Chagigah 20b — the Talmud in English

And was it not taught in a beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: “If a person’s animal drivers and workers—

who are ammei haaretz, people presumed to impart ritual impurity to pure items through their contact—

are carrying pure items

belonging to him,

even if he has gone away

[having distanced himself]

from them more than a mil,

nevertheless

his pure items remain pure

if he did not inform them that he was going away from them.

And we are not concerned that perhaps they touched the pure items in the barrels, since they do not know that he has gone away from them. They are concerned at every moment that perhaps he will return.

But if he said to them,

the homeowner:

“Go

on your way,

and I will come after you. Once his eyes were no longer upon them

[them],

then

his pure items become impure,

as perhaps they touched them.

And now this is difficult: It is understandable if a person guards what is in the possession of another. In that case, it is understandable that in the first clause his pure items remain pure, because he guards them, whereas in the latter clause they have no one guarding them, because he has gone away from them.

But if it enters your mind that a person does not guard what is in the possession of another, then

what is the difference between the first clause and the latter clause?!

After all, even in the first clause they are not guarded; so why do his pure items remain pure?!

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Yitzhak Nafha:

In fact, a person does not guard what is in the possession of another. But the case in the

first clause,

where his pure items remain pure, is one

in which he purified his animal drivers and workers for this purpose,

having immersed them in order to purify them, so there is no concern about their contact.

And we challenge this answer:

If so,

since he purified them,

the latter clause as well—

why do his pure items become impure? After all, they guard against others touching them, and there is no concern about their own contact, since he immersed them?!

And we answer:

An am haaretz is not particular about another am haaretz touching his items,

and there is concern that perhaps another am haaretz, who was not immersed, touched them.

And we ask:

If so,

the first clause as well—

let us be concerned, since an am haaretz is not particular about another am haaretz touching his items?!

And we answer: The beraita is speaking

of

a case such

that he can come to them

by a winding route.

When he can come upon them suddenly by a winding route, so that they will not notice his arrival, they are therefore afraid of him.

And we ask:

If so,

since they are afraid of the homeowner because he can come without their noticing him,

the latter clause as well—

should they not be particular about their fellows’ contact, since he can come in a manner in which they will not notice him?!

And we answer: In the latter clause,

once he said to them: “Go, and I will come after you!”—

they rely on this and are confident,

that he will not come suddenly. Therefore, they are not particular about their fellows’ contact.

We shall return to you, chapter “One may not expound.”

Mishna:

The stringency with regard to Kodesh over Teruma

in the following matters: a.

That they immerse vessels

that are impure when they are found at the time of immersion

inside vessels,

but such an immersion is effective only to purify them

for Teruma, but not for Kodesh.

And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

b. There are ritual impurities of rabbinic enactment, concerning which the Sages decreed that if the ritual impurity established by their words touches a particular part of a vessel, which has a use of its own, or a particular side of the vessel, it renders impure only that part, or only that side, and not the entire vessel.

Such a possibility, of ritual impurity in part of the vessel or on one side of the vessel and not in the entire vessel, is possible only with rabbinic ritual impurity, and not with ritual impurity from the Torah, in which the entire vessel becomes impure at once.

And now the Mishna explains that there is a distinction between Teruma and Kodesh: with regard to Kodesh, the entire vessel is considered impure even if the rabbinic ritual impurity touched only a particular part of the vessel, whereas with regard to Teruma, only the part touched by the ritual impurity is impure.

The back

of the vessel [a receptacle, resembling a foot that serves as a base for a glass or silver cup, Meiri]—

and the inside

of the vessel—

and the grasping-place

[this will be explained in the Gemara]—

for each of them is fit for use in its own right.

Thus, every part that has a use of its own is considered a vessel in its own right

with

regard to

Teruma

[the version of the Turei Even].

Therefore, if the back or the grasping-place of the vessel became impure with rabbinic ritual impurity, only it is impure, and he may place Teruma in the other parts of the vessel.

