Chagigah 22a — the Talmud in English

the width of the thickness of the walls of the tube together with the hollow of the tube, which is an opening of the width

two

[the version of the Mishnayot]

fingers

of the

returning to their place.

That is, the measure that enables a person to insert into the opening his two fingers adjacent to the thumb [Meiri] and roll them within it in every direction.

And the Gemara explains Rava’s method:

Rava held

Rava

in accordance with that which Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: eleven

[and not ten]

levels were taught here

in our Mishna [for the first level in our Mishna is separate from the fifth level, since their reasons are different]—

and they differ with regard to non-sacred food prepared in the purity of sacred food:

The six

levels

first

[the five explained above, and the first level], they are

both for sacred food and for non-sacred food prepared in the purity of sacred food,

since there is in them a concern of impurity from the Torah, as was explained above.

But the five levels

last

they are

for sacred food

only,

but not for non-sacred food prepared in the purity of sacred food,

since there is in them no concern of impurity from the Torah, as was explained above.

And we explain:

what difference is there

[what practical legal difference is there]

between the

words of

Rava,

who explained the reason for the first level as a decree because of a vessel whose mouth does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin,

and the

words of

Rabbi Ila,

who explained its reason as interposition?

The difference between them is: a basket and a gargutni

[a very large basket in which they filter the wine at the time of the vintage, and they place it beneath the stream of wine poured from the winepress, and the wine is filtered through it and descends into the pit],

which he filled with vessels and immersed them.

According to the one who says

[Rabbi Ila] that the reason is

because of interposition,

even in this manner

there is

interposition, for the vessels press against the basket, and one may not immerse vessels in it.

But

according to the one who says

[Rava] that the reason is because of

a decree because perhaps he will immerse needles and tubes in a vessel whose mouth does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin,

there is no impediment to immersing in a basket and gargutni, since

a basket and gargutni whose mouths do not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin

do not exist!

[It is not common, and one does not decree in its regard].

And Rava proceeded—

who explained the reason that one does not immerse a vessel inside a vessel as a decree because of a vessel whose mouth does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin—

according to his reasoning

[according to his method]:

For Rava said:

a.

A basket and gargutni which he filled with vessels and immersed them,

they are

pure

even for sacred food, since it is not common for their mouths to be less than the measure of the tube of a wineskin; and this is according to his method, as explained.

b.

And a ritual bath that he divided with a basket and gargutni,

he placed in the middle of the ritual bath a large basket until it separates the waters of the ritual bath, half here and half there, and the walls of the basket reach the walls across the width of the ritual bath, and the waters mix only through the holes in the weaving of the basket, which do not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin; even though it is entirely full of holes, the two parts of the ritual bath do not combine [Meiri].

And therefore:

one who immerses there, his immersion is not valid.

And the proof that if the opening does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin it is not a connection is

for the entire earth is entirely permeated with channels

[the entire earth is permeable], and waters that spring forth in a spring at one place come from a large river, and are connected to it through the earth,

and

nevertheless

we require that there be forty se’a in one place.

And now the Gemara returns to the law explained above, that one who immerses needles and tubes in a vessel whose mouth does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin has not achieved a valid immersion, since the waters within it are not connected to the ritual bath:

And this applies

that their immersion is not valid if the mouth of the vessel in which he immerses them does not have an opening the width of the tube of a wineskin, when he immerses

in

side

a vessel

that is an outer

pure vessel.

But

if he immersed them

in a vessel

that was itself also

impure, then even the vessels within it are pure, despite the fact that the thickness of the opening of the vessel does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin.

And the reason is:

The reason:

since immersion rises for the entire body of the vessel,

since the immersion is effective for the outer vessel, and the waters within it are considered like part of the ritual bath with regard to its purification —

Therefore

the immersion is also effective for them

immersion

for the vessels that are in it,

the immersion was effective even for the vessels located inside the vessel.

For thus we learned that the immersion is effective even for the vessels within it, when the outer vessel too requires immersion:

For it was taught

[the textual tradition of the Talmud]:

Vessels which he filled with vessels and immersed them are pure

for teruma [Rashi], whether their mouths have the measure of the tube of a wineskin or whether their mouths do not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin.

And

however,

if he did not immerse

[if the outer vessel is pure and does not require immersion]—

the waters must be mixed until they are mixed by the measure of the tube of a wineskin!

