Chagigah 26a — the Talmud in English

Or both are going out

from before the city and entering it, and they saw one another before they were in Modi'in, so that the chaver could have purchased from him before the city, but he was negligent and did not purchase from him [Meiri]—

they are

like outside

and the potter is not believed.

Abaye said: We too have likewise learned

in our Mishna the distinction explained in the beraita:

For one can raise a difficulty against our Mishna from within itself, for we learned:

The potter who sold the pots and entered “inside

the boundary of Modi'in”

is believed. And it is implied:

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

if he entered only into

Modi'in itself, he is not believed.

But

say the latter clause: He went out

of Modi'in

he is not believed,

and it is implied:

Modi'in itself,

he is

believed. And the first clause is difficult in relation to the latter clause?!

and the first clause contradicts the latter clause?!

Rather, is it not to be inferred:

Here—

the latter clause—

is when the potter is going out and the chaver is entering,

and therefore, if he were in Modi'in itself, he would be believed.

And here—

the first clause—

is when both of them are going out, or both of them are entering,

and therefore he is believed only inside the boundary of Modi'in.

A tanna taught

in a beraita:

The ammei ha-aretz are not

believed

concerning their vessels from Modi'in and inward, except

with regard to fine earthenware vessels,

such as pots, cups, and small flasks, since it is impossible without these vessels. But with regard to coarse vessels, such as a wine barrel, they are not believed except when they bring them into Jerusalem itself, as will be explained in the Mishna below.

And they are believed only

for sacred things.

Reish Lakish said: And this is so

when the earthenware vessels were small, until

each one could be lifted

of them

in his one hand;

then the am ha-aretz is believed.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even

when they are large,

such that they cannot be lifted in his one hand.

Reish Lakish said: They taught

that the potters are believed concerning earthenware vessels

only

when they are

empty, but when they are full, no.

And Rabbi Yohanan 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, which are not sacred.

And Rava said: And Rabbi Yohanan concedes: With regard to the liquids

themselves, they are impure.

They believed him only concerning the vessels, but not concerning the liquids.

And do not wonder

that the Sages should say something of this kind, that the law of the vessels should differ from the law of the liquids inside them,

for

all the words of the Sages are like this, as we find in the Mishna in Ohalot [chapter 5, Mishna 4], where the Sages distinguished between the vessels and what is inside them:

An earthenware vessel of an am ha-aretz, covered with a tightly sealed cover, which was in a tent containing a corpse, or which was sealing the opening between the house [in which there is a corpse] and the upper story, does not protect except food and liquids, so that they should not become impure, but not vessels, as all this was explained above, on page 22 [according to the view of Beit Shammai, and Beit Hillel returned to rule in accordance with their words, as we learned in Ohalot there].

And if there were

a login [a vessel]

of the other types

full of liquids—

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

login

itself is

impure with seven-day impurity,

because the earthenware vessel of the am ha-aretz does not protect it from becoming impure.

But

if the

liquids

inside the login were

pure,

because the earthenware vessel protected them.

And in this manner here as well: the liquids are impure, while the vessel is pure.

Mishna:

There is a further stringency with teruma than with sacred things:

1.

The tax collectors

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

who entered into a house

in order to take a pledge, and there is concern that perhaps they 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 perhaps they touched them on the inside [for an earthenware vessel becomes impure only from its inside] and rendered them impure [Rashi].

These are

believed to say,

with regard to sacred things,

“We did not touch.”

But concerning teruma they are not believed [Rashi].

2.

And in Jerusalem

itself

the potters are believed

concerning

sacred things,

concerning the purity of earthenware vessels, even coarse ones, and certainly fine ones, for the sake of sacred things; and this will be explained in the Gemara.

And at the time of the pilgrimage

the ammei ha-aretz are believed

even concerning teruma.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The tax collectors who entered into a house are believed to say, “We did not touch.”

And we raise a contradiction

from a Mishna in Toharot:

The tax collectors who entered into a house,

behold,

the entire house is impure!

All the vessels of the house are impure, for there is a presumption that the tax collectors handle the vessels; whereas in our Mishna we learned that they are believed to say, “We did not touch”?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This—

the Mishna in Toharot, where we learned that the entire house is impure—is, for example,

when a gentile is with them

[there is a gentile with them]. Since they are afraid of him, they handle everything in the house, as it explains and proceeds.

This

—our Mishna, where we learned that they are believed to say, “We did not touch”—is, for example,

when there is no gentile with them.

For we learned: If there is a gentile with them

[with the tax collectors], these are

believed to say, “We did not enter”

the house at all,

but they are not believed to say: “We entered, but we did not touch.”

And we explain:

And when there is a gentile with them,

what difference does it make [when there is a gentile with them, why are they not believed]?

They disputed this matter,

between

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar:

disagreed about this:

One said: Because

of the

fear of the gentile

himself

upon them,

lest he punish them bodily or financially.

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

lest the gentile inform against them to the government, saying that they are lenient in their oppression and take pledges in a panic; and therefore they search very thoroughly and touch everything [Meiri].

What is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Yohanan 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 they fear his informing against them.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise thieves who returned the vessels

are believed to say, “We did not touch.”

And we raise a contradiction

from a Mishna in Toharot:

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

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

Rav Pinhas said in the name of Rabba:

Our Mishna is discussing thieves

when they performed

repentance

and

returned them because of this; and therefore they do not lie.

