Chagigah 22b — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai said to

Beit Hillel:

When we declared the food and drink inside it pure, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

for

an uneducated person

himself,

it is because he

will purify them himself;

for members of the fellowship do not eat in his home in any event, because contact with him renders things impure.

But shall we purify the vessel, whose purification is valid for you and for him?!

That is: If we purify vessels for the uneducated person’s purposes, we must be concerned that he might lend them to a member of the fellowship. Indeed, for this reason we should have said that even an earthenware vessel does not protect what is inside it. However, since an earthenware vessel cannot be purified in a ritual bath and must be broken, the uneducated person will certainly not accept this from us. But vessels that can be purified by immersion in a ritual bath—even an uneducated person will accept this from us and immerse them.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am ashamed

[I am embarrassed]

by your words, Beit Shammai,

for what basis is there for your statement?

For is it

possible

that

a woman would knead dough in a kneading trough

in an upper room [with a corpse in the house below, and the earthenware vessel sealing the opening between them], and that the

woman and the trough would be impure

with corpse impurity, which lasts

seven

days, since the earthenware vessel does not form a barrier for them,

while

the

dough

would be

pure,

since the vessel’s seal does form a barrier against impurity for food and drink?!

Likewise, is it possible that a vessel called a

lugin

[the Rashash says that it is not made of earthenware] would be

filled with drink,

when it is placed inside a covered earthenware vessel, or in an upper room whose roof opening is blocked by an earthenware vessel, and that the

lugin would be impure with seven-day impurity

because it became impure in the tent of a corpse,

while

the

drink

inside it would be

pure?!

One of

Rabbi Yehoshua’s

students, a student of Beit Shammai, joined him,

and

said to

Rabbi Yehoshua:

I will tell

you

the reasoning of Beit Shammai.

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to that student:

Tell me!

He

asked

him,

that student asked Rabbi Yehoshua:

Does an impure vessel form a barrier

against impurity,

or does it not form a barrier?

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to him:

It does not form a barrier!

That student continued and asked:

Is an uneducated person’s vessel impure

or

pure?

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to him:

Impure!

That student continued:

And if you tell him,

the uneducated person, about his vessel that it is

impure, will that uneducated person pay any attention to you

at all?! Certainly he will not pay attention to you.

Moreover, if you tell him

that his vessel is

impure,

that uneducated person

will say to you:

On the contrary,

mine is pure and yours is impure.

And this is the reasoning of Beit Shammai!

Since an uneducated person’s vessels are impure, and he will not accept our statement that they are impure, the Sages said: Vessels that can be purified in a ritual bath remain impure and are not protected by being placed inside an uneducated person’s vessel, because the uneducated person will accept our instruction to immerse them. But an earthenware vessel, which cannot be purified in a ritual bath and would have to be broken, is not treated this way.

Rabbi Yehoshua immediately went and prostrated himself upon the graves of Beit Shammai,

and

said: I have offended you, bones of Beit Shammai.

And if this is so for your concealed matters, how much more so for your explicit matters!

The Sages said

about Rabbi Yehoshua:

All his days

his teeth became black because of his fasts

[the teeth of someone who fasts frequently become black], because he had spoken this way about the words of Beit Shammai!

Here the Gemara explains the proof from this Mishna that we must be concerned that a vessel may be lent. For:

In any event, it teaches:

But we purify the vessel whose purification is valid

“for you and for him,”

and we must therefore be concerned that it may be lent.

This evidently means that we do borrow from them.

But one may object: Why is it permitted to immerse one vessel inside another vessel for teruma? We should be concerned that an uneducated person might see this and likewise immerse his vessels in this manner, after which a member of the fellowship might come and borrow one from him?!

And we answer:

When we borrow from them—

we immerse them!

When a member of the fellowship borrows a vessel from an uneducated person, he must immerse it, because perhaps the uneducated person immersed one vessel inside another [Rashi].

And we ask:

If so, let them answer them

[let them give this answer] as well,

Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai: When we borrow vessels from them,

сосуды,

we immerse them.

There is then no concern about borrowing, so why did Beit Shammai declare them impure?!

And we answer: Since in the case under dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel we are discussing corpse impurity,

one impure through contact with a corpse requires sprinkling

of water containing the ashes of the red heifer

on the third and seventh days,

so immersion alone cannot be relied upon.

Since

a vessel is needed for seven days—

people do not lend such vessels

[it is not customary to lend a vessel for seven days].

We still ask: How can you say that anyone who borrows a vessel from an uneducated person must immerse it?

And

does

the uneducated person’s immersion not have credibility

with us?!

But it was taught in a beraita: Uneducated people are trusted concerning the purity achieved by immersion of one impure through contact with a corpse.

You have therefore learned that a member of the fellowship need not be concerned that the uneducated person immersed one vessel inside another?!

Abaye said: It is not difficult,

because:

This

statement that we learned—that uneducated people are trusted concerning immersion—applies specifically

to their bodies,

when an uneducated person purifies himself through immersion.

That—

the statement that an uneducated person is not trusted and that a member of the fellowship must immerse the vessel again—applies

to their vessels,

because we must be concerned that he immersed one vessel inside another.

Rava said:

In fact,

both this and that concern their vessels, and it is not difficult,

because:

This

statement that we learned—that uneducated people are trusted concerning immersion—deals with a case in which the uneducated person

said:

“I

have never immersed one vessel inside another.”

And that

statement that we said—that an uneducated person is not trusted and the vessel must be immersed again—deals with a case in which he

said: ‘I have never immersed one vessel inside another whose opening was not at least as wide as the opening of a wineskin.’

And it was taught in a beraita

[as an agreeable confirmation] that there is a distinction according to what the uneducated person testifies:

An uneducated person is trusted to say: These fruits

were

never made fit

to become susceptible to impurity, and therefore they are pure.

