Chagigah 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

and a strap of his sandal broke,

which had been a zav’s midras,

and he took

that strap in his hand,

and placed it on the mouth of

the

barrel [

which was earthenware, and the barrel did not become impure through contact with the back of the vessel],

and

the strap

fell into the airspace of the barrel, and it became impure

the barrel [Rabbenu Hananel], for an earthenware vessel becomes impure from within, through its airspace.

At that time they said: One who carries a midras [

a zav’s shoe, Rashi in the Mishna] is

considered to be carrying teruma, but he may not carry

carry

sacred food.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that the reason for this higher degree of stringency is the incident that occurred,

teruma as well

should have this higher degree of stringency, for although that incident involved sacred food, nevertheless, since we are issuing a decree, we should issue a decree with regard to teruma as well?!

And we answer:

Whose opinion is this?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Hanania ben Akavia,

who holds: Wherever the Sages issued a decree concerning something because of an incident that occurred, they issued the decree only with regard to something resembling the incident, and concerning that very matter.

And since the incident involved sacred food, they issued the decree only with regard to sacred food, and not teruma.

For

Rabbi Hanania ben Akavia

said: They

did not prohibit carrying the water of the parah aduma

except in the Jordan, and on a boat, in accordance with the incident that occurred,

as the Gemara will explain below.

And we explain:

What is it—

this statement of Rabbi Hanania ben Akavia?

As it was taught in a beraita: A person may not carry the water of the parah aduma [

water into which the ashes of the cow had been mixed, in order to sprinkle it upon one who is impure, Meiri]

or the ashes of the parah aduma [

the ashes of the cow before they were mixed with water, Meiri]

and transport them across the Jordan on a boat,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain, because of a mishap that occurred when they were transported by boat on the Jordan.

And

likewise,

he may not stand on this side

of the river

and throw them to the other side,

as this resembles traveling by boat, which proceeds through the air.

Nor may he float them on the surface of the water,

as this resembles a boat.

Nor may

the person carrying them

ride on an animal

in the water,

nor on another person’s back

in the water, for this too resembles a boat: The person carrying him sits in his place, while his boat carries him along, and sometimes a boat scrapes against and touches the ground [Rashi, Yevamot 116b].

Unless the rider’s feet

touch

the ground.

But he may transport them across a bridge

that extends over the water,

and he need not be concerned,

because the bridge is like solid ground, and the person transporting them walks on his feet the entire time, so it does not resemble a boat [Rashi’s wording there].

The Jordan

may not be crossed with them,

nor may the other rivers,

even though that incident occurred in the Jordan.

Rabbi Hanania ben Akavia says: They prohibited it only in the Jordan,

but not in the other rivers,

and on a boat

only,

in accordance with the incident that occurred.

What was the incident that occurred,

that caused them to prohibit all carrying of the water and ashes of the parah aduma in the Jordan and on a boat?

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: An incident occurred involving a certain man who was transporting the water of the parah aduma and its ashes on the Jordan, on a boat, and an olive-bulk of a corpse was found embedded in the bottom of the boat,

and the vessel containing the water and ashes formed a tent over it, and they became impure and disqualified.

At that time they said: A person may not carry the water of the parah aduma and its ashes and transport them across the Jordan on a boat.

Here the Gemara returns to the higher degree of stringency in our Mishna: One who carries a midras may not carry sacred food.

They raised

three uncertainties:

A. One who carries a

ritually impure sandal

obviously may not carry sacred food—

but one who carries a

ritually pure sandal—

what

is the law concerning his carrying sacred food?

Did they also issue a decree prohibiting carrying a ritually pure sandal because of a ritually impure sandal, or not [Rashi]?

B. They further raised an uncertainty:

An open barrel

containing sacred food—we find that a decree was issued concerning it, in accordance with the incident that occurred, since the strap fell into it because the barrel was open—

but carrying

a sealed barrel

while carrying an impure sandal in his other hand—

what

is the law? Do we issue a decree concerning a sealed barrel because of an open one, or not [Rabbenu Hananel]?

C. They further raised an uncertainty:

If he transgressed and carried

sacred food while holding an impure sandal—

what

is the law? Does the sacred food become impure after the fact?

The amoraim disagreed concerning the third uncertainty:

Rabbi Ila said: If he transgressed and carried,

the sacred food is

impure.

Rabbi Zeira said: If he

If he

transgressed and carried,

the sacred food is

pure.

