Chagigah 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai said to them,

to Beit Hillel:

When we declared the food and liquids inside it pure,

for

the am ha-aretz

himself

it is that we

declared pure,

because ḥaverim in any event do not eat with them, since their touch renders objects impure.

But shall we declare the vessel pure—a purity that applies to you and to him?!

That is to say: If we declare the vessels pure for him, there is concern that he may lend them to a ḥaver. Indeed, for this reason we should have said that even an earthenware vessel does not protect the contents. But since it cannot be purified in a mikveh and must be broken, the am ha-aretz will certainly not heed us. However, vessels that can be purified by immersion in a mikveh—even an am ha-aretz will heed us and immerse them.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am ashamed

[I am embarrassed]

by your words, Beit Shammai,

for what substance is there in your words?

For is it

possible

that

a woman is kneading dough in a kneading trough

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

woman and the trough are impure

with the impurity of a corpse, which lasts

seven

days, since the earthenware vessel does not interpose for them,

while

the

dough

would be

pure,

since, with regard to food and liquids, the sealing of the vessel is effective to interpose against impurity?!

Likewise, is it possible that a vessel called a

login

[the Rashash notes that it is not earthenware]

is full of liquids,

when it is placed inside a covered earthenware vessel, or in an upper story where the opening of the skylight is sealed by an earthenware vessel, and that the

login is impure with seven-day impurity

because it became impure in the tent of a corpse,

while

the

liquids

inside it would be

pure?!

One of

Rabbi Yehoshua’s

students, a student of Beit Shammai, joined him,

and

said to him,

to Rabbi Yehoshua:

I shall tell

you

the reason for Beit Shammai’s ruling.

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to that student:

Speak!

He said—

he asked

him,

that student asked Rabbi Yehoshua: Is

an impure vessel an interposition

against impurity,

or is it not an interposition?

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to him:

It is not an interposition!

That student continued and asked: Is

an am ha-aretz’s vessel impure

or

pure?

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to him:

Impure!

That student continued:

And if you say to him,

to the am ha-aretz, concerning his vessel, that it is

impure, will that am ha-aretz pay any attention to you?

Surely he will certainly not pay attention to you.

Moreover, if you say to him

to the am ha-aretz that he is

impure, then that am ha-aretz

will

say to you:

On the contrary,

mine is pure and yours is impure.

And this is the reason for Beit Shammai’s ruling!

Since an am ha-aretz’s vessels are impure, and he does not accept our statement that they are impure, the Sages said: Vessels that can be purified in a mikveh remain impure and are not protected by an am ha-aretz’s vessel, since the am ha-aretz will heed us and immerse them; but an earthenware vessel, which cannot be purified in a mikveh and would have to be broken, will not.

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

and

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

And if such are your concealed matters, how much more so your explicit ones!

The Sages said

about Rabbi Yehoshua:

All his days

his teeth were blackened because of his fasts

[the teeth of one who fasts extensively become black], because he had expressed himself in this way regarding 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 shall purify the vessel whose purification is

“for you and for him”,

and there is concern that it may be lent.

Apparently, we do borrow from them.

But this is difficult: Why is it permitted to immerse one vessel inside another for teruma? Surely there is concern that an am ha-aretz will likewise immerse his vessels in this manner, and a ḥaver will come and borrow one from him?!

And we answer:

When we borrow from them—

we immerse them!

When a ḥaver borrows a vessel from an am ha-aretz, he must immerse it, because perhaps he immersed one vessel inside another [Rashi].

And we raise an objection:

If so, let Beit Hillel respond to Beit Shammai

[let them give this answer] as well:

When we borrow vessels from them,

vessels

we immerse them.

There is no longer any concern regarding borrowing, so why did Beit Shammai declare them impure?!

And we answer: Since in the matter disputed by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel we are dealing with impurity from a corpse,

one impure with corpse impurity requires sprinkling

of the water of the purification offering on the

third and seventh

days, immersion alone can no longer be relied upon.

Since

a vessel is needed for seven days—

people do not lend such vessels

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

We nevertheless ask: How can you say that anyone who borrows a vessel from an am ha-aretz must immerse it?

And

does

an am ha-aretz not merit trust regarding immersion

?

But it was taught in a beraita: ammei ha-aretz are trusted regarding the purity of the immersion of one impure with corpse impurity.

You have therefore learned that a ḥaver need not be concerned that the am ha-aretz immersed one vessel inside another?!

Abaye said: It is not difficult,

for:

This

that we learned—that ammei ha-aretz are trusted regarding immersion—applies specifically

to his body,

when the am ha-aretz himself becomes pure through immersion.

This—

that we said that an am ha-aretz is not trusted and the ḥaver must immerse the vessel again—applies

to his vessels,

since there is concern that he immersed one vessel inside another.

Rava said:

In all cases,

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

for:

This

that we learned—that ammei ha-aretz are trusted regarding immersion—concerns a case where the am ha-aretz

said:

“I have

never immersed one vessel inside another.”

