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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 28, 2022 | 讻状讝 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 19

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Deborah Hoffman-Wade in honor of Carol Robinson and Rabbi Art Gould. 鈥淭hank you for encouraging my path to Talmud and Hadran. As an elder and beginner I am radiant with joy at beginning a new and ongoing path of learning. Never too old to start!鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Miriam Almog in honor of the Hadran team and their wonderful learning programs.聽

From where do we learn that for non-sacred items, one does not need intent when purifying oneself? There is an attempt to learn it from a Mishna in Mikvaot 5:6, however the proof is rejected and a Mishna in Machshirin 4:7 is brought instead. Is it true that one does not need to intent when purifying oneself for non-sacred items, doesn’t our Mishna indicate otherwise in two different places. Both are resolved. Rabbi Elazar says that if one went into a mikveh without intention to purify for something specific, one can specify after getting out of the mikveh. A difficulty is raised against this from a braita regarding one who still has one foot in the mikveh, which seems to indicate only if one’s foot is still inside, one can change one’s intent. A distinction is made between changing one’s intent and having no particular intent in the first place. The braita brought regarding having one’s foot still in the water is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda who holds that one can view water as “going up” if the person’s foot is still in the water. How far does Rabbi Yehuda take that law? The Gemara raises a contradiction within the Mishna as in one place it distinguishes between non-sacred items and maaser sheni and in another it does not. How is this resolved? Two solutions are brought.

 

讻讗谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讘注讜 讻讜讜谞讛 讚转谞谉 讙诇 砖谞转诇砖 讜讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讛讗讚诐 讜注诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讬 讗祝 讗讚诐 讚诇讗 诪讻讜讬谉

whereas here, the first baraita is referring to tithes, for which intention to purify oneself is required. And from where do you say this, that non-sacred food does not require the intention that one is purifying himself for the sake of eating it? As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 5:6): If a wave containing forty se鈥檃 of water became detached from the sea and fell on a person or on vessels, they are ritually pure. The mishna teaches that a person is similar to vessels: Just as vessels do not intend to be purified, as they obviously harbor no intentions, so too, the case of a person is referring to a situation in which he does not intend to purify himself, thereby implying that people can be ritually purified even without intention.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 讬转诇砖 讛讙诇 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻诇讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讚诐 诪讛 讗讚诐 讚讘专 讻讜讜谞讛 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where is it clear that this is the meaning of the mishna? Perhaps we are dealing with one who is sitting and awaiting for when a wave will detach and fall on the vessels, and the implication is the opposite: Vessels are similar to a person: Just as a person is capable of intention to ritually purify himself, so too the case of the vessels mentioned in the mishna is referring to a situation where one intends on their behalf that they be purified.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

And if you would say that the mishna is indeed is referring to one who is sitting and awaiting, what is the purpose of stating this? Such a halakha would not appear to offer a novelty; why would it be necessary to state it?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讟讘诇 讘讞专讚诇讬转 砖诇 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 专讗砖讬谉 讗讟讜 讻讬驻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

The Gemara responds: It nevertheless provides a novel teaching, as it might enter your mind to say that it should be decreed that a detached wave does not affect purification, lest one come to immerse in a flow of rainwater whose volume is forty se鈥檃. In other words, one might think that immersion in a flood of rainwater effects purification, whereas the halakha is that rainwater purifies only if it is gathered in one location. Alternatively, you might think that it should be decreed that purification by means of the edges of the waves that comes in contact with the ground should be ineffective due to the upper arcs of the waves. The mishna therefore teaches us that we do not so decree.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜讬专

And from where do you say that one may not immerse in the arcs? As it is taught in a baraita: One may immerse in the edges of waves, but one may not immerse in their arcs, because one may not immerse in air. The area under the arc of a wave is considered mere air, despite the fact that the individual is surrounded by water on all sides.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜驻砖讟 诪讬 砖讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜谞讟诇谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

Rather, the proof that the purification with regard to non-sacred produce does not require intention is from that which we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:7): In the verse that is referring to the preconditions required for fruit and seeds to be susceptible to ritual impurity, it is stated: 鈥淚f water be put on seeds, and any of their carcasses fall there, it shall be impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). If fruit fell into a water channel, and one whose hands were ritually impure extended his hands and lifted them up with the goal of removing them from the water channel, his hands are ritually pure, as he has purified them by inserting them into the water channel, and these fruits are not included in the category of 鈥渋f water be put on seeds.鈥 The verse is referring only to fruit that has intentionally been brought into contact with water. Since the fruit in this case was not intentionally made wet, it cannot as yet contract impurity.

讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞讜 讬讚讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And if he put his hands into the water channel in order to wash his hands, his hands are ritually pure, and the fruit is included in the category of 鈥渋f water be put on seeds.鈥 Since he intended to wet his hands, the contact of the fruit with this water renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. In any case, the mishna teaches that his hands are ritually pure in either situation, indicating that no special intention is required for purification.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讟讜讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讛讜讞讝拽 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讗

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna here: One who immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food and assumes a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food is still prohibited from eating tithes. The Gemara infers: If one immersed with the intention of assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, yes, he assumes that status; if he did not immerse with the intention of assuming that presumptive status, no, he does not assume that status. This proves that even for the sake of non-sacred produce, one must intend to assume the appropriate status of ritual purity.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专

Rav Na岣an refutes this proof: This is what the mishna is saying: Even though he assumes a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred produce, he is prohibited from eating tithes. In other words, the mishna does not teach that intention is required for eating non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. Rather, it teaches that even if one intended to purify himself for non-sacred food, he is not purified with regard to tithes.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 讻诇诇

He, Rabba, raised an objection to him from another teaching of our mishna: With regard to one who immersed without intending to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity, it is as if he has not immersed. What, is it not teaching that it is as if he had not immersed at all?

诇讗 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诇诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 住讘专 讚讞讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讜诪讜转专 诇讞讜诇讬谉

Rav Na岣an rejected this proof as well: No, it means that it is as if he has not immersed for tithes, but he is considered to have immersed for non-sacred produce, for which no intention is necessary. The Gemara comments: He, i.e., Rabba, thought that Rav Na岣an was merely refuting his proof by saying that the wording of the mishna does not conclusively prove his case, but he did not actually think that the mishna should be understood differently. However, he subsequently went and examined the sources and found that a baraita was explicitly taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: One who immersed and did not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity is prohibited from eating tithes, but is permitted to eat non-sacred produce, even if he eats non-sacred produce only when ritually pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 诪讞讝讬拽 注爪诪讜 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛

搂 With regard to assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity, Rabbi Elazar said: If one immersed without any particular intention and ascended from his immersion, he may assume a presumptive status of ritual purity after his immersion for whatever he wishes. In his opinion, there is no need to have a definite intention in mind at the actual moment of immersion.

诪讬转讬讘讬 注讜讚讛讜 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讚讘专 拽诇 诪讞讝讬拽 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讞诪讜专 注诇讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽

The Gemara raises an objection to this from the following baraita: In a case where one has immersed and is ascending, and one of his feet is still in the water, if he had originally intended to assume presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may still intend to assume presumptive status for a major matter. But if he has fully ascended, he may no longer intend to assume a presumptive status for any other matter.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽 讻诇诇

The Gemara infers from this baraita: What, is it not teaching that if one has ascended he may not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity at all, which proves that one may do so only if he is still at least partially in the water?

诇讗 注讜讚讛讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讞讝拽 诪讞讝讬拽 注诇讛 讗诐 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诪讞讝讬拽 讜讗诐 讛讜讞讝拽 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽

The Gemara rejects this inference: No, it should be understood as follows: If he is still in the water, then although he previously intended to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may now intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for whatever purpose he wishes, since one can adjust his intention during his immersion. Once he has already ascended, if he did not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity at all, but immersed without any intention, he may intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for whatever he wishes even after ascending from the ritual bath; but if he did intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a major matter, as his intention was fixed when he ascended from the ritual bath.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 注讜讚讛讜 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖谞诪讚讚 讜讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讜讬专讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘诇讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讟讛讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讘诪讬诐 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟讛讜专

In relation to the above, the Gemara explains: Who is the tanna who taught that one whose foot is still in the water is considered to be still immersing himself? Rabbi Pedat said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:6): In the case of a ritual bath that was measured and found to contain exactly forty se鈥檃 of water, and then two individuals descended and immersed one after the other, the first one is ritually pure, since he immersed in a valid ritual bath, but the second is ritually impure. Because a small amount of water clings to the first individual, the ritual bath subsequently holds less than the requisite amount. Therefore, it does not purify the second individual. Rabbi Yehuda said: If the feet of the first one were still touching the water, so that he had not yet exited the ritual bath entirely while the second one immersed, the second is also ritually pure. This teaches that Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one who still has a foot in the water is considered to be inside the ritual bath.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪注诇讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟诪讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 驻讚转