We learned in the Mishna:

Vessels completed in a state of ritual purity

require immersion for sacred food, but not for teruma. And we raised a question about this:

Who completed them

? [Who was the one who completed the manufacture of the vessels?] In other words: In whose possession were the vessels when their manufacture was completed, at which point they became susceptible to ritual impurity?

If we say that a member of the havura completed them

[if you interpret it as: A member of the havura completed them],

why do they require immersion

? The member of the havura guards them so that they do not become impure.

Rather,

perhaps you will say

that an am ha-aretz completed them.

Consequently, they require immersion, like all vessels of an am ha-aretz—

but this too cannot be the explanation. Is it conceivable that

the tanna calls them “completed in a state of ritual purity”

? If an am ha-aretz completed them, they were completed in a state of impurity.

He said—

he explained—

Rabba bar Sheila said in the name of Rav Mattana in the name of Shmuel: Actually,

the case is one in which

a member of the havura completed them.

And if it is difficult for you: Why do they require immersion? The reason is:

Because of

the concern over

the spittle of an am ha-aretz

[a drop of his saliva], which is a primary source of ritual impurity, like the spittle of a zav [for there is concern that an am ha-aretz might be a zav, Rashi],

that

perhaps

fell

the spittle onto the vessel and rendered it impure, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

But there is still a difficulty:

When,

at what point are you concerned that the spittle of an am ha-aretz fell onto the vessel?

If we say, before he completed it

[if you interpret this as referring to before the vessel’s manufacture was completed],

it is not yet a vessel

[it is not a vessel], and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Rather, after he completed it,

perhaps you will say that after the vessel was completed, we are concerned that the spittle of an am ha-aretz fell onto it.

It is impossible to say this.

For

he is careful concerning them,

the member of the havura, so that no source of impurity falls upon them, as is the law with all vessels belonging to a member of the havura, which are pure; there is no concern of this kind.

And we explain:

Actually,

we are concerned that his spittle fell upon it

before he completed it

[before the completion of the vessel’s manufacture].

And if it is difficult for you that it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, this is not difficult:

For we are concerned

that perhaps at the time he completed it

[at the time of completion of its manufacture],

it was still moist

the spittle that had fallen upon it before its completion, and it now renders the vessel impure, after it has been completed.

This is what they said: “Vessels completed in a state of ritual purity.” Since it is not customary to guard them during their manufacture, but only from the time they are completed, there is concern that the spittle of an am ha-aretz may have fallen upon them before they were completed [Tosafot in the Mishna].

And we infer from what they said in the Mishna: Vessels completed in a state of ritual purity require “immersion” for sacred food:

Immersion—

yes,

indeed the Sages required ordinary vessels completed in a state of ritual purity to be immersed.

But

waiting until sunset

[that is, the fact that they do not become completely pure until the sun sets]—

no; the Sages did not impose stringency upon them to require this, even though if the spittle of an am ha-aretz had certainly fallen upon them, they would also require waiting until sunset.

And if so, our Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that vessels completed in a state of ritual purity require immersion and waiting until sunset if they are used for the water of the parah aduma, and the same applies to sacred food [this is the initial assumption].

The Sages disputed with the Sadducees concerning one who had immersed and become purified, but who still needed to wait until sunset that day in order to become completely pure: Is he fit to perform the service of the red heifer before the sun has set that day or not?

According to the Sages, one who is tevul yom, having immersed but not yet waited until sunset, is already fit to engage in the preparation of the red heifer. According to the Sadducees, he is disqualified from performing it until the sun has set.

Since the Sages wished to uproot the Sadducees’ position, they ordained that, from the outset, the service of the red heifer be performed by people who had immersed but still lacked sunset.

A. Therefore, the Sages ordained that they render impure the kohen who burns the red heifer [and likewise every vessel susceptible to ritual impurity that they use for the procedures of the red heifer].

They would first render him impure, before the service of the red heifer, with an impurity that can be completely removed only through immersion and waiting until sunset.

They would then purify him through immersion, and he would perform the service of the red heifer, without waiting until sunset!

B. The tannaim disputed concerning vessels completed in a state of ritual purity, which are impure only by rabbinic ordinance: Is an impurity of this kind sufficient, so that they immerse the vessel to purify it from this impurity, while it still lacks sunset, and use it for the procedures of the red heifer without waiting until sunset—so that even such an impurity suffices to establish the sign intended to “uproot the Sadducees’ position”—or is a different impurity required for this purpose?

