Chagigah 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

Or both are going out

from the city and entering it, and they saw one another before reaching Modi'in, when the ḥaver could have purchased from him before the city, but he was negligent and did not purchase from him [Meiri] -

They are

like those outside

and the potter is not deemed credible.

Abaye said: We too have learned this

in our Mishna, in accordance with the distinction explained in the beraita:

For one can raise a difficulty from the Mishna itself, for we learned:

The potter who sold the pottery and entered “inside

Modi'in”

is deemed credible. And this implies:

The reason is that he entered inside Modi'in; but

if he entered only

Modi'in itself, he is not deemed credible.

But

say the latter clause: He left

[Modi'in]

he is not deemed credible,

and this implies:

If he was in Modi'in itself,

he is

deemed credible;

and the first clause contradicts the latter clause?!

Rather, learn from it:

Here

—the latter clause—

concerns a potter leaving and a ḥaver entering,

and therefore, had he been in Modi'in itself, he would have been deemed credible.

And here

—the first clause—

concerns both of them leaving, or both of them entering,

and therefore he is deemed credible only inside Modi'in.

A tanna

in a beraita taught:

The ammei ha-aretz are not

deemed credible

concerning their vessels from Modi'in and inward, except

concerning fine earthenware vessels,

such as pots, cups, and small jugs, since it is impossible to manage without these vessels. But concerning coarse vessels, such as a barrel for wine, they are deemed credible only when they bring them to Jerusalem itself, as will be explained in the Mishna below.

And they are deemed credible only

for sacred matters.

Reish Lakish said: And this applies

when the earthenware vessels were small, so

that each one could be lifted

by itself

in one hand;

in that case the am ha-aretz is deemed credible.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even

when they are large,

so that they cannot be lifted in one hand.

Reish Lakish said: They taught

that potters are deemed credible concerning earthenware vessels

only

when they are

empty; but when they are full, they are not.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even when they are full, and even when his garment is inside it

[even when they are full of liquids belonging to the potter and not sacred liquids].

And Rava said: Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that concerning the liquids

themselves, they are impure.

He was deemed credible only concerning the vessels, but not concerning the liquids.

And do not be surprised

that the Sages would say something of this kind, so that the status of the vessels would differ from the status of the liquids inside them,

for

this is the manner of all the statements of the Sages. We find likewise in the Mishna in tractate Oholot [chapter 5, mishna 4], where the Sages distinguished between the vessels and what was inside them:

An earthenware vessel belonging to an am ha-aretz, covered with a tightly sealed cover, which was in a tent containing a corpse, or which sealed the opening between the house [in which there was a corpse] and the upper story, protects only food and liquids from becoming impure, but not vessels, as all this was explained above, on page 22 [according to Beit Shammai, and Beit Hillel later instructed that the halakha follows their view, as we learned there in Oholot].

And if there were

a jug

[a jug] of other types of vessels

full of liquids—

that were inside an earthenware vessel belonging to an am ha-aretz and covered with a tightly sealed cover, or that were standing in the upper story while an earthenware vessel belonging to an am ha-aretz separated between the house and the upper story—then the

jugs

themselves are

impure with seven-day impurity,

since an earthenware vessel belonging to an am ha-aretz does not protect them from becoming impure.

But

if the

liquids

inside the jugs were

pure,

the earthenware vessel protected them.

And so too here: the liquids are impure, while the vessel is pure.

Mishna:

There is another stringency concerning teruma compared with sacred matters:

1.

The tax collectors

[collectors of taxes for a gentile king, and they are ammei ha-aretz]

who entered a house

in order to take collateral, and there is concern that they may have touched the other vessels in the house [Tosafot Yom Tov].

And likewise thieves who returned the vessels

of earthenware that they had stolen, and there is concern that they may have touched them on the inside [for an earthenware vessel becomes impure only from its inside] and rendered them impure [Rashi].

These people are

deemed credible to say

with regard to sacred matters,

“We did not touch them,”

but concerning teruma they are not deemed credible [Rashi].

2.

And in Jerusalem

itself

the potters are deemed credible

concerning their pottery

for sacred matters—concerning the purity of earthenware vessels, even coarse ones, and certainly fine ones, for the sake of sacred matters. This will be explained in the Gemara.