That is to say: the waters within the outer vessel are not effective for immersing the vessels within it until they are mixed [connected] with the waters in the ritual bath through an opening as wide as the tube of a wineskin, as it proceeds to explain [explained according to Rashi’s version and interpretation].

And the Gemara explains the wording of the Mishna:

What is it saying: “And if he did not immerse”?

This is what it is saying: And if he does not need to immerse it

the outer vessel, because it is not impure, then

the mixed waters

are not effective for purifying the vessels within it,

until they are mixed

with the waters of the ritual bath through an opening that has the width

of the tube of a wineskin.

And this matter of Rava and Rabbi Ila

who disagreed whether the reason that one does not immerse a vessel inside a vessel is because of interposition or because of a decree because of a vessel that does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin,

is a dispute among tannaim

who disagreed concerning it.

For it was taught: A basket and gargutni which he filled with vessels and immersed them, both for sacred food and for teruma

they are

pure.

For this tanna holds like Rava, that the reason for the level is a decree because of a vessel that does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin; therefore they did not decree in the case of a basket and gargutni, whose mouths are not ordinarily narrow.

But

Abba Shaul says: For teruma

they are pure,

but not for sacred food.

For in his view the reason for the law is interposition, and the same law applies to vessels immersed in a basket and gargutni.

And the Gemara raises an objection against the law stated in the beraita, that they prohibited immersing a vessel inside a vessel for sacred food, but not for teruma:

If so, teruma also

the Sages should have prohibited immersing a vessel inside a vessel, for the same reason that they said so with regard to sacred food?!

And we answer: they did not say so concerning teruma, because:

To whom are we saying it

[to whom do we state laws concerning immersion]? It is to

colleagues

alone that we say it, for as for ammei ha-aretz, they do not come before us to ask—and

colleagues, they know:

that one must be concerned about interposition—according to Rabbi Ila—and therefore they raise the inner vessel so that it will not become tightly fixed to the bottom of the outer vessel [Rashi].

And they know how to distinguish between a vessel whose mouth has the measure of the tube of a wineskin and a vessel whose mouth does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin—according to Rava—for this measure is known.

Therefore they did not decree for teruma.

And we wonder:

If so—

sacred food also

should not have been prohibited, since colleagues know, as they know?!

And we answer: nevertheless, there is concern lest

an am ha-aretz see it and go and immerse

[lest an am ha-aretz see him immersing] a vessel inside a vessel, and err by permitting this immersion even when the inner vessel is not raised, or in a vessel whose mouth does not have the measure of the tube of a wineskin, and place in it his libation wine and his meal-offering oil that he brings to the Temple, as it proceeds to explain.

And we wonder: if so,

teruma also

should be prohibited, since there is concern lest

an am ha-aretz see it and go and immerse,

and use it for teruma and afterward give it to a priest?! And we answer:

we do not accept from them!

We do not accept teruma from an am ha-aretz, as we learned below, 24b: “He brought him”—an am ha-aretz to a priest who is a colleague—a barrel of wine of teruma; he may not accept it from him. But sacred food we do accept from him, as explained there [and this is a stringency concerning teruma over sacred food].

And we wonder:

We should also not accept sacred food from them

[the Sages should say that they do not accept from an am ha-aretz] his wine for libations and his oil for his meal offerings?!

And we answer:

it would become for him

for the am ha-aretz

enmity.

For he would say: “Are we not among the Children of Israel, that you do not trust us?” [Rabbeinu Hananel].

And we wonder:

teruma also,

if we do not accept from them,

would it not become enmity for him?!

And we answer:

he does not care

to the am ha-aretz, and he has no enmity because we do not accept teruma from him. Since

he goes

the am ha-aretz and

gives it

his teruma

to a priest who is his fellow am ha-aretz

[he gives his teruma to his fellow, a priest who is an am ha-aretz].

And who is the tanna who is concerned about enmity

[who is the tanna who is concerned about enmity]?

It is Rabbi Yose!

For it was taught: Rabbi Yosei said:

We learned in the Mishna below, on 24b:

“There is greater stringency with teruma than with consecrated things: Throughout the entire year, ammei ha-aretz are trusted to say concerning wine and oil that they bring for their libations, and oil that they bring for their meal-offerings, [and consecrated them at the time of the winepresses and the olive presses, Rashi there,] that they guarded them in purity; and at the time of the winepresses and the olive presses [when everyone purifies his vessels on the basis of the haverim], even with regard to teruma.”

