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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 30, 2014 | 讜壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • 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 22

Study Guide Chagigah 22


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讻讞诇诇讛 讘砖转讬 讗爪讘注讜转 讞讜讝专讜转 诇诪拽讜诪谉

and its space, which is equivalent to the width of two fingers going around in their place, i.e., a space large enough to insert two fingers and twist them around inside. If one body of water contains the requisite forty se鈥檃, while another, adjacent body is lacking this amount, then if the opening between the two bodies of water is wider than this measurement, the two bodies are considered as one, and the smaller body is also considered an acceptable ritual bath. Since any opening smaller than this is not considered to connect two bodies of water, the water inside a bottle with a narrow mouth would be considered disconnected from the water of the ritual bath, and smaller vessels inside such a narrow-necked vessel would not be considered as having come into contact with the water of the ritual bath. The Sages therefore enacted a decree rendering prohibited the immersion of any vessel inside another vessel.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪注诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讗讞专讜谞讜转 诇拽讜讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖

The Gemara notes: Rava holds in accordance with this statement that Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught eleven stringencies of sacrificial food here in this mishna, rather than Rabbi Ila鈥檚 ten. The first six stringencies apply both to sacrificial food itself and to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, whereas the last five apply only to actual sacrificial food but not to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讚专讘讗 诇讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinion of Rava, i.e., that the Sages rendered it prohibited to immerse one vessel inside of another because they were concerned lest one immerse needles in a vessel whose mouth is narrower than the tube of a wineskin, and the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who holds that their concern was about interposition?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟讘讬诇 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讬讜转 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讜 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讛谉 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a basket or a wicker bin [gargutni] that one has filled with smaller vessels and has immersed them all together. According to Rabbi Ila, the one who said it is prohibited to immerse one vessel inside another due to the concern of interposition, in this case as well there is such a concern, as the inner vessels might weigh down against the basket and prevent the water from touching the contact points. But according to Rava, the one who said it is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree lest one immerse needles and hooks inside a vessel whose mouth does not have the width of the tube of a wineskin, there are no such things as baskets and wicker bins whose mouth does not have the width of the tube of a wineskin, and therefore the decree would not apply to them.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

The Gemara notes: And Rava follows his line of reasoning, as Rava said: A basket or wicker bin that one has filled with smaller vessels and has immersed them all together, they are pure in all regards, even for sacrificial food.

讜诪拽讜讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 讛讟讜讘诇 砖诐 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讚讛讗 讗专注讗 讻讜诇讛 讞诇讞讜诇讬 诪讞诇讞诇讗 讜讘注讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚

Rava stated a second teaching with regard to baskets and bins as well: And in the case of a ritual bath that one divided into two sections by inserting a basket or wicker bin, so that each section is left with less than the required forty se鈥檃, if one immerses there, his immersion is ineffective for him. Despite the certainty that water seeps through the basket or bin, this is not enough to join the two incomplete sections of the ritual bath to be counted as one. We know that this is so, for the earth is entirely porous, and nevertheless we do not rely on this to allow several adjacent, small ditches full of water to add up to forty se鈥檃, but rather require that there be forty se鈥檃 together in one place.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻诇讬 讟讛讜专 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讟诪讗 诪讬讙讜 讚住诇拽讗 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪谞讗 住诇拽讗 诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛

The Gemara comments: And this halakha, that small vessels such as needles cannot be immersed inside a vessel with a narrow opening, applies only if he immersed them in a pure vessel, which does not require purification on its own. But if he did so in an impure vessel, which requires purification in its own right, since the immersion is effective for the whole of the outer vessel, including its inside, it is also effective for the vessels that are inside of it. Since the water that enters the outer vessel is considered attached to the rest of the ritual bath for purposes of purification of the outer vessel, so is it considered attached with regard to the purification of the inner vessels.

讚转谞谉 讻诇讬诐 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讟讘诇 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜诪讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚

We know this, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 6:2): With regard to vessels that one filled with other vessels and immersed them all together, they are pure, regardless of the width of the opening of the outer vessel. And if he did not immerse, the joining of waters is not effective until they are joined like the width of the tube of a wineskin. This second sentence of the mishna is unclear, and the Gemara seeks to clarify it. What is the mishna saying here when it says: And if he did not immerse? The Gemara explains. This is what the mishna is saying: And if he has no need to immerse the outer vessel, as it was already pure, and similarly in a case of two bodies of water that are joined together by means of a hole, it is not valid until the water is joined through a space as wide as the tube of a wineskin.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讗 讜讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 讘讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讬谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇拽讜讚砖

搂 The Gemara notes: And this dispute between Rava and Rabbi Ila is also a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a basket or a wicker bin that one filled with vessels and then immersed them, whether for purposes of sacrificial food or for purposes of teruma, they are pure. This is identical to Rava鈥檚 opinion. Abba Shaul says: They are pure for purposes of teruma but not for purposes of sacrificial food. This is identical to Rabbi Ila鈥檚 opinion.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇诪讗谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讞讘专讬诐 讞讘专讬诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬