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda pertains to higher standards of ritual purity established by the Sages, where the obligation to immerse is due to a rabbinical ordinance. However, when the purpose of the immersion is to transition from full-fledged ritual impurity to purity, everyone agrees that the second individual is impure. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Pedat on this topic, who asserts that only Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one may assume a presumptive ritually pure status if one of his feet is still in the ritual bath.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讘诪注诇讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟讛讜专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 驻讚转

There are those who say a different version of this statement: Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This dispute is referring only to one who is obligated to immerse in order to transition from ritual impurity to purity, but with regard to higher standards of ritual purity established by the Sages, everyone agrees that even the second individual is ritually pure if the foot of the first is still in contact with the water. And consequently, this opinion disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Pedat, since, according to this version, all agree that with regard to higher standards of ritual purity, the immersion continues as long as a single foot remains in the water.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 诇讛讟讘讬诇 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讬讜转 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉

With regard to the discussion above, Ulla said: I asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: According to Rabbi Yehuda, what is the halakha with regard to immersing small vessels, such as needles and knitting needles, on the head of the first individual immersing himself? Since Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one whose foot is still in the water is considered as immersed in the ritual bath, does this mean that his body and even his wet hair can serve as part of the ritual bath?

讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma raised by this question: Does Rabbi Yehuda accept only the principle of lowering the partition, meaning that an item positioned above another item is considered as if it continued downward, and therefore the water on the body of the one immersing is viewed as descending into the ritual bath, so that the bath retains its requisite size; but he does not accept the concept of raising the partition, so that the water in the ritual bath is not considered to rise up to one鈥檚 head, making him part of the ritual bath as well? Or, perhaps he also accepts the principle of raising the partition, which means that one is indeed considered part of the ritual bath?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖诇砖 讙诪诪讬讜转 讘谞讞诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讛 砖诇 注砖专讬诐 注砖专讬诐 住讗讛 讜讛讗诪爪注讬转 砖诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讞专讚诇讬转 砖诇 讙砖诪讬诐 注讜讘专转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讟讘讬诇 讘注诇讬讜谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: You already learned it in the Tosefta (Mikvaot 3:3): If there are three depressions in the bed of a stream that are not completely dry, an upper one, a lower one, and a middle one; and the upper and lower ones hold twenty se鈥檃 each, while the middle one contains forty se鈥檃, and a flow of rain runs between them, thereby linking the depressions one to another, Rabbi Yehuda says: My colleague, Rabbi Meir, would say: One may immerse in the upper one. This indicates that Rabbi Meir holds that the waters of the middle depression, which contains the requisite amount of water for a ritual bath, are considered to have ascended by means of the rainwater into the higher depression. Since Rabbi Yehuda cites his colleague鈥檚 statement without comment, he evidently accepts the principle of raising the partition.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

Ulla raised a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讟讘讬诇 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Rabbi Meir would say: One may immerse in the upper one, and I say: In the lower one but not in the upper one. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of raising the partition. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. Therefore, it is clear that the matter is held in dispute between tanna鈥檌m and that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of raising the partition.

讛讟讜讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讻讜壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚砖谞讬 诇讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 诇诪注砖专

搂 It is taught in the mishna: One who immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food with the intention of assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food it is prohibited for him to eat tithes. The Gemara comments: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of the Rabbis, who differentiate between non-sacred produce and tithes, since they maintain the following: If one who is required by rabbinic law to immerse touches non-sacred food, it remains pure, but if he comes into contact with tithes they are rendered ritually impure.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 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

However, in that case, say the latter clause of the mishna, which states that the garments of an am ha鈥檃retz, who is not careful with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity, are considered to be rendered ritually impure by the impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, which is considered a primary source of ritual impurity, for perushin, individuals who are careful to eat even non-sacred food in a state of purity. The garments of perushin, although they are careful to remain ritually pure, are nevertheless considered to be rendered impure by the treading of a zav for priests who partake of teruma. Consequently, the latter clause differs from the opinion of the Rabbis in the earlier clause.

讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 讻讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Therefore, we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Non-sacred produce and tithes are similar to one another, as this clause of the mishna does not distinguish between those eating non-sacred food and those eating tithes. Is the earlier clause the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter clause the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: Yes; although it is unusual, in this instance we must explain that the earlier clause was said by the Rabbis and the latter clause by Rabbi Meir.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘住讬驻讗 讞诪砖 诪注诇讜转 讜诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘谞谉

However, Rav A岣 bar Adda would teach that five levels of ritual purity are listed in the latter clause of the mishna, by counting the clause that states that the clothes of those who eat non-sacred produce in a state of purity are ritually impure for tithes, and in this way he establishes the entire mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讻拽讜讚砖 讚诪讜 诪诪讗讬

Rav Mari said: They learn from the mishna that non-sacred produce that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food, i.e., with the same stringencies as required for sacrificial food, is like sacrificial food. From where is this deduced?

  • 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...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 19: The Wave

More on intent when immersing in a mikveh -- and just how far that goes. Specifically, will dunking one hands...

Chagigah 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 19

讻讗谉 诇诪注砖专 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讘注讜 讻讜讜谞讛 讚转谞谉 讙诇 砖谞转诇砖 讜讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讛讗讚诐 讜注诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讬 讗祝 讗讚诐 讚诇讗 诪讻讜讬谉

whereas here, the first baraita is referring to tithes, for which intention to purify oneself is required. And from where do you say this, that non-sacred food does not require the intention that one is purifying himself for the sake of eating it? As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 5:6): If a wave containing forty se鈥檃 of water became detached from the sea and fell on a person or on vessels, they are ritually pure. The mishna teaches that a person is similar to vessels: Just as vessels do not intend to be purified, as they obviously harbor no intentions, so too, the case of a person is referring to a situation in which he does not intend to purify himself, thereby implying that people can be ritually purified even without intention.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 讬转诇砖 讛讙诇 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻诇讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讚诐 诪讛 讗讚诐 讚讘专 讻讜讜谞讛 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where is it clear that this is the meaning of the mishna? Perhaps we are dealing with one who is sitting and awaiting for when a wave will detach and fall on the vessels, and the implication is the opposite: Vessels are similar to a person: Just as a person is capable of intention to ritually purify himself, so too the case of the vessels mentioned in the mishna is referring to a situation where one intends on their behalf that they be purified.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

And if you would say that the mishna is indeed is referring to one who is sitting and awaiting, what is the purpose of stating this? Such a halakha would not appear to offer a novelty; why would it be necessary to state it?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讟讘诇 讘讞专讚诇讬转 砖诇 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 专讗砖讬谉 讗讟讜 讻讬驻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

The Gemara responds: It nevertheless provides a novel teaching, as it might enter your mind to say that it should be decreed that a detached wave does not affect purification, lest one come to immerse in a flow of rainwater whose volume is forty se鈥檃. In other words, one might think that immersion in a flood of rainwater effects purification, whereas the halakha is that rainwater purifies only if it is gathered in one location. Alternatively, you might think that it should be decreed that purification by means of the edges of the waves that comes in contact with the ground should be ineffective due to the upper arcs of the waves. The mishna therefore teaches us that we do not so decree.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜讬专

And from where do you say that one may not immerse in the arcs? As it is taught in a baraita: One may immerse in the edges of waves, but one may not immerse in their arcs, because one may not immerse in air. The area under the arc of a wave is considered mere air, despite the fact that the individual is surrounded by water on all sides.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜驻砖讟 诪讬 砖讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜谞讟诇谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

Rather, the proof that the purification with regard to non-sacred produce does not require intention is from that which we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:7): In the verse that is referring to the preconditions required for fruit and seeds to be susceptible to ritual impurity, it is stated: 鈥淚f water be put on seeds, and any of their carcasses fall there, it shall be impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). If fruit fell into a water channel, and one whose hands were ritually impure extended his hands and lifted them up with the goal of removing them from the water channel, his hands are ritually pure, as he has purified them by inserting them into the water channel, and these fruits are not included in the category of 鈥渋f water be put on seeds.鈥 The verse is referring only to fruit that has intentionally been brought into contact with water. Since the fruit in this case was not intentionally made wet, it cannot as yet contract impurity.

讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞讜 讬讚讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And if he put his hands into the water channel in order to wash his hands, his hands are ritually pure, and the fruit is included in the category of 鈥渋f water be put on seeds.鈥 Since he intended to wet his hands, the contact of the fruit with this water renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. In any case, the mishna teaches that his hands are ritually pure in either situation, indicating that no special intention is required for purification.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讟讜讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讛讜讞讝拽 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讗

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna here: One who immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food and assumes a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food is still prohibited from eating tithes. The Gemara infers: If one immersed with the intention of assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, yes, he assumes that status; if he did not immerse with the intention of assuming that presumptive status, no, he does not assume that status. This proves that even for the sake of non-sacred produce, one must intend to assume the appropriate status of ritual purity.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专

Rav Na岣an refutes this proof: This is what the mishna is saying: Even though he assumes a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred produce, he is prohibited from eating tithes. In other words, the mishna does not teach that intention is required for eating non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. Rather, it teaches that even if one intended to purify himself for non-sacred food, he is not purified with regard to tithes.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 讻诇诇

He, Rabba, raised an objection to him from another teaching of our mishna: With regard to one who immersed without intending to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity, it is as if he has not immersed. What, is it not teaching that it is as if he had not immersed at all?

诇讗 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诇诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 住讘专 讚讞讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讜诪讜转专 诇讞讜诇讬谉

Rav Na岣an rejected this proof as well: No, it means that it is as if he has not immersed for tithes, but he is considered to have immersed for non-sacred produce, for which no intention is necessary. The Gemara comments: He, i.e., Rabba, thought that Rav Na岣an was merely refuting his proof by saying that the wording of the mishna does not conclusively prove his case, but he did not actually think that the mishna should be understood differently. However, he subsequently went and examined the sources and found that a baraita was explicitly taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: One who immersed and did not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity is prohibited from eating tithes, but is permitted to eat non-sacred produce, even if he eats non-sacred produce only when ritually pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 诪讞讝讬拽 注爪诪讜 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛

搂 With regard to assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity, Rabbi Elazar said: If one immersed without any particular intention and ascended from his immersion, he may assume a presumptive status of ritual purity after his immersion for whatever he wishes. In his opinion, there is no need to have a definite intention in mind at the actual moment of immersion.

诪讬转讬讘讬 注讜讚讛讜 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘诪讬诐 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讚讘专 拽诇 诪讞讝讬拽 注爪诪讜 诇讚讘专 讞诪讜专 注诇讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽

The Gemara raises an objection to this from the following baraita: In a case where one has immersed and is ascending, and one of his feet is still in the water, if he had originally intended to assume presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may still intend to assume presumptive status for a major matter. But if he has fully ascended, he may no longer intend to assume a presumptive status for any other matter.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽 讻诇诇

The Gemara infers from this baraita: What, is it not teaching that if one has ascended he may not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity at all, which proves that one may do so only if he is still at least partially in the water?

诇讗 注讜讚讛讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讞讝拽 诪讞讝讬拽 注诇讛 讗诐 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诪讞讝讬拽 讜讗诐 讛讜讞讝拽 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬拽

The Gemara rejects this inference: No, it should be understood as follows: If he is still in the water, then although he previously intended to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may now intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for whatever purpose he wishes, since one can adjust his intention during his immersion. Once he has already ascended, if he did not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity at all, but immersed without any intention, he may intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for whatever he wishes even after ascending from the ritual bath; but if he did intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may not intend to assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for a major matter, as his intention was fixed when he ascended from the ritual bath.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 注讜讚讛讜 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖谞诪讚讚 讜讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讜讬专讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讟讘诇讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讟讛讜专 讜讛砖谞讬 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讛讬讜 专讙诇讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讘诪讬诐 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟讛讜专

In relation to the above, the Gemara explains: Who is the tanna who taught that one whose foot is still in the water is considered to be still immersing himself? Rabbi Pedat said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:6): In the case of a ritual bath that was measured and found to contain exactly forty se鈥檃 of water, and then two individuals descended and immersed one after the other, the first one is ritually pure, since he immersed in a valid ritual bath, but the second is ritually impure. Because a small amount of water clings to the first individual, the ritual bath subsequently holds less than the requisite amount. Therefore, it does not purify the second individual. Rabbi Yehuda said: If the feet of the first one were still touching the water, so that he had not yet exited the ritual bath entirely while the second one immersed, the second is also ritually pure. This teaches that Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one who still has a foot in the water is considered to be inside the ritual bath.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪注诇讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟诪讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 驻讚转

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda pertains to higher standards of ritual purity established by the Sages, where the obligation to immerse is due to a rabbinical ordinance. However, when the purpose of the immersion is to transition from full-fledged ritual impurity to purity, everyone agrees that the second individual is impure. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Pedat on this topic, who asserts that only Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one may assume a presumptive ritually pure status if one of his feet is still in the ritual bath.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讘诪注诇讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗祝 讛砖谞讬 讟讛讜专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 驻讚转

