Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 27, 2022 | 讻状讜 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chagigah 18

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by the Futornick Family, in honor of Michelle and Bill Futornick’s anniversary. 鈥淏”H, we will begin our celebration on the plane ride back from Israel on March 1!鈥澛

Reish Lakish brings a different proof that one can make up the chagigah and re’iya sacrifices for Shavuot on the 6 days after the holiday. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this proof, although the Gemara points out that both agree that work is forbidden on Chol Hamoed. From where is that derived? Three different answers are brought to answer that question. The next Mishna sets up different categories of items that require purity and ranks them in terms of severity. The Mishna explains laws in which the ranking has relevance. The Mishna required washing one’s hands for chulin and maaser sheni – however, another source contradicts this as it indicates there is no need for washing hands for those items. How is this contradiction resolved?

诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讻诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

I would not know how many days of redress there are. The Gemara therefore teaches us, from the statement that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said, that there are seven days of redress.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讜讞讙 讛拽爪讬专 讗讬讝讛讜 讞讙 砖讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讜拽讜爪专 讘讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注爪专转 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 拽爪讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

And Reish Lakish said, providing a different proof: From the very name of the day: 鈥淎nd the Festival of harvest鈥 (Exodus 23:16), we can learn the following: On which Festival do you celebrate and harvest? You must say it is Shavuot. When exactly does this apply? If we say that it is on the Festival day itself, is harvesting permitted on a Festival? Rather, is it not referring to the day of redress?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讙 讛讗住讬祝 讗讬 讝讛讜 讞讙 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗住讬驻讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪诇讗讻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 讞讙 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 讗住讬驻讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讙 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 拽爪讬专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: However, if that is so, you should likewise say with regard to 鈥渢he Festival of gathering鈥 (Exodus 23:16): On which Festival is there gathering? You must say it is the festival of Sukkot. When exactly? If we say it is on the Festival day itself, is labor permitted on a Festival? Rather, it is referring to the intermediate Festival days. But on the intermediate Festival days, too, is it permitted? One may perform only work that, if neglected, would result in irretrievable loss. Rather, you must explain that 鈥渢he Festival of gathering鈥 is referring to the season of the year, i.e., the Festival that occurs during the time of gathering. Here too: 鈥淭he Festival of harvest鈥 means a Festival that occurs during the time of harvest.

诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

搂 The Gemara comments: Since Reish Lakish does not dispute the accuracy of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, it may be inferred from their statements that both of them hold that the performance of labor during the intermediate Festival days is prohibited by the Torah.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 转砖诪讜专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖讘讬注讬 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

The Gemara proceeds to ask: From where are these matters derived; what is the biblical source for this prohibition? As the Sages taught: 鈥淵ou shall observe the festival of Passover seven days鈥 (Exodus 23:15). This teaches that the performance of labor is prohibited during the intermediate Festival days, as 鈥渙bserve鈥 denotes a negative commandment; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiyya. Rabbi Yonatan says: This proof is not necessary, as it does not accord with the straightforward meaning of the verse. Rather, it is learned from an a fortiori inference, as follows: If the performance of labor on the first and seventh days of Passover, which are not preceded and followed by sanctity as the days before the first day and after the seventh day are weekdays, is nevertheless prohibited, is it not right that on the days of the intermediate Festival days, which are preceded and followed by sanctity, i.e., the first and last days of the Festival, the performance of labor should be prohibited?

砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诇砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 拽专讘谉 诪讜住祝 转讗诪专 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讬砖 讘讜 拽专讘谉 诪讜住祝 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讬砖 讘讜 拽专讘谉 诪讜住祝 讜诪讜转专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诇专讗砖 讞讚砖 砖讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 转讗诪专 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖拽专讜讬 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜拽专讜讬 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

The Gemara questions this conclusion: The six days of Creation, i.e., the days of the week, shall prove this, since they are preceded and followed by the sanctity of Shabbat, and yet the performance of labor on them is permitted. The Gemara rejects this difficulty: What of the fact that the six days of Creation are regular weekdays on which there is no additional offering; can you say the same with regard to the intermediate Festival days, on which there is an additional offering, bestowing these days with a measure of sanctity? The Gemara counters this: The New Moon shall prove this, since it has an additional offering, and the performance of labor is nevertheless permitted on it. The Gemara refutes this argument: What of the fact that the New Moon is not called 鈥渁 holy convocation鈥; can you say the same with regard to the intermediate Festival days, which are called 鈥渁 holy convocation鈥? Since they are called 鈥渁 holy convocation鈥 it is logical that the performance of labor should be prohibited on them.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇讛 诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诐 讘专讗砖讜谉 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讗诐 讘砖讘讬注讬 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讛讗 讗讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