As we learned: A tube that one cut for

the purpose of preserving the water of the

“

parah aduma,”

in order to place in it the ashes of the red heifer called the “sin offering” [and the tube is like all vessels completed in a state of ritual purity, as the Gemara proceeds to explain]:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

There is no need to render it impure with another impurity that requires waiting until sunset.

Rather,

he should immerse

it

immediately,

without waiting until sunset, and use the cut tube for the red heifer.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

This impurity does not provide a sign against the Sadducees.

Rather,

he should render it impure

initially with another impurity that requires waiting until sunset,

and afterward he should immerse it,

without waiting until sunset, and use it for the red heifer.

And we raised a question

in order to explain the impurity of the tube:

Who cut it

?

If we say that a member of the havura cut it—

why do I need immersion

now [as Rabbi Eliezer said, “He should immerse it immediately”]? It is not impure at all, and even Rabbi Eliezer should have said: “He should render it impure, and afterward immerse it”?!

But rather,

perhaps you will say

that an am ha-aretz cut it,

and the vessel became impure through him.

It is impossible to say this.

For it is inconceivable that

in this case Rabbi Yehoshua would say: “He should render it impure”

the tube

and immerse it!

For

this

tube is certainly

impure and remains so

[surely it is impure and remains in its state of impurity because an am ha-aretz cut it], and requires waiting until sunset. If he immerses it to remove this impurity but does not wait until sunset, then it certainly contains the sign against the Sadducees. Why, then, would he need to add another impurity to its impurity?!

And Rabba bar Sheila said in the name of Rav Mattana in the name of Shmuel: Actually,

the case is one in which

a member of the havura cut

the tube. And it requires immersion

because of

the concern over

the spittle of an am ha-aretz that fell

upon it.

However, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it does not require waiting until sunset because of this concern. Therefore, it requires another impurity that requires waiting until sunset, in order to uproot the Sadducees’ position.

And we explain:

When

are you concerned that the spittle of an am ha-aretz fell upon it?

If we say before he cut it

[if you interpret this as before the cutting],

it is not yet a vessel

[it is not yet a vessel capable of contracting ritual impurity].

But rather,

perhaps you will say that we are concerned that the spittle fell upon it

after

he

cut it.

This is not possible, for

he is careful concerning it,

the member of the havura, and it is not impure at all.

Rather,

actually,

we are concerned that the spittle fell upon it

before he cut it.

Nevertheless, there is cause for concern:

perhaps at the time he cut it,

when the tube became a vessel,

it was still moist

—that spittle of the am ha-aretz that had fallen upon it earlier—and it now renders it impure, in accordance with the law of vessels completed in a state of ritual purity.

Now the Gemara explains the proof that Rabbi Eliezer holds: Vessels completed in a state of ritual purity [including a tube that one cut] require waiting until sunset in addition to immersion.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

who said that the tube should be rendered impure with another impurity,

there is the sign against the Sadducees

through the new impurity, by not waiting until sunset.

And

as we learned:

they would make a distinguishing sign to remove the Sadducees’ misconception:

They would render impure the kohen who burned the red heifer,

and they would not wait for sunset—for the purpose of

removing the misconception of the Sadducees, who would say: “Only by those whose sun has set,”

whose sun had already set,

was it performed,

but not before that.

But according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who said that he should immerse the tube immediately, and there is no need to render it impure with another form of ritual impurity and then immerse it in order to remove the Sadducees’ misconception; rather, this impurity alone is sufficient to remove their misconception.

Granted, if you say that generally,

with regard to vessels completed in a state of purity,

we require sunset, then there is a distinguishing sign for the Sadducees

through this impurity alone. Since it requires sunset in order to become pure, and they do not wait for it, there is indeed a distinguishing sign here to remove the Sadducees’ misconception.

But if you say that generally,

with regard to vessels completed in a state of purity,

we do not require sunset—

what distinguishing sign for the Sadducees is there

through this impurity alone, which is not subject to the requirement of sunset?!

Yet we should have rendered it impure with another form of ritual impurity, one that requires sunset.

You have therefore learned from Rabbi Eliezer’s view that vessels completed in a state of purity require sunset; and if so, our Mishna, which says that immersion alone suffices, is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

He said,

rejecting

Rav

the proof that Rabbi Eliezer holds that vessels completed in a state of purity require sunset:

Actually, one can say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, vessels completed in a state of purity generally do not require sunset. And as for your difficulty: If they do not require sunset, where is the distinguishing sign for the Sadducees, since in general, too, sunset is not required?