Chagigah 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught:

that his drivers and laborers, who are amei ha-aretz who render ritually pure items impure through their contact,

were carrying ritually pure items

belonging to him—

even though he had gone away

(distanced himself)

more than a mil

from them,

his ritually 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 ritually pure items in the barrels, since they do not know that he is going away from them; they are concerned at every moment that perhaps he will return.

But if

the owner of the house

said to them:

Go on your way,

and I will come after you. Once his eyes were hidden

from them,

then

his ritually pure items are 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 person. In that case, it is understandable that in the first clause his ritually pure items remain pure, because he is guarding them, whereas in the latter clause there is no one guarding them, since 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 person, then

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

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

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa:

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

the first clause,

where his ritually pure items remain pure, is referring

to one who had immersed his drivers and laborers for this purpose,

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

And we raise an objection to this:

If so,

since he immersed them,

the latter clause as well—

why are his ritually pure items impure? After all, they guard the others so that they do not touch them, and there is no concern regarding their own contact, since he immersed them?!

And we answer:

An am ha-aretz does not take care regarding contact by his fellow;

there is concern that perhaps another am ha-aretz, who was not immersed, touched them.

And we are astonished:

If so—

the first clause as well—

let us be concerned, since an am ha-aretz does not take care regarding contact by his fellow?!

And we answer: The baraita is speaking

in

a case where

they came to them

by a winding route—when he could come upon them suddenly by a winding route, so that they would not notice his arrival, and therefore they were afraid of him.

And we are astonished:

If so,

if

they are afraid of the owner of the house because he can come without their noticing him,

the latter clause as well—

they should take care regarding contact by their fellows, since he can come in a manner in which they would not notice him?!

And we answer: In the latter clause,

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

they rely upon this,

being certain that he will not come suddenly. Therefore, they do not take care regarding contact by their fellows.

We have returned to you, chapter “One does not expound.”

Mishna:

The stringency of consecrated food over teruma

in the following matters: a.

One may immerse impure vessels

when they are found at the time of immersion

inside other vessels,

but such an immersion is effective only to purify them

for teruma, but not for consecrated food.

As the Gemara will explain, the reason is as follows.

b. There are forms of impurity instituted by rabbinic decree in which the Sages decreed that if this rabbinic impurity comes into contact with a particular part of a vessel that has a use of its own, or with a particular side of the vessel, it renders only that part, or only that side, impure, and not the entire vessel.

Such a possibility, that impurity affects part of a vessel or one of its sides but not the entire vessel, exists only with regard to impurity by rabbinic decree, and not with regard to impurity by Torah law, through which the entire vessel becomes impure at once.

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

The outside

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

and the inside

of the vessel —

and the gripping-place

[this will be explained in the Gemara] —

each of which is fit for use independently.

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 outside or the gripping-place of the vessel became impure through rabbinic impurity, only that part is impure, and one may place teruma in the other parts of the vessel.

But not for consecrated food,

for if any one of them became impure, even through rabbinic impurity, all of them become impure; and if one placed consecrated food in them, it becomes impure or disqualified.

c.

One who carries a midras,

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

carrying teruma

[located inside a barrel] in his other hand, without rendering it impure.

But he may not

carry

consecrated food,

and the reason is explained in the Gemara.

d.

The garments of those who eat teruma —

are a midras

for

consecrated food,

as explained in the previous chapter.

e. The Mishna now explains the greater stringencies of consecrated food over teruma with regard to immersion:

The measure of consecrated food is not like the measure of teruma

with regard to immersion.

These are the distinctions between them:

With regard to consecrated food

[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 water does not enter a tightly fastened knot.

And with regard to consecrated food, the Sages issued a decree even concerning a knot that is not tightly fastened.

And he dries

[makes dry] the garment if it was wet, because the water upon it resembles an interposition.

And he immerses

the garment.

And afterward

he again

ties

it, if he wishes.

But

if

with regard to teruma:

He ties

the garment if he wishes,

and afterward immerses it. He does not have to be concerned about the knot as an interposition, since the knot is not so tight as to constitute an interposition.

He also does not have to worry about immersing it while it is wet. Although blood and milk constitute obstructions when dry, when they are wet they do not constitute obstructions; all the more so, water does not constitute an obstruction at all [Meiri].

Nor does he have to be concerned about immersing it while it is wet, since even blood and milk, which constitute an interposition when dry, nevertheless do not constitute an interposition when wet; and all the more so, water does not constitute an interposition at all [Meiri].

vi.

Vessels completed in a state of purity require immersion for

use with

consecrated food.

In the case of vessels belonging to a haver, which, from the time their manufacture was completed [when they became fit to contract impurity], had not been exposed to impurity, we are nevertheless concerned that before their manufacture was completed an am haaretz might have splashed saliva upon them, which renders objects impure like the saliva of a zav, and that the saliva was still wet when the manufacture of the vessel was completed, so that the wet saliva then rendered the vessel impure.

This concern applies only with regard to consecrated food,

but not to teruma.

vii.

The vessel

that contains many pieces

combines

the

contents

within it, making them as though they were one piece, so that if an impure person touched one of them, he rendered all of them impure. This law applies only

to

pieces of

consecrated food

[the version of the Turei Even].

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanin disagree in the Gemara whether this law is from Torah law or is merely a level of stringency instituted by rabbinic decree.

But not with regard to teruma!

For if a primary source of impurity touched one piece of teruma in the vessel, that piece becomes a first-degree source of impurity; the piece that touched the first becomes a second-degree source of impurity; the third becomes a third-degree source of impurity; and the remaining pieces remain pure, since teruma can become impure only to the third degree and no further [Rashi].

viii.

The fourth

degree

with regard to consecrated food

[a piece of consecrated food that touched an object of the third degree of impurity] is

disqualified.

But

if

the third

degree of impurity [which became impure through contact with an object of the second degree of impurity] alone is impure, it is

with regard to teruma.

ix.

And there is likewise a stringency with regard to consecrated food

concerning contact,

with

regard to contact.

For with regard to

teruma

[the version of the Turei Even],

if one of his hands became impure

through rabbinic impurity that renders the hands alone impure, then

the other

hand, which did not become impure, is

pure,

and it does not disqualify the teruma.

But

if

with regard to consecrated food —

he immerses both of them!

And if he did not immerse both of them, contact by either one renders the consecrated food impure.

Since

the hand renders

the

the other

impure with regard to consecrated food, but not with regard to teruma.

x.

Foods

[it is permitted to eat]

dry foods

[which were never rendered fit to contract impurity through the application of water]

with impure hands

[hands that became impure through an impurity that renders the hands impure, making them of the second degree, as explained in the previous chapter] only

for

eating

teruma,

since the food was not rendered fit to contract impurity.

But not with regard to consecrated food.