It is taught in another baraita concerning the same topic: With regard to the first day of Passover and Sukkot, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no kind of laborious work鈥 (Leviticus 23:35), followed by 鈥渟even days, you shall bring an offering made by fire to the Lord,鈥 which teaches that the performance of labor is prohibited during the intermediate Festival days; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: This is not necessary, since it is stated earlier in that chapter: 鈥淭hese are the appointed Festivals of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim in their appointed season鈥 (Leviticus 23:4). With regard to what is the verse speaking? If it is referring to the first day of the Festival, it has already explicitly stated 鈥渁 solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:39) with regard to that day; if it is referring to the seventh, it has already stated 鈥渁 solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:39) with regard to that day as well. Therefore, the verse can be speaking only of the intermediate Festival days, teaching you that the performance of labor is prohibited on them.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 诪爪讜转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪专转 诇讛壮 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 注爪讜专 讗祝 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 注爪讜专讬谉 讗讬 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 注爪讜专 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗祝 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 注爪讜专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly for the Lord your God; on it, you shall do no work鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8). If so, just as the seventh day of the Festival is precluded from the performance of labor, so are the six intermediate Festival days precluded, since the word 鈥渁nd鈥 in the phrase 鈥渁nd on the seventh day鈥 connects it to the previous days.If so, perhaps: Just as the seventh day is precluded from the performance of all labor, so too the six intermediate days are precluded from the performance of all labor, even those whose performance prevents irretrievable loss.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪专转 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪讜专 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗讬谉 砖砖讛 讬诪讬诐 注爪讜专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪住专谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗讬 讝讛 讬讜诐 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 讝讛 讬讜诐 诪讜转专 讗讬 讝讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬 讝讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讜转专转

The verse therefore states: 鈥淎nd on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly,鈥 literally, pause. This indicates that the seventh day alone is precluded from the performance of all labor, but the other six days are not precluded from the performance of all labor but only from certain forms of work. Since the Bible does not specify which types of work are prohibited, the verse has therefore entrusted the matter to the Sages exclusively, to tell you on which day work is prohibited and on which day it is permitted, and similarly which labor is prohibited and which labor is permitted.

讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘讛住驻讚 讜转注谞讬转 砖诇讗 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专讬谉 注爪专转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛讗讬转诪专 诪注砖讛 讜诪转 讗诇讻住讗 讘诇讜讚 讜谞讻谞住讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇住讜驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 注爪专转 讛讬讛

搂 The mishna taught: All were permitted to eulogize and fast on the days of slaughter, in order not to uphold the opinion of the Sadducees, who would say: Shavuot must always occur after Shabbat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it stated: An incident occurred when Alexa died in Lod, and all of Israel gathered to eulogize him, but Rabbi Tarfon would not allow them do so because it was the Festival day of Shavuot?

讬讜诐 讟讜讘 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 拽讗转讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讜诐 讟讘讜讞 讛讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转

The Gemara analyzes this passage: Can it enter your mind to say that it was a Festival day? If it had been a Festival day, would they have come? Certainly they would not have assembled to eulogize someone on the Festival itself. Rather, say that they were prohibited to eulogize because it was the Festival day of slaughter. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since here, the incident in Lod, is referring to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, whose day of slaughter does not fall on a Sunday. The day of slaughter retains a measure of the sanctity of Shavuot through the offering of Festival offerings and should therefore be treated as a Festival. There, however, the mishna is referring to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat. Since in that case the day of slaughter occurs on a Sunday, it cannot be observed as a Festival, in order to counter the view of the Sadducees.
After discussing many issues unrelated to the main topic of the tractate, the Gemara now begins to discuss the topic of ritual purity and will do so for the remainder of the tractate. These halakhot are relevant to the pilgrim Festivals, as all are obligated to purify themselves in order to enter the Temple and sacrifice offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇诪注砖专 讜诇转专讜诪讛 讜诇拽讜讚砖 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讜诇讞讟讗转 讗诐 谞讟诪讗讜 讬讚讬讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讜驻讜

MISHNA: One must wash his hands by pouring a quarter-log of water over them before eating non-sacred food, and for tithes and for teruma; but for eating sacrificial food one must immerse one鈥檚 hands in purification waters, such as those of a ritual bath. And with regard to one who wishes to touch the purification waters of the red heifer used for sprinkling, concerning which the Sages ordained further measures of sanctity, if one鈥檚 hands were rendered impure even by rabbinical ritual impurity, which usually only renders the hands impure, his entire body is rendered impure, and he must immerse himself in a ritual bath.

讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讟讘诇 诇诪注砖专 讛讜讞讝拽 诇诪注砖专 讗住讜专 诇转专讜诪讛 讟讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讜讞讝拽 诇转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专 诇拽讜讚砖 讟讘诇 诇拽讜讚砖 讛讜讞讝拽 诇拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 诇讞讟讗转 讟讘诇 诇讞诪讜专 诪讜转专 诇拽诇 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇

The mishna continues to list additional differences between various levels of ritual purity: If one immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food, he assumes a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, and it is prohibited for him to eat tithes, as he did not purify himself with the intention of eating tithes. If one immersed to eat tithes, he assumes a presumptive status for tithes, but he is prohibited from eating teruma. If one immersed for teruma, he assumes a presumptive status for teruma, but he is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. If he immersed for sacrificial food, he assumes a presumptive status for sacrificial food, but he is prohibited from coming in contact with the purification waters. The principle is as follows: One who immersed to eat a food in a stringent category is permitted to eat a food in a lenient one. Another principle: One who immersed without the intention to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity, i.e., one who immersed but did not intend to purify himself, it is as though he has not immersed at all.

讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讚专住 诇驻专讜砖讬谉 讘讙讚讬 驻专讜砖讬谉 诪讚专住 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讙讚讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讚专住 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 诪讚专住 诇讞讟讗转

The mishna continues: The garments of an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not careful with regard to the laws of ritual purity, are considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav. That is considered a primary level of impurity for individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [perushin]. The garments of perushin are considered impure by the treading of a zav for priests who eat teruma; the garments of those who eat teruma are considered impure by the treading of a zav for those who eat sacrificial food; and likewise the garments of those who eat sacrificial food are considered impure by the treading of a zav for those dealing with the preparation of the purification waters.

讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讬讛 讞住讬讚 砖讘讻讛讜谞讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇拽讜讚砖 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇讞讟讗转

The mishna relates: Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer was the most pious member of the priesthood and was extremely careful to eat teruma in a state of ritual purity, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zav for those who ate sacrificial food. Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred food while following the laws of ritual purity for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zav for those preparing the purification waters.

讙诪壮 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 诪讬 讘注讜 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐

GEMARA: Before discussing the details of the halakhot listed in the mishna, the Gemara poses a basic question: Do non-sacred foods and tithes indeed require washing the hands?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara raises a contradiction to the mishna, from the following mishna in tractate Bikkurim (2:1): With regard to teruma and first fruits, one is liable to the death penalty for them, e.g., if a non-priest ate them intentionally; if he did so unintentionally, he must restore the amount he ate with the addition of a fifth; and they are prohibited to non-priests; and they are the property of the priest. Consequently, a priest can purchase anything he wishes with them, or betroth a woman with them. And if they fell into non-sacred produce and became mixed with it, they are nullified only in a mixture that contains one hundred and one times their amount; and they require washing of the hands and the setting of the sun before they can be eaten, i.e., an impure priest who has immersed at the proper time must still wait for the sun to set before he is fit to eat them. These laws apply to teruma and first fruits, but not to tithes. The mishna adds: And all the more so do they not apply to non-sacred food.

拽砖讬讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 拽砖讬讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讞讜诇讬谉

This is difficult: The halakha of tithes stated in Bikkurim seems to contradict the halakha of tithes taught in the mishna here, which states that the hands must be washed before tithes are eaten. Additionally, it is difficult with regard to the halakha of non-sacred food, as it contradicts the halakha applicable to non-sacred food stated in the mishna here.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara comments: Granted, one of the laws with regard to tithes, as opposed to the other law with regard to tithes, is not difficult, since the contradiction can be resolved as follows: This case, the mishna in Bikkurim, is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, while that case, the mishna here, follows the Rabbis.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讟注讜谉 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 讘诪注砖专 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讞讜诇讬谉 拽砖讬讗