And during the pilgrimage festival

the ammei ha-aretz are deemed credible

even concerning teruma.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The tax collectors who entered a house are deemed credible to say, “We did not touch them”:

And we raise a contradiction

from a Mishna in tractate Toharot:

The tax collectors who entered a house,

then

the entire house is impure!

All the vessels in the house are impure, for it is presumed that the tax collectors handle the vessels, whereas in our Mishna we learned that they are deemed credible to say, “We did not touch them”?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This

—the Mishna in Toharot, which states that the entire house is impure—is referring to a case

where a gentile was with them

[there was a gentile with them]. Since they fear him, they handle everything in the house, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

This

—our Mishna, which states that they are deemed credible to say, “We did not touch them”—is referring to a case

where there was no gentile with them.

For we learned:

If there is a gentile with them [with the tax collectors], they are

deemed credible to say, “We did not enter

the house at all,”

but they are not deemed credible to say, “We entered, but we did not touch anything.”

And we explain:

When there is a gentile with them—

what difference does it make

[when there is a gentile with them, why are they not deemed credible]?

Rabbi Yoḥanan and

Rabbi Elazar

disagreed about this:

One said: Because

of the

fear of the gentile

himself

that is upon them,

lest he punish them physically or financially.

And one said: The fear of the authorities is upon them,

lest the gentile inform the authorities that they are showing leniency in their searches and taking collateral in a panic; therefore, they search very thoroughly and touch everything [Meiri].

What is the practical difference between them,

between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar?

There is a difference between them

when there was with them

an unimportant gentile,

for they do not fear him himself, but fear that he will inform against them.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise thieves who returned the vessels

are deemed credible to say, “We did not touch them”:

And we raise a contradiction

from a Mishna in tractate Toharot:

Thieves who entered a house: only the place trodden by the thieves is impure.

It follows that the place where they trod is impure, and all the more so the vessels themselves that they stole and returned are impure?!

Rav Pinḥas said in the name of Rabba:

Our Mishna is dealing with a case

where

the thieves

repented, and they returned the vessels as a result; therefore, they are not lying.

It is precise as well

that our Mishna is dealing with thieves who repented,

from the fact

that it teaches: “Who returned the vessels.”

Learn from it!

We learned in the Mishna:

And in Jerusalem they are deemed credible concerning sacred matters:

A tanna

taught in a beraita: They are

deemed credible concerning coarse earthenware vessels

[and all the more so concerning fine vessels]

for sacred matters.

And why so much,

that the Sages deemed them credible concerning fine vessels even outside Jerusalem, and in Jerusalem itself deemed them credible even concerning coarse vessels [Rashi]?

Because

kilns are not made in Jerusalem.

We learned in the Mishna:

And during the pilgrimage festival

[they are deemed credible]

even concerning teruma: From where are these matters derived?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

From

what the verse says

in the account of the Concubine at Gibeah:

“And all the men of Israel gathered to the city as one man, united.”

The verse rendered them all

—at the time of their gathering—

united,

and the pilgrimage festival is also a time of gathering.

Mishna:

A ḥaver

who opens his barrel

to sell wine in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage festival,

and

likewise

one who begins preparing his dough

[his loaf] to sell it [Rashi, Beitza 11], and everyone who comes to purchase handles them, and the ammei ha-aretz also handle them—

because of the pilgrimage festival,

on account of the elevated status of the pilgrimage festival, when everyone is a ḥaver [Melekhet Shlomo].

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may finish

selling them!

He may sell everything that remains, even to ḥaverim and to anyone else, also after the pilgrimage festival [Rashi, Beitza].

And the Sages say: He may not finish

selling them after the pilgrimage festival. For although they are pure during the pilgrimage festival, this does not mean that their purity is actual purity; rather, during the pilgrimage festival everyone is considered a ḥaver, but after the festival their contact is retroactively impure.

Gemara:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa were sitting at the lodging

at the entrance to the house

of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa.

One of them opened

the discussion

and said: Let us consider the opinion of the Sages, who hold that he may not finish selling it after the pilgrimage festival—

what is the ruling: May he leave it for the next pilgrimage festival?