The Gemara asks: If so, in light of these two reasons we have given for concern with regard to immersing vessels inside other vessels, this should not be permitted for teruma either. The Gemara responds: For whom do we say the principle that one vessel may not be immersed inside another? For 岣verim, individuals devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity. Others do not carefully follow these halakhot in any event. And 岣verim know such things well, that water is considered detached from the ritual bath if it is separated by a narrow opening, and that if one vessel is weighing down on another, preventing the water from reaching that spot, the top vessel must be lifted to allow the water to touch all parts of the vessel. Therefore, there is no need to apply these concerns and stringencies to the case of teruma.

讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讜讚砖 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讟讘讬诇

The Gemara counters with another question. If so, we should say the same thing in the case of sacrificial food too, i.e., that all these halakhot are for 岣verim, who meticulously follow ritual purity for sacrificial food and inquire about such halakhot. Why, then, did the Sages apply these concerns and stringencies to the case of sacrificial food? The Gemara responds: With regard to sacrificial food they were concerned that a common person [am ha鈥檃retz], who is not meticulous about ritual purity, may see the 岣ver immersing small vessels inside of large vessels, and will then go and immerse vessels of his own in this manner. But he will not take the same precautions as the 岣ver would, ensuring that the outer vessel has a wide opening and that the vessels on top do not weigh down on the lower ones.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讟讘讬诇 诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara objects: But the same concern could be raised with regard to teruma as well. It is possible that an am ha鈥檃retz may see the 岣ver immerse vessels for teruma in this manner, and he will then go and immerse his vessels this way, without taking the precautions that the 岣ver would take. The Gemara answers: We do not accept teruma from amei ha鈥檃retz, as they are not trustworthy with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity, and therefore it does not matter if the vessels he uses for teruma are not immersed properly. Therefore, the Sages were not concerned that the am ha鈥檃retz may come to a misunderstanding when observing a 岣ver immersing vessels within vessels.

拽讜讚砖 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞拽讘讬诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛

The Gemara continues its line of questioning. If so, we should likewise not accept sacrificial food from amei ha鈥檃retz, since they are not sufficiently meticulous with ritual purity, and we should therefore not care if they immerse their vessels improperly. The Gemara responds: The am ha鈥檃retz will have feelings of antagonism if sacrificial food is not accepted from him, and this would lead to internal discord and conflict within Israel.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 讞讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of teruma he will also have feelings of antagonism if teruma is not accepted from him. Why were the Sages concerned about this factor only with regard to sacrificial food and not teruma? The Gemara replies: An am ha鈥檃retz does not care if his teruma is not accepted by 岣verim, as he can always go and give his teruma to an am ha鈥檃retz priest who is his friend and who will accept it from him. In the case of sacrificial food, however, there is only one Temple, and care must be taken not to make the amei ha鈥檃retz feel they are being rejected.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讗讬讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讻诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讜谞讛 讘诪讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜砖讜专祝 驻专讛 讗讚讜诪讛 诇注爪诪讜

The Gemara notes that this sensitivity of not causing offense to the am ha鈥檃retz is expressed elsewhere as well: And who is the tanna that is concerned for such antagonism of amei ha鈥檃retz? It is Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: For what reason are all people, i.e., even amei ha鈥檃retz, trusted with regard to the purity of their wine and oil that they bring to the Temple for sacrificial purposes throughout the year? Why is the status of these items not investigated to determine that they were prepared with the necessary regard for ritual purity? In order to avoid schisms among the people, so that each and every individual should not go off and build a private altar for himself and burn a red heifer for himself. Were the Sages to reject sacrificial wine and oil from amei ha鈥檃retz, they would become alienated and go off and create schisms, going so far as to build their own separate temples and bring their own private offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 诪拽讘诇讬谞谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 住讛讚讜转讗 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion do we accept testimony nowadays from an am ha鈥檃retz, despite the concern of some Sages that their carelessness with regard to observance of halakha might also lead to personal untrustworthiness? In accordance with whom is this done? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 诇砖讗诇讛

搂 We have established that the reason for leniency with regard to immersing one vessel inside another for teruma is based on the fact that we do not care if the vessels amei ha鈥檃retz use for teruma are improperly purified, since we do not accept teruma from them in any event. The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned about borrowing vessels from them. Although 岣verim do not accept teruma from an am ha鈥檃retz, they do sometimes borrow their vessels and use them for teruma. It should therefore be a matter of concern for us if those vessels are not properly purified.

讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 诪爪讬诇 注诇 讛讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜注诇 讛诪砖拽讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住

The Gemara proves that it is acceptable to borrow vessels from an am ha鈥檃retz: As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:14): An earthenware vessel of an am ha鈥檃retz shields all kinds of items from the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. There are two applications of this fact: If there are objects or foods inside a tightly sealed earthenware vessel located inside a room containing a corpse, the vessel prevents the impurity from reaching the items inside it. Also, if there is a corpse in the first floor of a house and food or vessels are located in a second story of the same building, with an opening such as a skylight in the floor between the two stories, an earthenware vessel plugging up the opening will prevent the ritual impurity from spreading to the second story. This is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: It shields only food, drink, and earthenware vessels, but not utensils of metal, wood, cloth, etc.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讗讬谉 讻诇讬 讟诪讗 讞讜爪抓 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讟讬讛专转诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻砖讟讬讛专谞讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜

The mishna continues: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: For what reason do you make this distinction? It is clear that a closed, pure earthenware vessel serves as a barrier, blocking the spread of impurity in a room with a corpse (see Numbers 19:15). Beit Shammai said to them: Because the earthenware vessel itself is impure on account of its contact with an am ha鈥檃retz. The Sages decreed that anything touched by an am ha鈥檃retz is impure, since such people are not meticulous or sufficiently knowledgeable about the halakhot of purity; therefore his vessels are considered impure. And the principle is that an impure vessel does not serve as a barrier from impurity. Beit Hillel said to them: But didn鈥檛 you declare the food and drink inside the earthenware vessel to be pure? If the vessel of an am ha鈥檃retz cannot serve as a barrier, why do you say that some items inside it are pure? Beit Shammai said to them: When we declared the food and drink inside it to be pure,

诇注爪诪讜 讟讛专谞讜

we declared them pure for the am ha鈥檃retz himself, not for 岣verim, since 岣verim in any event do not consider anything touched by an am ha鈥檃retz to be pure. A 岣ver would therefore never relate to the food of an am ha鈥檃retz as pure, and he would not use the earthenware vessels of an am ha鈥檃retz for preparation of pure food, since an earthenware vessel cannot be purified through immersion. However, he might borrow a metal vessel, for instance, and purify it through immersion before using it for pure food.

讗讘诇 谞讟讛专 讗转 讛讻诇讬 砖讟讛专转讜 诇讱 讜诇讜

But how can we purify a vessel of metal and other materials, whose purity would be relevant both for you and for him? A 岣ver may one day borrow a metal vessel from the am ha鈥檃retz, and not realize that it was once inside an earthenware vessel in the same room as a corpse and as a result requires extensive purification from corpse contamination through the ashes of the red heifer, rather than mere immersion. Therefore, the am ha鈥檃retz is informed that his vessels of metal and other materials have contracted impurity from the corpse, and must undergo the extensive purification process, and after this is done these vessels will now be fit for use of the 岣ver after mere immersion.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讜砖谞讬 诪讚讘专讬讻诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗驻砖专 讗砖讛 诇砖讛 讘注专讬讘讛 讗砖讛 讜注专讬讘讛 讟诪讗讬谉 砖讘注讛 讜讘爪拽 讟讛讜专 诇讜讙讬谉 诪诇讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讜讙讬谉 讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am ashamed of your words, Beit Shammai, for they are illogical. Is it possible that there should be a corpse on the first floor, with an earthenware vessel blocking the opening to the second story, and a woman is standing upstairs kneading dough in a metal bowl, and the woman and the bowl are impure for seven days owing to the impurity of the corpse, while the dough inside the trough is pure? For that would be the result according to Beit Shammai, who distinguishes between food and earthenware vessels on the one hand and metal vessels on the other. Similarly: Is it possible that there is a metal pitcher [login] full of liquid in the second story, and the pitcher should be impure with impurity of seven days, while the liquids remain pure?

谞讟驻诇 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讜诪专 诇讱 讟注诪谉 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇讬 讟诪讗 讞讜爪抓 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讻诇讬 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讟诪讗 讗讜 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讟诪讗 讻诇讜诐 诪砖讙讬讞 注诇讬讱 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讟诪讗 讗讜诪专 诇讱 砖诇讬 讟讛讜专 讜砖诇讱 讟诪讗

After Rabbi Yehoshua posed this question, one student from among the students of Beit Shammai approached him and said to him: I will tell you Beit Shammai鈥檚 reasoning. He said to him: Speak. He said to him: Does an impure vessel serve as a barrier to corpse contamination or does it not serve as a barrier? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: It does not serve as a barrier. The student asked further: And is a vessel of an am ha鈥檃retz pure or impure? He said to him: Impure. The student responded: And if you tell him that his vessel is impure, will he pay attention to you at all? Clearly he will not. What is more, if you say to him that it is impure, he will say to you: On the contrary, my vessel is pure and yours is impure.