And Rabbi Yosei explained:

“Why is everyone

even ammei ha-aretz

trusted concerning the purity of wine and oil

of libations

throughout the entire year

, and trusted even concerning the safeguarding of the purity of the red heifer [Tosafot]?

So that each and every person should not go and build a private altar [

an altar that a person makes on the top of his roof]

for himself

during the time when private altars are prohibited, and offer upon it to Heaven; if we do not accept his consecrated things from him,

and

go and

burn a red heifer for himself.”

Rav Pappa said:

According to whom [

according to whose view]

do we nowadays accept testimony [

we accept testimony for every matter]

from an am ha-aretz?

According to whom?

According to Rabbi Yosei,

because of enmity. Since he has not become suspected with regard to any particular testimony, and he conducts himself with derekh eretz [Meiri].

But according to the Sages, we do not accept testimony from an am ha-aretz at all, for presumably every am ha-aretz is suspected of not being expert in his testimony, and initially we do not accept his testimony at all [Meiri].

But we are still perplexed: Why do they immerse one vessel inside another for teruma

and

behold,

let us be concerned about borrowing!?

That is to say: Since we borrow our vessels from them, we must once again be stringent upon ourselves even with regard to teruma, not to immerse one vessel inside another at all, so that an am ha-aretz will not see this and immerse one vessel inside another in a manner that is ineffective according to the fundamental law, and that vessel will once again come into the hands of haverim through borrowing?!

And also

as we learned,

that one must be concerned about borrowing from an am ha-aretz:

a. An earthenware vessel does not become impure when impurity touches it on its outer side, but only if the impurity enters inside it.

b. An earthenware vessel that is in a tent containing a corpse becomes impure, because its interior is exposed, and it becomes impure from its airspace. But if the vessel was covered [surrounded by a tightly sealed covering], it does not become impure, because the impurity did not enter inside it; and the airspace of the tent containing the corpse does not render it impure, since it “touches” it only on its outer side, and the covered vessel protects what is inside it, so that it will not become impure.

c. If the earthenware vessel was impure, it does not protect what is inside it, because an impure vessel does not form a barrier before impurity.

c. A house with an upper story above it, with an opening one handbreadth by one handbreadth between them, and there was a corpse in the house below—then all the pure things in the house and in the upper story are impure.

d. And if he sealed the opening of the aperture by placing a vessel in the opening, then, since the vessel itself is an object that can become impure, it cannot form a barrier before impurity, for an impure vessel does not form a barrier before impurity.

e. If he placed a pure earthenware vessel in the mouth of the aperture, with its outer side facing the impurity below, it forms a barrier before impurity, because an earthenware vessel does not become impure from its outer side.

An earthenware vessel,

even one belonging to an am ha-aretz, which has the presumptive status of being impure with regard to a haver,

protects everything

with regard to an am ha-aretz.

That is to say: All kinds of pure things that were inside the vessel surrounded by a tightly sealed covering, which was in the tent containing the corpse, are pure; and likewise, all kinds of pure things in the aperture are pure when an earthenware vessel sealed the opening between the house and the upper story,

the words of Beit Hillel.

вся нечистота народа земли — не более чем в отношении членов товарищества, но для них самих они вообще не являются нечистыми ни в каком отношении. Поскольку для них самих это является надлежащим хранением. И народ земли, который сам приходит спросить о своих кушаньях и напитках, получает ответ, что они чисты. Из слов «Микдаш Давид» этот отрывок хорошо понятен; смотри там, где он также доказывает свое основоположение из этого отрывка, смотри там.

Beit Shammai say: It does not protect

an earthenware vessel belonging to an am ha-aretz

except for foods and liquids, and for earthenware vessels

that are inside the earthenware vessel or in the upper story.

But it does not protect other kinds of pure things, such as other vessels.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Why

does it not protect even other kinds of pure things?

Beit Shammai said

to Beit Hillel:

Because it is impure with regard to an am ha-aretz,

since an earthenware vessel belonging to an am ha-aretz has the presumptive status of being impure,

and an impure vessel does not form a barrier

, as they explain below.

Beit Hillel said

to Beit Shammai:

But did you not declare the foods and liquids inside it pure!

And if your statement is correct, you should have said that it does not protect even foods and liquids inside it, since the vessel of an am ha-aretz does not protect?!