But he is not trusted to say:

These

fruits

were

made fit, but did not become impure.

Here too, he is trusted to say: “I have never immersed one vessel inside another,” but if he says: “I immersed one vessel inside another whose opening was as wide as the opening of a wineskin,” he is not trusted [Rabbeinu Hananel].

And we challenge Abaye:

But does an uneducated person have credibility even concerning his body,

when he immersed himself?!

But it was taught in a beraita: A member of the fellowship

who became impure through contact with a corpse,

who came to receive sprinkling,

and said: “I am on the third day of my impurity, and I am fit for the first sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer”—

they sprinkle upon him immediately,

the first sprinkling, which is performed on the third day of his impurity.

But

when an uneducated person comes to receive sprinkling, they do not sprinkle upon him until he has undergone the third and seventh days in our presence.

That is: They do not sprinkle upon him immediately. Rather, they wait three days, because we do not trust him when he says that today is the third day of his impurity [Turei Even; see the additional explanation in the notes]?!

Rather, Abaye said, there is another answer to the question raised above: Why are we not relying on an uneducated person concerning immersion of one vessel inside another, while the beraita says that an uneducated person is trusted concerning the purity achieved by immersion of one impure through contact with a corpse? The reason stated in the beraita is: Because of the stringency with which you treated him at the beginning,

when he came before you and said, “Today is the third day of my impurity,” and you did not trust him,

you were lenient with him at the end,

trusting him concerning the immersion after the sprinkling. But concerning other immersions, he is not trusted.

We learned in the Mishna:

The back and the inside

of a vessel, and its place of grasping, with regard to teruma:

And we explain:

What are “the back and the inside”?

That is: In what matter do we distinguish between the back and the inside of a vessel and its place of grasping?

And we explain:

As we learned:

A. Food or drink that is impure does not render a vessel impure by Torah law, because a vessel becomes impure only through a primary source of impurity, and food and drink cannot be a primary source of impurity.

B. The discharge of a man or woman with a flux, such as their saliva or urine, is a primary source of impurity and renders a vessel impure by Torah law.

C. The Sages decreed that every liquid, even if it became impure at the second level of impurity, is treated as a first-degree source of impurity.

D. The Sages further decreed that every impure liquid renders a vessel impure and makes it impure at the second level. Although a liquid does not render a vessel impure by Torah law, the Sages imposed this decree on all liquids because of the discharge of a man or woman with a flux, which does render a vessel impure by Torah law.

Since the impurity of liquids that render vessels impure is rabbinic, and the Sages were concerned that people might burn teruma and sacrificial food because of it, they established a distinguishing rule for this impurity, which is only rabbinic, and said:

A vessel

[one that is not earthenware and can become impure through its back]

whose back became impure through liquids

is such that

only its back

is

impure.

But

its inside,

and

its rim

[the doubled edge that projects outward and is suitable for use, according to Rashi], and

its handle

[such as the handle of a barrel], and

its grips

[its handholds] are

pure. If

its inside became impure

through liquids,

the entire vessel is impure.

through liquids, then

We learned in the Mishna: The back and the inside

and the place of grasping

with regard to teruma:

And we explain:

What is the place of grasping?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The place where one grasps it

[where one holds the vessel and offers it to others].

And so it says

concerning Boaz and Ruth:

“And he handed her roasted grain,”

which we translate: “And he offered it to her.”

Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan,

explaining “the place of grasping”:

The place where refined people dip

[the fastidious immerse food].

That is: Some people made a small receptacle in their plates, into which they placed vinegar or mustard in order to dip food. This was called “the place of grasping.”

[the fastidious immerse food].

Rav Bibi taught before Rav Naḥman:

No vessels have a separate back and inside, that is, their backs are not treated separately from their insides; if their backs became impure, their insides also became impure.

Both sacrificial objects of the Temple and sacrificial objects of the border areas

and he proceeds to explain this statement.

He said

—

Rav Naḥman questioned

him,

Rav Naḥman questioned Rav Bibi:

“Sacrificial objects of the border areas”—

which, as you say, do not have a separate back and inside—

what are they?

Teruma,

which may be eaten throughout the borders of the Land of Israel!

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

“The back and the inside and the place of grasping with regard to teruma,”

which shows that even sacrificial objects of the border areas do have a separate back and inside, contrary to what you say?

Perhaps you were speaking of ordinary food prepared according to the purity requirements of sacrificial food,

and you call this “sacrificial objects of the border areas” because it too may be eaten throughout the borders of the Land of Israel. The teaching would then be that even ordinary food prepared according to the purity requirements of sacrificial food has no distinction between the back and the inside: if one of them becomes impure, the entire vessel becomes impure. For this additional level of purity, ordinary food prepared according to the purity requirements of sacrificial food is treated like sacrificial food.

And if so,

you have reminded me of something that

[you have reminded me of what]

Rabba bar Avuha said: Eleven levels of stringency were taught here

in our Mishna,

the first six applying both to sacrificial food and to ordinary food prepared according to the purity requirements of sacrificial food,

whereas the

last

six apply only

to sacrificial food, but not to ordinary food prepared according to the purity requirements of sacrificial food.

This level of stringency—that sacrificial food does not have a separate back and inside—is among the first levels, and they applied this level of stringency even to ordinary food prepared according to the purity requirements of sacrificial food, as you said.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who carries a defiled object that serves as a seat of impurity may carry teruma, but not sacrificial food:

And we explain:

Sacrificial food—

what is the reason that he may not carry it,

when he does not touch the teruma and therefore cannot render it impure?

Because of an incident that occurred!

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: An incident occurred involving someone who was transporting a barrel of sacrificial wine from one

place to another,

to another,