The other said to him: But

there is

the hand of everyone

including the ammei ha-aretz

handling it

during the pilgrimage festival,

and you say that he may leave it for the next pilgrimage festival?!

He said to him: Is that so?

And did

until now

[until now, when they permitted him to sell it during the pilgrimage festival]

the hand of everyone not handle it,

and nevertheless you permitted it? The same should apply to permitting it during the next pilgrimage festival?!

He said to him: Now it is different

What comparison is this?! The matter under discussion is not analogous to the proof.

For

granted, until now,

during the pilgrimage festival, when we permitted him to sell it, the reason we permitted him was that

the impurity of an am ha-aretz during the pilgrimage festival

the Torah has declared pure.

But now,

it is

impure

retroactively, and a ḥaver is not permitted to sell something that is impure.

Let us say that this is subject to a dispute between tannaim:

who disputed according to the view of the Sages of our Mishna, who hold that he may not finish, whether nevertheless he may leave it for the coming pilgrimage?

For one beraita teaches: He may leave it for the next pilgrimage festival.

And another beraita teaches: He may not leave it for the next pilgrimage festival.

Is it not that this is a dispute between tannaim

who disagree according to the view of the Sages in our Mishna, who hold that he may not finish selling it, as to whether he may nevertheless leave it for the next pilgrimage festival?

And we reject this:

No,

not as you understand it, that the tannaim disagree according to the view of the Sages, but rather:

The one that teaches: “He may leave it”

for the next pilgrimage festival is the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who is cited in our Mishna.

And the one that teaches: “He may not leave it” is the view of the Sages

in our Mishna.

We challenge this:

But can you really understand it so?!

Do you think it is possible to say, as you have said, that the beraita which holds that he may leave it for the next pilgrimage festival is the view of Rabbi Yehuda?

But Rabbi Yehuda says that he may finish

immediately after the pilgrimage festival

is what he said,

and he need not leave it until the next pilgrimage festival?!

Rather

the Gemara explains the baraitot in reverse:

the one that teaches, “He shall not leave it”

for another pilgrimage Festival

is Rabbi Yehuda

and, as he proceeds to explain, it is not necessary for him to leave it until the next pilgrimage Festival; rather, he may complete it immediately after the Festival.

And the one that teaches, “He shall leave it”

for another pilgrimage Festival

is the Rabbis

.

And what does “he shall not leave it”

mean, as Rabbi Yehuda says in the baraita? But even immediately after the Festival he may complete it, and all the more so, if he wishes, he may leave it until another pilgrimage Festival?

This is what he is saying:

it is not necessary for him to leave it

until after the Festival; rather, he should complete it immediately.

Mishna:

Although during the pilgrimage Festival everyone is deemed a haver, this statement applies only with regard to the fact that during the Festival itself they do not need to be concerned about their contact; but once the Festival has passed, everything they touched is retroactively impure, since they are amei ha-aretz.

Therefore:

once the Festival had passed,

they would

remove the utensils for the purification of the Temple courtyard.

They would remove the utensils from their places in order to immerse them and purify the Temple courtyard from the impurity of the amei ha-aretz who had touched them.

And if

the Festival ended on Friday [

the Festival had ended and Friday had begun ],

they would not remove

the utensils for the purification of the Temple courtyard

on Friday, out of respect for Shabbat

because the kohanim had to attend in their homes to the needs of Shabbat and had no time to undertake the purification of the Temple courtyard; rather, they would do so on Sunday.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not even

remove the utensils for the purification of the Temple courtyard

on Thursday

immediately following the Festival,

because the kohanim were not free [

as the Gemara explains ], and they would do so on Sunday.

Gemara:

The tanna

in the baraita explains what we learned: “They would not even do so on Thursday, because the kohanim were not free”:

Because the kohanim were not free from taking out the ashes.

They were occupied on the day after the Festival with removing the ashes that had accumulated on the altar because of the many offerings that the Jewish people brought during the pilgrimage Festivals.

Mishna:

How do they remove the utensils for the purification of the Temple courtyard?

They immerse

after the Festival

the utensils that were in the Temple.

And

as for the table, which cannot be immersed because of the showbread upon it, the Torah said: “Showbread before Me always” -