Chagigah 23a — the Talmud in English

and a strap of his sandal broke,

which had been a mishkav of a zav,

and he took

that strap in his hand,

and placed it on the mouth of

the

barrel [

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

and it fell

the strap

into the airspace of the barrel, and it became impure

the barrel [Rabbeinu Hananel], for an earthenware vessel causes impurity from within it, through its airspace.

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

a shoe of a zav, Rashi in the Mishna] is

one who carries teruma, but he may not

carry

the sacred.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if the reason for this higher level is because of an incident that occurred—

teruma also

should have this higher level, for although this incident occurred with the sacred, nevertheless, once we are imposing a decree, we should also impose it regarding teruma?!

And we answer:

Whose opinion is this?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Hanania ben Akavia,

who holds: Wherever the Sages imposed a decree concerning something because of an incident that occurred, they imposed it only in the likeness of the incident, and with regard to that same thing.

And since the incident occurred with the sacred, they decreed only with regard to the sacred, and not with regard to teruma.

For Rabbi Hanania ben Akavia

said:

They prohibited

carrying mei chatat—

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

as it explains and proceeds.

And we explain:

What is it,

this statement of Rabbi Hanania ben Akavia?

For it was taught in a beraita: A person may not carry mei chatat [

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

and the ashes of the purification offering [

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

and transport them through the Jordan on a boat,

as it explains and proceeds, because of a mishap that occurred when they were being transported by boat on the Jordan.

And

also

he may not stand on this side

of the river

and throw them to the other side,

for this resembles traveling by boat, which moves through the air.

And he may not float them upon the surface of the water,

for this resembles a boat.

And he may not ride

the one carrying them

upon an animal

within the water,

nor upon his fellow

within the water, for this too resembles a boat, where the person carrying it sits in his place and his boat carries him and transports him, and a boat sometimes scrapes along and touches the ground [Rashi, Yevamot 116b].

Unless his feet were

of the rider

touching the ground.

But he may transport them across a bridge

that extends across the water,

and he need not be concerned,

because the bridge is like solid ground, and the person transporting it walks on his feet at every moment, and it does not resemble a boat [the wording of Rashi there].

The Jordan—one,

they may not transport them through it,

and the other rivers—one,

even though that incident occurred in the Jordan.

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

and not in the other rivers,

and on a boat

alone,

and in accordance with the incident that occurred.

What was the incident that occurred,

because of which they prohibited all carrying of the water and ashes of the purification offering 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 purification offering and the ashes of the purification offering in the Jordan, on a boat, and an olive-bulk of a corpse was found wedged into the bottom of the boat,

and the vessel in which the water and ashes were placed 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 purification offering and the ashes of the purification offering, and transport them through the Jordan on a boat.

And here the Gemara returns to the higher level in our Mishna: One who carries the mishkav does not carry the sacred.

They raised a dilemma before them

regarding three uncertainties:

A. One who carries

an impure sandal,

it is obvious that he does not carry the sacred—

but one who carries

a pure sandal—

what

is his law regarding carrying the sacred?

Did they also decree against carrying a pure sandal because of an impure sandal, or not [Rashi]?

B. They raised another dilemma before them:

an open barrel

containing sacred material—we find that they decreed regarding it, in accordance with the incident that occurred, for because the barrel was open, the strap fell into it—

but to carry

a sealed barrel

when in his other hand he is carrying an impure sandal—

what

is the law? Do they decree against a sealed barrel because of an open one, or not [Rabbeinu Hananel]?

C. They raised another dilemma before them:

If he proceeded and carried

the sacred while he had an impure sandal in his hand—

what

is the law: does the sacred become impure after the fact?

The amoraim disagreed regarding the third dilemma:

Rabbi Ila said: If he proceeded and carried,

then the sacred is

impure.

Rabbi Zeira said:

If he

proceeded and carried, then the sacred is

pure,

pure.