And this

that we said that an am ha-aretz is not trusted and the vessel must be immersed again concerns a case where he

said: “I have never immersed one vessel inside another whose opening was not as wide as the tube of a wineskin.”

And it was taught

[agreeably, indicating a distinction regarding what the am ha-aretz testifies]:

An am ha-aretz is trusted to say: “These fruits

were

were never rendered susceptible

to impurity,” and consequently they are pure.

But he is not trusted to say:

“These

fruits

were

rendered susceptible, but did not become impure.”

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

And we challenge Abaye:

Is an am ha-aretz trusted even regarding his body,

when he has immersed?

But it was taught in a beraita: A ḥaver

who became impure through contact with a corpse,

who came to receive the 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”—

the first sprinkling is performed upon him immediately,

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

But

when an am ha-aretz comes to receive the sprinkling, the sprinkling is not performed upon him until he has undergone the third and seventh days in our presence.

That is to say: The sprinkling is not performed upon him immediately. Rather, we wait three days for him, because we do not believe 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

that there is another answer to the question raised above: regarding a vessel immersed inside another, we do not trust him, whereas the beraita indicates that an am ha-aretz is trusted regarding the purity of the immersion of one impure with corpse impurity. The reason for the ruling in the beraita is:

Because of the stringency with which you treated him at the beginning,

for if he comes before you and says, “I am on the third day of my impurity,” you do not trust him; therefore

you treated him leniently at the end,

trusting him regarding the immersion that follows the sprinkling. But regarding other immersions, he is not trusted.

We learned in the Mishna:

the back and the inside

and the place for grasping, with regard to teruma:

And we explain:

What is meant by “the back and the inside”?

That is to say: With regard to what do we distinguish between the back and inside of the vessel and its place for grasping?

And we explain:

As we learned:

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

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

c. The Sages decreed that every liquid—even one that became impure as a secondary degree of impurity—is a first degree of impurity.

d. The Sages further decreed that every impure liquid renders a vessel impure and makes it a secondary degree of impurity. Although by Torah law a liquid does not render a vessel impure, the Sages issued a decree concerning all liquids, on account of the discharge of a man or woman with a flux, which renders a vessel impure by Torah law.

Since the impurity of liquids that render vessels impure is a rabbinic ruling, and the Sages were concerned that people might come to burn teruma and consecrated items because of it, the Sages established a sign indicating that this impurity is only rabbinic, and said:

A vessel

[that is not earthenware and can become impure from its exterior]

whose back became impure through liquids—

then

its back

alone is

impure.

But

its inside,

and

its rim

[its doubled lip projecting outward and suitable for use, Rashi], and

its handle

[for example, the handle of a barrel], and

its grips

[the place by which it is held] are

pure. If

the inside became impure

through liquids, then

the entire vessel is impure.

and the place of grasping

We learned in the Mishna: The back and the inside

and the place for grasping

with regard to teruma:

And we explain:

What is the place for grasping?

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

[where he holds the vessel and extends it to others].

And so it says

concerning Boaz and Ruth:

“And he extended roasted grain to her,”

and the Targum translates: “And he extended it to her.”

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan

explained “the place for grasping” as

the place where refined people dip

[the fastidious immerse food].

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

Rav Bibi taught before Rav Naḥman:

All vessels do not have a back and an inside,

that is to say: Their backs are not distinct from their insides; rather, if their backs become impure, their insides also become impure.

Both consecrated items of the Temple and consecrated items of the border,

and he proceeds to explain this.

He said—

he expressed astonishment

to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Bibi:

Consecrated items of the border—

concerning which you say that they do not have a back and an inside—

what are they?

Teruma,

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

But we learned

in our Mishna:

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

indicating that even consecrated items of the border have a back and an inside, contrary to what you say.

Perhaps you were speaking of ordinary food prepared in the purity of consecrated items,

and you call this “consecrated items of the border,” since it too may be eaten throughout the borders of the Land of Israel. The teaching would then be that even ordinary food prepared in the purity of consecrated items has no distinction between the back and the inside: If one of them becomes impure, the entire vessel becomes impure. For with regard to this additional level of stringency, ordinary food prepared in the purity of consecrated items is considered like consecrated items.

And if so:

You have reminded me of something that Rabba bar Avuha said

[you have reminded me of what he said]:

“Eleven levels of stringency were taught here

in our Mishna:

the first six apply both to consecrated items and to ordinary food prepared in the purity of consecrated items,

whereas the

last

six apply only

to consecrated items, but not to ordinary food prepared in the purity of consecrated items.

And this level of stringency—the absence of a back and an inside for consecrated items—is among the first levels of stringency, and they imposed this level even upon ordinary food prepared in the purity of consecrated items, as you said.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who carries a midras carries teruma, but not consecrated items:

And we explain:

Consecrated items—

why is he not permitted to carry them

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

Because of an incident that occurred!

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: An incident occurred involving one who was carrying a barrel of consecrated wine from one place

to another,