But not for Kodesh,

for if one of them became impure, even with rabbinic ritual impurity, all of them became impure, and if he placed Kodesh in them, it became impure or disqualified.

c.

One who carries a midras,

a shoe of a zav [Rashi], which is a primary source of ritual impurity in his one hand, is nevertheless permitted to be

carrying the Teruma

[which is inside a barrel] in his other hand, and he will not render it impure.

But he may not

carry

the Kodesh,

and the reason is explained in the Gemara.

d.

The garments of those who eat Teruma—

a midras

they are

for Kodesh,

as was explained in the preceding chapter.

e. And now the Mishna explains the levels of Kodesh over Teruma concerning immersion:

The measure of Kodesh is not like the measure of Teruma

concerning immersion.

And these are the distinctions between them:

For Kodesh

[the version of the Turei Even]:

If one came to immerse an impure garment, and the corners of the garment were tied together [Meiri], he

loosens

the knot first, before immersing it, because inside a tight knot the water does not enter.

And they decreed with regard to Kodesh even concerning a knot that is not tight.

And he dries

[dries] the garment if it was wet, because the water upon it resembles an intervening substance.

And he immerses

the garment.

And afterward

he again

ties

it, if he wishes.

And

if

for Teruma:

He ties

the garment if he wishes,

and afterward immerses. And

he is not concerned about the knot on account of an intervening substance, for this knot is not so tight that it is capable of constituting an interruption.

And he is not concerned about immersing it while it is wet, for even blood and milk, which constitute an interruption when they are dry, nevertheless do not constitute an interruption when they are wet; and all the more so water, which does not constitute an interruption at all [Meiri].

f.

Vessels completed in purity require immersion for

the use of

Kodesh.

The vessels of a haver, from the time their work was completed [when they became fit to receive ritual impurity], had no ritual impurity come upon them; nevertheless, we are concerned lest, before the completion of their work, a common person sprayed spittle upon them, which renders impure like the spittle of a zav, and the spittle was still wet when the work of the vessel was completed, so that the wet spittle rendered the vessel impure at that time.

And this concern applies only with regard to Kodesh,

but not to Teruma.

g.

The vessel

that contains many pieces—the vessel

joins

the

contents within it

to make them as though they were one piece, so that if an impure person touched one of them, he rendered all of them impure. And this matter applies only

to

pieces of

Kodesh

[the version of the Turei Even].

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanin disputed in the Gemara whether this law is from the Torah or whether it is only a rabbinic level.

But not with regard to Teruma!

For if a primary source of ritual impurity touched one piece of Teruma in the vessel, the piece became a first degree of ritual impurity, and the one that touched the first became a second degree of ritual impurity, and the third became a third degree of ritual impurity, while the rest remain pure, since Teruma has only a third degree and no further [Rashi].

h.

The fourth

degree

with regard to Kodesh

[a piece of Kodesh that touched a third degree of ritual impurity] is

disqualified.

And

if

the third

degree of ritual impurity [which became impure from a second degree of ritual impurity] alone, it is that which is impure

with regard to Teruma.

i.

And

there is likewise a stringency with regard to Kodesh

concerning

touching.

For with regard to

Teruma

[the version of the Turei Even],

if one of his hands became impure

through rabbinic ritual impurity that renders the hands alone impure, then

its companion,

the other hand that did not become impure, is

pure

and does not disqualify the Teruma.

And

if

for Kodesh—

he immerses both of them!

And if he did not immerse both of them, the touch of either one renders the Kodesh impure.

Because

the hand renders impure

the

its companion

with regard to Kodesh, but not with regard to Teruma.

j.

Foods

[it is permitted to eat]

dry foods

[which were never prepared to receive ritual impurity through the giving of water],

with defiled hands

[hands that became impure with ritual impurity that renders the hands impure, which are a second degree of ritual impurity, as explained in the preceding chapter] only

for

the eating of

Teruma,

since the food was not prepared to receive ritual impurity.

But not with regard to Kodesh.