his produce, it does not become “prepared” to receive impurity.

Produce that fell

by itself

into a water channel, and

one whose hands were impure extended

his hands into the water channel

and took them

the produce out of the water, the law is:

1.

His hands are pure,

even though he did not intend to purify them.

2.

And

those

produce,

which fell into the water by themselves,

are not subject to “when water is placed”!

The produce 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 extended his hands to take the produce, he intended to place them there also

so that his hands would be washed,

the law is:

1.

His hands are pure.

2.

And

even

the produce –

it is subject to “when water is placed.”

For he thereby revealed that he wanted the produce to fall into the water, so that his hands would be washed through the fall.

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from our Mishna, concerning his statement that non-sacred produce does not require intention, for we learned in it:

An impure person

who immerses

in order to purify himself

for

the eating of

non-sacred produce, and established himself

[intended] to purify himself

for non-sacred produce,

he is

forbidden to

eat

second tithe.

This proves that even one who immerses for non-sacred produce becomes pure 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,

not

even his immersion was effective for him regarding non-sacred produce?!

We reject this:

This is what the tanna is saying:

One who immerses for non-sacred produce without intending to become pure is pure for eating non-sacred produce. However,

even though he established himself for non-sacred produce,

he is still

forbidden regarding second tithe

until he immerses with the intention of becoming pure.

What we learned, “and established himself for non-sacred produce,” is not because otherwise he would not be pure even for non-sacred produce. Rather, it teaches that with regard to second tithe, it is effective only if he intended to become pure for second tithe; but an intention to become pure with regard to non-sacred produce is insufficient to render him pure for eating second tithe.

Further,

he raised an objection

Rava to Rav Naḥman from another statement that we learned in our Mishna:

If he immersed but did not establish himself –

it is as though he did not immerse.

Does this not mean, as though he had not immersed at all!

And he is not pure even for non-sacred produce?!

Rav Naḥman answered:

No,

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

as though he had not immersed for second tithe.

But he did immerse

[his immersion was effective]

for non-sacred produce.

Even though he established himself for non-sacred produce, he did not establish himself for second tithe, which implies that when he establishes himself for non-sacred 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 rationale. See his comments in the Gemara, s.v. “This is what he is saying.”

The Gemara reports that

he,

Rava,

thought: Rav Naḥman was merely deflecting him,

and his explanation of our Mishna was not correct. Rather, the Mishna should be understood literally: it is as though he had not immersed at all, and the immersion was ineffective even for non-sacred produce.

But afterward

he went out,

Rava went out,

examined and found

[he searched and found] a beraita that explained our Mishna in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s words:

As it was taught in a beraita: If he immersed but did not establish himself

at all,

he is forbidden regarding second tithe and permitted regarding non-sacred produce.

Rabbi Elazar said: If he immersed

in water and emerged

and came up

from it while he was still wet [Tosafot],

he establishes himself

now

for the purification of

whatever

he wishes

[teruma or sacred food], even though at the time of the immersion itself he immersed without specifying his intention.

The following objection was raised:

A person was immersing and

one of his feet was still in

the

water,

and

he established himself for a lesser matter,

one of the levels instituted by the Sages,

he can establish himself for a more stringent matter.

But if he

came up

from the water,

he can no longer establish himself.

Does this not mean

that when he came up from the water,

he cannot establish himself at all!

Even when he had not initially established himself for a lesser matter, he can no longer establish himself, since intention is effective only at the moment of immersion itself. This is a difficulty for Rabbi Elazar?!

We answer:

No!

Rather, what they said, “If he came up from the water, he can no longer establish himself,” is speaking in the same manner as the first clause, namely, when he had already established himself for a lesser matter and connected himself to it. And this is what it is saying:

While

one of his feet is still in the water,

even though he had established himself

already for a lesser matter, he may again

establish himself

for a more stringent matter, because as long as one of his feet is in the water, it is still considered the beginning of the 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 may establish himself

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

But if he had established himself

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

can no longer establish himself

for a more stringent matter.

And we explain:

Who is the tanna who says that when

one of his feet is still in the water, he can establish himself, because as long as his foot is touching the water, it is still considered the beginning of the immersion?

Rabbi Pedat said: It is Rabbi Yehuda.

As we learned

in tractate Mikvaot:

A ritual bath that was measured and contained exactly forty se’a

[precisely],

and two people descended and immersed one after the other –

the

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

pure.

And

the

second, who immersed in it, is

impure,

because the first reduced the measure of the ritual bath by the amount of water upon his body.

Rabbi Yehuda said: If

the second immersed when

the feet of the first were still touching

the

water –

the second is also pure.

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

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

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

The dispute

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

with regard to rabbinic levels,

when he is immersing only because of a stringency instituted by the Sages, while by Torah law he is not impure.

But

one who immerses

from

a Torah-level impurity

for purification –

according to everyone, the second is impure,

even if the first’s feet are touching the water.

We learn from his words that the Sages did not validate the immersion even for rabbinic levels.

And this is the position of Rabbi Pedat,

for he too maintains that according to the Sages, the second person’s immersion is ineffective even for rabbinic levels.

Some say: Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: The dispute

between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies specifically

from

a Torah-level impurity

for purification.

But with regard to rabbinic levels –

according to everyone, the second is also pure.

And this disagrees

with the statement of Rav Naḥman, with that

of Rabbi Pedat.

For Rabbi Pedat maintains that the Sages did not permit it even for rabbinic levels.

Ulla said: I asked

[in the standard printed text: I asked]

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

According to Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that whenever the first person’s feet are touching the water, we say “draw down,” thereby rendering the ritual-bath water below fit for immersion—

What is the law concerning immersing needles and tubes

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

on the head of

the person who immersed

first,

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

In other words: Are the water above fit for immersing in?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty:

Is it only the law of

“draw down”

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

Rabbi Yehuda holds,

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