It is also precise

that our Mishna concerns thieves who performed repentance, from

the fact that it teaches: “who returned the vessels.”

Infer from this!

We learned in the Mishna:

And in Jerusalem they are believed concerning sacred things:

A tanna

taught

in a beraita: They are believed concerning coarse earthenware vessels

[and all the more so concerning fine ones]

for sacred things.

And why so much,

that the Sages believed them concerning fine vessels even outside Jerusalem, and in Jerusalem itself they believed them even concerning coarse ones [Rashi]?

Because

kilns are not made in Jerusalem.

We learned in the Mishna:

And at the time of the pilgrimage

[they are believed]

even concerning teruma: From where are these words?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

From

as the verse says

concerning the concubine at Givah:

“And every man of Israel gathered to the city as one man, companions.”

The verse made them all

—at the time of gathering—

companions,

and the pilgrimage too is a time of gathering.

Mishna:

A chaver

who opens his barrel

to sell wine in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage,

and

likewise

one who begins with his dough

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

because of the pilgrimage,

on account of the special status of the pilgrimage, for everyone is a chaver during it [Melekhet Shlomo].

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may finish

selling!

He may sell everything that remains, even to chaverim and to every person, even after the pilgrimage [Rashi, Beitza].

And the Sages say: He may not finish

after the pilgrimage. For although they are pure during the pilgrimage, this is not because their purity is actual purity; rather, during the pilgrimage everyone is a chaver, but after the pilgrimage their touch is retroactively impure.

Gemara:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa were sitting in the lodging

at the entrance of the house

of Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa.

One of them opened

the discussion

and said: A question arose: According to the Sages who hold that he may not finish after the pilgrimage—

what is the law concerning leaving it for another pilgrimage?

The other said to him: But

everyone’s hand,

including the ammei ha-aretz,

handles it

during the pilgrimage,

and you say that he should leave it for another pilgrimage?!

He said to him: Is that so,

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

did not everyone’s hand handle it,

and nevertheless you permitted it? So too, we should permit it for another pilgrimage?!

He said to him: It is not comparable now,

what is the comparison?! The matter under discussion is not comparable to the proof.

For

it is understandable that until now,

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

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

the Torah made it purity.

But now,

behold

it is impure

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

Let us say that it is a dispute between tannaim:

it is

For one taught: He may leave it for another pilgrimage.

And another taught: He may not leave it for another pilgrimage.

What, is this not 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?

And we reject this:

No,

not as you understand, that the tannaim disputed according to the view of the Sages, but:

This teaching, which teaches: “He may leave it”

for another pilgrimage, is the view of

Rabbi Yehuda

of our Mishna.

And this teaching, which teaches: “He may not leave it,” is the view of the Sages

of our Mishna.

And we wonder about this:

But can you understand it?!

Do you really think it is possible to say as you said, that the beraita which holds that he may leave it for another pilgrimage is Rabbi Yehuda? But

Rabbi Yehuda says that he may finish

immediately after the pilgrimage

he says,

and he has no need to leave it for the coming pilgrimage?!

But Rabbi Yehuda says that he may finish

immediately after the pilgrimage festival

,

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

Rather,

the Gemara interprets the baraitot in reverse:

the one that teaches: “he shall not leave it”

for another pilgrimage Festival,

is Rabbi Yehuda,

as he proceeds to explain: that he does not need to leave it for the next pilgrimage Festival, but rather he can finish immediately after the pilgrimage Festival.

And the one that teaches: “he shall leave it”

for another pilgrimage Festival

is the Rabbis.

.

And what is “he shall not leave it ”

that Rabbi Yehuda says in the baraita? But even immediately after the pilgrimage Festival he should finish, and all the more so, if he wishes, he may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival?

This is what he is saying:

that he does not need to leave it

after the pilgrimage Festival, but rather he should finish immediately.

Mishna:

Although during the pilgrimage Festival everyone is deemed a member, this statement applies only with regard to the fact that during the pilgrimage Festival itself they do not take concern regarding their contact; but once the pilgrimage Festival has passed, everything that the amei ha-aretz touched is retroactively impure.

Therefore:

once the pilgrimage Festival had passed,

they

would transfer [the vessels] for the purification of the Temple courtyard.

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

And if

the pilgrimage Festival fell on Friday

[the pilgrimage Festival ended and Friday began],

they would not transfer

on Friday for the purification of the Temple courtyard

because of the honor of Shabbat,

for the priests needed to attend, each man in his home, to the needs of Shabbat, and they did not have leisure to transfer [the vessels] for the purification of the Temple courtyard; rather, they would transfer them on Sunday.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even they would not

transfer [the vessels] for the purification of the Temple courtyard

on Thursday

which is adjacent to the pilgrimage Festival after it,

because the priests are not free

[as the Gemara explains], and they would transfer them on Sunday.

Gemara:

A tannay

in a baraita taught to explain what we learned: even not on Thursday, because the priests are not free:

because the priests are not free from taking out the ashes.

They are occupied on the day after the pilgrimage Festival with taking out the ashes that had accumulated on the altar from the multitude of sacrifices that Israel would bring on the pilgrimage Festivals.

Mishna:

How do they transfer [the vessels] for the purification of the Temple courtyard?

They immerse

after the pilgrimage Festival

the vessels that were in the Temple.

And

as for the table, they cannot immerse it because of the showbread that is upon it, and the Torah said: showbread before “always” -