We learned in the Mishna:

Vessels completed in purity

require immersion for the sacred, but not for teruma. And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

By whom were they completed [

who was the one who completed the making of the vessels]? That is: In whose hands were the vessels at the completion of their work, when they appeared capable of receiving impurity?

If you say that a member of the fellowship completed them [

if you explain: it was a member of the fellowship who completed them],

why do they require immersion?

For the member of the fellowship guards them so that they do not become impure.

Rather,

if you say

that an am ha-aretz completed them.

And therefore they require immersion, like the other vessels of an am ha-aretz—

this too cannot be explained. For is it possible that

the tanna calls them “completed in purity”

? For if an am ha-aretz completed them, they were completed in impurity.

He said—

he explained—

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

the case is one in which

a member of the fellowship completed them.

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

Because of

the concern of

the spittle of an am ha-aretz [

a drop of his saliva], which is a primary source of impurity like the spittle of a zav [for they are concerned that the am ha-aretz may be a zav, Rashi],

that

perhaps

fell

the spittle upon the vessel and rendered it impure, as it explains and proceeds.

But there is still a difficulty:

When,

when are you concerned that the spittle of the am ha-aretz fell upon the vessel?

If you say before he completed it [

if you explain: before the completion of the vessel’s work]?

It is not yet a vessel [

it is not a vessel], and it is not fit to receive impurity.

Rather, after he completed it,

if you explain: after the vessel was completed, we are concerned that the spittle of the am ha-aretz fell upon the vessel.

This cannot be said.

For

he is exceedingly careful with them,

the member of the fellowship, so that nothing impure should fall upon them, as is the law with the vessels of a member of the fellowship, which are pure, and we are not concerned about this.

And we explain:

In fact,

we are concerned that perhaps the spittle of the am ha-aretz fell upon it

before he completed it [

before the completion of the vessel’s making].

And if it is difficult for you: But it does not receive impurity—do not raise this difficulty:

For we are concerned

that perhaps at the time of its completion [

at the time of the completion of the work],

it is still moist

the spittle that fell upon it before he completed it, and it renders the vessel impure now, after it has been completed.

And this is what they said: “Vessels completed in purity.” Since it is not customary to guard them during their making, but only from the time they are completed, therefore there is concern that perhaps, before they were completed, spittle of an am ha-aretz fell upon them [Tosafot on the Mishna].

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

Immersion—

yes,

indeed the Sages required ordinary vessels that were completed in purity to undergo immersion.

But

waiting for sunset [

that they are not completely purified until the sun sets]—

no,

the Sages did not require them to wait for sunset, even though if the spittle of an am ha-aretz had certainly fallen upon them, they would also have required waiting for sunset.

And if so, our Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that vessels completed in purity require immersion and waiting for sunset if one uses them for mei chatat, and the same law applies to the sacred [this is the initial conclusion].

The Sages disagreed with the Sadducees concerning one who was impure, immersed, and became purified, but still required the “waiting for sunset” of that day in order to become completely pure: Is he fit to perform the service of the red cow before the sun of that day had set, or not?

According to the Sages, one who is tevul yom, who immersed but whose sun has not yet set, is already fit to engage in the red cow; whereas according to the Sadducees, he is disqualified from performing it until the sun sets.

And since the Sages wished to remove the Sadducees’ view from their hearts, they instituted that initially the service of the red cow should be performed by those who had immersed but still lacked sunset.

A. Therefore, the Sages instituted that they should render impure the koen who burns the red cow [and likewise every vessel capable of receiving impurity that they use for the acts of the cow].

And they would first render him impure, before the act of the red cow’s service, with an impurity that is not completely purified except through immersion and waiting for sunset.

And they would purify him through immersion, and he would perform the act of the service of the red cow, and they would not wait until the sun set!