There are those who say a different version of this statement: Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This dispute is referring only to one who is obligated to immerse in order to transition from ritual impurity to purity, but with regard to higher standards of ritual purity established by the Sages, everyone agrees that even the second individual is ritually pure if the foot of the first is still in contact with the water. And consequently, this opinion disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Pedat, since, according to this version, all agree that with regard to higher standards of ritual purity, the immersion continues as long as a single foot remains in the water.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 诇讛讟讘讬诇 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讬讜转 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉

With regard to the discussion above, Ulla said: I asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: According to Rabbi Yehuda, what is the halakha with regard to immersing small vessels, such as needles and knitting needles, on the head of the first individual immersing himself? Since Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one whose foot is still in the water is considered as immersed in the ritual bath, does this mean that his body and even his wet hair can serve as part of the ritual bath?

讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma raised by this question: Does Rabbi Yehuda accept only the principle of lowering the partition, meaning that an item positioned above another item is considered as if it continued downward, and therefore the water on the body of the one immersing is viewed as descending into the ritual bath, so that the bath retains its requisite size; but he does not accept the concept of raising the partition, so that the water in the ritual bath is not considered to rise up to one鈥檚 head, making him part of the ritual bath as well? Or, perhaps he also accepts the principle of raising the partition, which means that one is indeed considered part of the ritual bath?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖诇砖 讙诪诪讬讜转 讘谞讞诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讛 砖诇 注砖专讬诐 注砖专讬诐 住讗讛 讜讛讗诪爪注讬转 砖诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讞专讚诇讬转 砖诇 讙砖诪讬诐 注讜讘专转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讟讘讬诇 讘注诇讬讜谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: You already learned it in the Tosefta (Mikvaot 3:3): If there are three depressions in the bed of a stream that are not completely dry, an upper one, a lower one, and a middle one; and the upper and lower ones hold twenty se鈥檃 each, while the middle one contains forty se鈥檃, and a flow of rain runs between them, thereby linking the depressions one to another, Rabbi Yehuda says: My colleague, Rabbi Meir, would say: One may immerse in the upper one. This indicates that Rabbi Meir holds that the waters of the middle depression, which contains the requisite amount of water for a ritual bath, are considered to have ascended by means of the rainwater into the higher depression. Since Rabbi Yehuda cites his colleague鈥檚 statement without comment, he evidently accepts the principle of raising the partition.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

Ulla raised a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讟讘讬诇 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Rabbi Meir would say: One may immerse in the upper one, and I say: In the lower one but not in the upper one. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of raising the partition. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. Therefore, it is clear that the matter is held in dispute between tanna鈥檌m and that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of raising the partition.

讛讟讜讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讻讜壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚砖谞讬 诇讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 诇诪注砖专

搂 It is taught in the mishna: One who immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food with the intention of assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food it is prohibited for him to eat tithes. The Gemara comments: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of the Rabbis, who differentiate between non-sacred produce and tithes, since they maintain the following: If one who is required by rabbinic law to immerse touches non-sacred food, it remains pure, but if he comes into contact with tithes they are rendered ritually impure.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 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

However, in that case, say the latter clause of the mishna, which states that the garments of an am ha鈥檃retz, who is not careful with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity, are considered to be rendered ritually impure by the impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, which is considered a primary source of ritual impurity, for perushin, individuals who are careful to eat even non-sacred food in a state of purity. The garments of perushin, although they are careful to remain ritually pure, are nevertheless considered to be rendered impure by the treading of a zav for priests who partake of teruma. Consequently, the latter clause differs from the opinion of the Rabbis in the earlier clause.

讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 讻讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Therefore, we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Non-sacred produce and tithes are similar to one another, as this clause of the mishna does not distinguish between those eating non-sacred food and those eating tithes. Is the earlier clause the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter clause the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: Yes; although it is unusual, in this instance we must explain that the earlier clause was said by the Rabbis and the latter clause by Rabbi Meir.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘住讬驻讗 讞诪砖 诪注诇讜转 讜诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘谞谉

However, Rav A岣 bar Adda would teach that five levels of ritual purity are listed in the latter clause of the mishna, by counting the clause that states that the clothes of those who eat non-sacred produce in a state of purity are ritually impure for tithes, and in this way he establishes the entire mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讻拽讜讚砖 讚诪讜 诪诪讗讬

Rav Mari said: They learn from the mishna that non-sacred produce that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food, i.e., with the same stringencies as required for sacrificial food, is like sacrificial food. From where is this deduced?

Scroll To Top