As we learned in a mishna (Para 11:5): Anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law renders sacrificial food impure. If it touches a consecrated item, the latter is itself rendered impure with a second-degree ritual impurity. It also renders impure any other consecrated object that comes into contact with it with a third-degree ritual impurity and invalidates teruma, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law is permitted for non-sacred produce and for tithes, meaning that it does not render these items impure, as something impure to such a low degree does not invalidate even non-sacred food. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis prohibit this in the case of tithes, meaning that they are invalidated. This source demonstrates that according to the Rabbis, the halakha that applies to tithes differs from that of non-sacred produce, which explains why one must wash his hands for tithes. However, the law with regard to non-sacred food as opposed to the other law of non-sacred food is still difficult.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讻讗谉 讘谞讙讬注讛

The Gemara responds: It is not difficult. Here the mishna is referring to eating, before which one must wash his hands. There the mishna in Bikkurim deals with touching alone, for which prior washing of the hands is not necessary.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讘谞讙讬注讛 讚诪注砖专 讜讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚谞讛诪讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚驻讬专讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讛谞讜讟诇 讬讚讬讜 诇驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讙住讬 讛专讜讞

Rav Shimi bar Ashi strongly objects to this: The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to eating tithes, but with regard to touching tithes and eating non-sacred food they do not disagree with him. Therefore, the Gemara鈥檚 resolution of the difficulty with regard to non-sacred food is not acceptable. Rather, the previous explanation is to be rejected in favor of the following: Both this mishna and that mishna are referring to eating, and it is not difficult: Here the mishna is dealing with eating bread, which requires washing one鈥檚 hands, whereas there, in Bikkurim, the mishna is referring to eating non-sacred fruit, for which one need not wash his hands, for Rav Na岣an said: Anyone who washes his hands for fruit is of the haughty of spirit because he shows himself to be more particular than required by the Sages.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜讟诇 讬讚讬讜 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讻谉 讛诪讟讘讬诇 讬讚讬讜 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 谞转讻讜讜谉 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Sages taught: One who washes his hands, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if he did not intend to do so, his hands are impure. Similarly, in the case of one who immerses his hands in forty se鈥檃 of water, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if he did not so intend, his hands are impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that his hands are pure whether he did or did not intend to purify them? Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult, as there, the second baraita is referring to non-sacred food, for which one need not have the intention to purify his hands;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Chagigah: 14-20- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The Gemara continues discussing details of the Heavenly Chariot, Ma鈥檃se Merkava. We will learn the famous story of the four...
stone2 bukvoed

Pure as the Driven Snow

The last section of Chagigah veers away from mystical topics to very concrete ones, albeit ones that are foreign to...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 18: When Purification Requires Intent

A new mishnah: Washing hands prior to eating non-kodesh food, for ma'aserot, for terumot; and for kodesh (korbanot) or for...

Chagigah 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 18

诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讻诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

I would not know how many days of redress there are. The Gemara therefore teaches us, from the statement that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said, that there are seven days of redress.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讜讞讙 讛拽爪讬专 讗讬讝讛讜 讞讙 砖讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讜拽讜爪专 讘讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注爪专转 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 拽爪讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

And Reish Lakish said, providing a different proof: From the very name of the day: 鈥淎nd the Festival of harvest鈥 (Exodus 23:16), we can learn the following: On which Festival do you celebrate and harvest? You must say it is Shavuot. When exactly does this apply? If we say that it is on the Festival day itself, is harvesting permitted on a Festival? Rather, is it not referring to the day of redress?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讙 讛讗住讬祝 讗讬 讝讛讜 讞讙 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗住讬驻讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪诇讗讻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 讞讙 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 讗住讬驻讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讙 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 拽爪讬专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: However, if that is so, you should likewise say with regard to 鈥渢he Festival of gathering鈥 (Exodus 23:16): On which Festival is there gathering? You must say it is the festival of Sukkot. When exactly? If we say it is on the Festival day itself, is labor permitted on a Festival? Rather, it is referring to the intermediate Festival days. But on the intermediate Festival days, too, is it permitted? One may perform only work that, if neglected, would result in irretrievable loss. Rather, you must explain that 鈥渢he Festival of gathering鈥 is referring to the season of the year, i.e., the Festival that occurs during the time of gathering. Here too: 鈥淭he Festival of harvest鈥 means a Festival that occurs during the time of harvest.

诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

搂 The Gemara comments: Since Reish Lakish does not dispute the accuracy of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, it may be inferred from their statements that both of them hold that the performance of labor during the intermediate Festival days is prohibited by the Torah.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 转砖诪讜专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖讘讬注讬 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

The Gemara proceeds to ask: From where are these matters derived; what is the biblical source for this prohibition? As the Sages taught: 鈥淵ou shall observe the festival of Passover seven days鈥 (Exodus 23:15). This teaches that the performance of labor is prohibited during the intermediate Festival days, as 鈥渙bserve鈥 denotes a negative commandment; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiyya. Rabbi Yonatan says: This proof is not necessary, as it does not accord with the straightforward meaning of the verse. Rather, it is learned from an a fortiori inference, as follows: If the performance of labor on the first and seventh days of Passover, which are not preceded and followed by sanctity as the days before the first day and after the seventh day are weekdays, is nevertheless prohibited, is it not right that on the days of the intermediate Festival days, which are preceded and followed by sanctity, i.e., the first and last days of the Festival, the performance of labor should be prohibited?

砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诇砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 拽专讘谉 诪讜住祝 转讗诪专 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讬砖 讘讜 拽专讘谉 诪讜住祝 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讬砖 讘讜 拽专讘谉 诪讜住祝 讜诪讜转专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诇专讗砖 讞讚砖 砖讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 转讗诪专 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖拽专讜讬 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜拽专讜讬 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

The Gemara questions this conclusion: The six days of Creation, i.e., the days of the week, shall prove this, since they are preceded and followed by the sanctity of Shabbat, and yet the performance of labor on them is permitted. The Gemara rejects this difficulty: What of the fact that the six days of Creation are regular weekdays on which there is no additional offering; can you say the same with regard to the intermediate Festival days, on which there is an additional offering, bestowing these days with a measure of sanctity? The Gemara counters this: The New Moon shall prove this, since it has an additional offering, and the performance of labor is nevertheless permitted on it. The Gemara refutes this argument: What of the fact that the New Moon is not called 鈥渁 holy convocation鈥; can you say the same with regard to the intermediate Festival days, which are called 鈥渁 holy convocation鈥? Since they are called 鈥渁 holy convocation鈥 it is logical that the performance of labor should be prohibited on them.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇讛 诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诐 讘专讗砖讜谉 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讗诐 讘砖讘讬注讬 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讛讗 讗讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讗住讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛

It is taught in another baraita concerning the same topic: With regard to the first day of Passover and Sukkot, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no kind of laborious work鈥 (Leviticus 23:35), followed by 鈥渟even days, you shall bring an offering made by fire to the Lord,鈥 which teaches that the performance of labor is prohibited during the intermediate Festival days; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: This is not necessary, since it is stated earlier in that chapter: 鈥淭hese are the appointed Festivals of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim in their appointed season鈥 (Leviticus 23:4). With regard to what is the verse speaking? If it is referring to the first day of the Festival, it has already explicitly stated 鈥渁 solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:39) with regard to that day; if it is referring to the seventh, it has already stated 鈥渁 solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:39) with regard to that day as well. Therefore, the verse can be speaking only of the intermediate Festival days, teaching you that the performance of labor is prohibited on them.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 诪爪讜转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪专转 诇讛壮 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 注爪讜专 讗祝 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 注爪讜专讬谉 讗讬 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 注爪讜专 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讗祝 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 注爪讜专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly for the Lord your God; on it, you shall do no work鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8). If so, just as the seventh day of the Festival is precluded from the performance of labor, so are the six intermediate Festival days precluded, since the word 鈥渁nd鈥 in the phrase 鈥渁nd on the seventh day鈥 connects it to the previous days.If so, perhaps: Just as the seventh day is precluded from the performance of all labor, so too the six intermediate days are precluded from the performance of all labor, even those whose performance prevents irretrievable loss.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪专转 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪讜专 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗讬谉 砖砖讛 讬诪讬诐 注爪讜专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪住专谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讞讻诪讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗讬 讝讛 讬讜诐 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 讝讛 讬讜诐 诪讜转专 讗讬 讝讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬 讝讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讜转专转

The verse therefore states: 鈥淎nd on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly,鈥 literally, pause. This indicates that the seventh day alone is precluded from the performance of all labor, but the other six days are not precluded from the performance of all labor but only from certain forms of work. Since the Bible does not specify which types of work are prohibited, the verse has therefore entrusted the matter to the Sages exclusively, to tell you on which day work is prohibited and on which day it is permitted, and similarly which labor is prohibited and which labor is permitted.

讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘讛住驻讚 讜转注谞讬转 砖诇讗 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专讬谉 注爪专转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛讗讬转诪专 诪注砖讛 讜诪转 讗诇讻住讗 讘诇讜讚 讜谞讻谞住讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇住讜驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 注爪专转 讛讬讛

搂 The mishna taught: All were permitted to eulogize and fast on the days of slaughter, in order not to uphold the opinion of the Sadducees, who would say: Shavuot must always occur after Shabbat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it stated: An incident occurred when Alexa died in Lod, and all of Israel gathered to eulogize him, but Rabbi Tarfon would not allow them do so because it was the Festival day of Shavuot?

讬讜诐 讟讜讘 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 拽讗转讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讜诐 讟讘讜讞 讛讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转

The Gemara analyzes this passage: Can it enter your mind to say that it was a Festival day? If it had been a Festival day, would they have come? Certainly they would not have assembled to eulogize someone on the Festival itself. Rather, say that they were prohibited to eulogize because it was the Festival day of slaughter. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since here, the incident in Lod, is referring to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, whose day of slaughter does not fall on a Sunday. The day of slaughter retains a measure of the sanctity of Shavuot through the offering of Festival offerings and should therefore be treated as a Festival. There, however, the mishna is referring to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat. Since in that case the day of slaughter occurs on a Sunday, it cannot be observed as a Festival, in order to counter the view of the Sadducees.
After discussing many issues unrelated to the main topic of the tractate, the Gemara now begins to discuss the topic of ritual purity and will do so for the remainder of the tractate. These halakhot are relevant to the pilgrim Festivals, as all are obligated to purify themselves in order to enter the Temple and sacrifice offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诇讬讚讬诐 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇诪注砖专 讜诇转专讜诪讛 讜诇拽讜讚砖 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讜诇讞讟讗转 讗诐 谞讟诪讗讜 讬讚讬讜 谞讟诪讗 讙讜驻讜

MISHNA: One must wash his hands by pouring a quarter-log of water over them before eating non-sacred food, and for tithes and for teruma; but for eating sacrificial food one must immerse one鈥檚 hands in purification waters, such as those of a ritual bath. And with regard to one who wishes to touch the purification waters of the red heifer used for sprinkling, concerning which the Sages ordained further measures of sanctity, if one鈥檚 hands were rendered impure even by rabbinical ritual impurity, which usually only renders the hands impure, his entire body is rendered impure, and he must immerse himself in a ritual bath.

讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讟讘诇 诇诪注砖专 讛讜讞讝拽 诇诪注砖专 讗住讜专 诇转专讜诪讛 讟讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讜讞讝拽 诇转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专 诇拽讜讚砖 讟讘诇 诇拽讜讚砖 讛讜讞讝拽 诇拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 诇讞讟讗转 讟讘诇 诇讞诪讜专 诪讜转专 诇拽诇 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇

The mishna continues to list additional differences between various levels of ritual purity: If one immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food, he assumes a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, and it is prohibited for him to eat tithes, as he did not purify himself with the intention of eating tithes. If one immersed to eat tithes, he assumes a presumptive status for tithes, but he is prohibited from eating teruma. If one immersed for teruma, he assumes a presumptive status for teruma, but he is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. If he immersed for sacrificial food, he assumes a presumptive status for sacrificial food, but he is prohibited from coming in contact with the purification waters. The principle is as follows: One who immersed to eat a food in a stringent category is permitted to eat a food in a lenient one. Another principle: One who immersed without the intention to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity, i.e., one who immersed but did not intend to purify himself, it is as though he has not immersed at all.

讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讚专住 诇驻专讜砖讬谉 讘讙讚讬 驻专讜砖讬谉 诪讚专住 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讙讚讬 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讚专住 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 诪讚专住 诇讞讟讗转

The mishna continues: The garments of an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not careful with regard to the laws of ritual purity, are considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav. That is considered a primary level of impurity for individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [perushin]. The garments of perushin are considered impure by the treading of a zav for priests who eat teruma; the garments of those who eat teruma are considered impure by the treading of a zav for those who eat sacrificial food; and likewise the garments of those who eat sacrificial food are considered impure by the treading of a zav for those dealing with the preparation of the purification waters.

讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讬讛 讞住讬讚 砖讘讻讛讜谞讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇拽讜讚砖 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 诪讟驻讞转讜 诪讚专住 诇讞讟讗转

The mishna relates: Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer was the most pious member of the priesthood and was extremely careful to eat teruma in a state of ritual purity, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zav for those who ate sacrificial food. Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred food while following the laws of ritual purity for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zav for those preparing the purification waters.

讙诪壮 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 诪讬 讘注讜 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐

GEMARA: Before discussing the details of the halakhot listed in the mishna, the Gemara poses a basic question: Do non-sacred foods and tithes indeed require washing the hands?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara raises a contradiction to the mishna, from the following mishna in tractate Bikkurim (2:1): With regard to teruma and first fruits, one is liable to the death penalty for them, e.g., if a non-priest ate them intentionally; if he did so unintentionally, he must restore the amount he ate with the addition of a fifth; and they are prohibited to non-priests; and they are the property of the priest. Consequently, a priest can purchase anything he wishes with them, or betroth a woman with them. And if they fell into non-sacred produce and became mixed with it, they are nullified only in a mixture that contains one hundred and one times their amount; and they require washing of the hands and the setting of the sun before they can be eaten, i.e., an impure priest who has immersed at the proper time must still wait for the sun to set before he is fit to eat them. These laws apply to teruma and first fruits, but not to tithes. The mishna adds: And all the more so do they not apply to non-sacred food.

拽砖讬讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 拽砖讬讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讞讜诇讬谉

This is difficult: The halakha of tithes stated in Bikkurim seems to contradict the halakha of tithes taught in the mishna here, which states that the hands must be washed before tithes are eaten. Additionally, it is difficult with regard to the halakha of non-sacred food, as it contradicts the halakha applicable to non-sacred food stated in the mishna here.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪注砖专 讗诪注砖专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara comments: Granted, one of the laws with regard to tithes, as opposed to the other law with regard to tithes, is not difficult, since the contradiction can be resolved as follows: This case, the mishna in Bikkurim, is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, while that case, the mishna here, follows the Rabbis.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讟注讜谉 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 讘诪注砖专 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讞讜诇讬谉 拽砖讬讗

As we learned in a mishna (Para 11:5): Anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law renders sacrificial food impure. If it touches a consecrated item, the latter is itself rendered impure with a second-degree ritual impurity. It also renders impure any other consecrated object that comes into contact with it with a third-degree ritual impurity and invalidates teruma, meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And anything that requires immersion in water by rabbinic law is permitted for non-sacred produce and for tithes, meaning that it does not render these items impure, as something impure to such a low degree does not invalidate even non-sacred food. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis prohibit this in the case of tithes, meaning that they are invalidated. This source demonstrates that according to the Rabbis, the halakha that applies to tithes differs from that of non-sacred produce, which explains why one must wash his hands for tithes. However, the law with regard to non-sacred food as opposed to the other law of non-sacred food is still difficult.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讻讗谉 讘谞讙讬注讛

The Gemara responds: It is not difficult. Here the mishna is referring to eating, before which one must wash his hands. There the mishna in Bikkurim deals with touching alone, for which prior washing of the hands is not necessary.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讘谞讙讬注讛 讚诪注砖专 讜讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚谞讛诪讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚驻讬专讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讛谞讜讟诇 讬讚讬讜 诇驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讙住讬 讛专讜讞

Rav Shimi bar Ashi strongly objects to this: The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to eating tithes, but with regard to touching tithes and eating non-sacred food they do not disagree with him. Therefore, the Gemara鈥檚 resolution of the difficulty with regard to non-sacred food is not acceptable. Rather, the previous explanation is to be rejected in favor of the following: Both this mishna and that mishna are referring to eating, and it is not difficult: Here the mishna is dealing with eating bread, which requires washing one鈥檚 hands, whereas there, in Bikkurim, the mishna is referring to eating non-sacred fruit, for which one need not wash his hands, for Rav Na岣an said: Anyone who washes his hands for fruit is of the haughty of spirit because he shows himself to be more particular than required by the Sages.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜讟诇 讬讚讬讜 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讻谉 讛诪讟讘讬诇 讬讚讬讜 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 谞转讻讜讜谉 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Sages taught: One who washes his hands, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if he did not intend to do so, his hands are impure. Similarly, in the case of one who immerses his hands in forty se鈥檃 of water, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if he did not so intend, his hands are impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that his hands are pure whether he did or did not intend to purify them? Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult, as there, the second baraita is referring to non-sacred food, for which one need not have the intention to purify his hands;

Scroll To Top