B. The tannaim disagreed regarding vessels completed in purity, which are impure only by rabbinic institution: Is an impurity of this kind sufficient, so that they would immerse the vessel to purify it from this impurity, but it would still lack sunset, and they would use it for the acts of the cow without sunset—and even such an impurity would suffice to create the indication “to remove the Sadducees’ view from their hearts”—or do they require another impurity for the purpose of the indication?

For we learned: A tube that he cut for

the purpose of preserving the water of the

“purification offering”,

in order to place in it the ashes of the red cow called “purification offering” [and the tube is like all vessels completed in purity, as it explains and proceeds]:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

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

Rather,

he should immerse

it

immediately,

and he should not wait for sunset, and he should use the cut tube for the cow.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

This impurity does not provide an indication against the Sadducees.

Rather,

he should render it impure

first with another impurity that requires waiting for sunset,

and afterward he should immerse,

and he should not wait until sunset, and he should use it for the cow.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it,

in order to explain the impurity of the tube:

Who cut it [

who cut it]?

If you say that a member of the fellowship cut it—

why do I need immersion

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

And if,

if you say

that an am ha-aretz cut it,

and the vessel became impure through him.

This cannot be said.

For it is impossible that

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

the tube

and immerse it!

For

this

tube certainly is

impure and standing [

it is surely impure and remains in its impurity because an am ha-aretz cut it], and it requires waiting for sunset. And if he immerses it from this impurity and does not wait for sunset, then surely there is an indication against the Sadducees in it; so why does he need to add impurity to its impurity?!

And Rabba bar Sheila said in the name of Rav Mattana in the name of Shmuel: In fact

the case is one in which

a member of the fellowship cut

the tube. And it requires immersion

because of

the concern of

the spittle of an am ha-aretz that fell

upon it.

But Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it does not require waiting for sunset because of this concern; therefore, it requires another impurity that does require waiting for sunset, in order to remove the Sadducees’ view from their hearts.

And we explain:

When

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

If you say before he cut it [

if before the cutting],

it is not yet a vessel [

it is not yet a vessel capable of receiving impurity].

And if,

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

after

after

he cut it.

This is not possible, for

the member of the fellowship is exceedingly careful with it,

and it is not impure at all.

Rather,

in fact,

we are concerned that the spittle fell upon it

before he cut it.

Nevertheless, there is concern:

Perhaps at the time he cut it,

when the tube became a vessel,

it is still moist

that spittle of the am ha-aretz which had fallen upon it earlier, and it now renders it impure, as is the law of vessels completed in purity.

And now the Gemara explains the proof that Rabbi Eliezer holds: Vessels completed in purity [including a tube that he cut] require waiting for sunset in addition to immersion.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

who said to render the tube impure with another impurity,

this is where there is an indication against the Sadducees

by means of the new impurity, through the fact that they do not wait for sunset.

And

as we learned:

they would make a distinguishing sign to remove [the belief] from the hearts of the Sadducees:

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

and they would not wait for sunset—to

remove [the belief] from the hearts of the Sadducees, who would say: “Only when those who have undergone sunset purification,”

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 impurity and immerse it in order to remove [the belief] from the hearts of the Sadducees; rather, this impurity alone is sufficient to remove [the belief] from their hearts.

If you say, granted, that ordinarily,

in the case of vessels completed in 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 here a distinguishing sign to remove [the belief] from the hearts of the Sadducees.

But if you say that ordinarily,

in the case of vessels completed in purity,

we do not require sunset—

what distinguishing sign for the Sadducees is there

through this impurity alone, for which there is no law of sunset?!

And surely, we should have rendered it impure with another impurity that requires sunset.

You have thus learned according to the view of Rabbi Eliezer that vessels completed in purity require sunset; and if so, our Mishna, which said that immersion alone is sufficient, is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

Said

[and] rejected

Rav

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

For one may indeed say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, ordinarily vessels completed in purity do not require sunset. And what is difficult for you: if they do not require sunset, where is the distinguishing sign for the Sadducees? Surely, ordinarily too, sunset is not required?