讜讝讛讜 讟注诪谉 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

And that is Beit Shammai鈥檚 reasoning: Food, drink, and earthenware vessels inside a sealed earthenware vessel remain pure, as, since they belong to an am ha鈥檃retz, a 岣ver will not eat the food or borrow the earthenware vessel. Vessels of metal or similar materials may one day be borrowed by a 岣ver, however, and therefore Beit Shammai declared these to be impure.

诪讬讚 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜谞砖转讟讞 注诇 拽讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 谞注谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 注爪诪讜转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讛 住转讜诪讜转 砖诇讻诐 讻讱 诪驻讜专砖讜转 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讜砖讞专讜 砖讬谞讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转注谞讬讜转讬讜

Once he heard the logic behind Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion, Rabbi Yehoshua immediately went and prostrated himself on the graves of Beit Shammai, i.e., the students and proponents of Shammai, and said: I humble myself before you, bones of Beit Shammai. If such clarity and wisdom is found in your rulings that you stated and left unexplained, all the more so must this be the case in your rulings when they were stated and explained. People said of Rabbi Yehoshua: Throughout his days his teeth darkened because of all his fasts that he undertook to atone for having spoken inappropriately of Beit Shammai.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诇讱 讜诇讜 讗诇诪讗 砖讗诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讬 砖讬讬诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara returns to its main point. In any event, this mishna teaches that the status of the vessels of an am ha鈥檃retz is relevant both for you and for him. Apparently, then, we 岣verim may borrow vessels from amei ha鈥檃retz. The question therefore arises: Why are the Sages not concerned that amei ha鈥檃retz may immerse vessels inside of other vessels in an inappropriate way, so that they will remain unpurified when borrowed by a 岣ver? The Gemara answers: For when we 岣verim borrow vessels from them we immerse them before using them. It is therefore inconsequential to us if their vessels were not immersed properly beforehand.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬讛讚专讜 诇讛讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讬 砖讗诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讟诪讗 诪转 讘注讬 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讜诪谞讗 诇砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks: If so, let Beit Hillel respond to Beit Shammai. They can respond as follows: When we borrow vessels from them we immerse them, and that is why we rule that vessels of metal or similar materials are pure. The Gemara explains: That dispute is referring to the impurity of a corpse. And that which becomes impure by proximity to a corpse requires sprinkling of the red heifer鈥檚 ashes on the third and seventh days of its purification, and people do not generally lend vessels for seven days. The solution the 岣ver implements of immersing vessels that he borrows from an am ha鈥檃retz is effective only for other impurities, but not for the impurity imparted by a corpse.

讜讗讟讘讬诇讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 注诇 讟讛专转 讟讘讬诇转 讟诪讗 诪转

The Gemara poses a question with regard to the halakha that a 岣ver must immerse vessels that he borrows from an am ha鈥檃retz: But is it so that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted with regard to immersion? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted with regard to the purification process of immersion of that which has become impure by contact with a corpse? In addition to being sprinkled with purification water on the third and seventh days, a person or article that has been in contact with a corpse must also undergo immersion on the seventh day. An am ha鈥檃retz is believed when he says that he has performed this immersion.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讗 讘讻诇讬讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讻诇讬讜 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讛讟讘诇转讬 讻诇讬 讘转讜讱 讻诇讬 讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛讟讘诇转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讟讘诇转讬 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讜 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚

The Gemara presents two answers for this question. Abaye said one answer: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an am ha鈥檃retz is trusted, is referring to the immersion of his body, whereas this teaching of the Gemara that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted concerning immersion deals with his vessels. Rava said a different answer: Both this and that, both the baraita and the Gemara鈥檚 teaching, refer to the vessels of an am ha鈥檃retz, and it is nevertheless not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an am ha鈥檃retz is trusted, is referring to an am ha鈥檃retz who said: I never immersed one vessel inside another, which is a statement that we accept. And this teaching of the Gemara that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted deals with one who said: I have immersed vessels inside of other vessels, but I did not immerse with a vessel whose mouth does not have the width of the tube of a wineskin. It is with regard to such details that an am ha鈥檃retz cannot be trusted.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讗诪谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 诇讜诪专 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 驻讬专讜转 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讟诪讗讜

And so it was taught in a baraita to this effect: An am ha鈥檃retz is trusted to say that produce has not been made susceptible to impurity, i.e., that it has never come into contact with water, but he is not trusted to say that the produce has been made susceptible to impurity but has not actually become impure. This baraita shows that amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted concerning basic facts, but not concerning matters that require detailed knowledge and scrupulous care.

讜讗讙讜驻讜 诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讘专 砖讘讗 诇讛讝讜转 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬讚 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讘讗 诇讛讝讜转 讗讬谉 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Abaye鈥檚 opinion: And is an am ha鈥檃retz really trusted concerning his body, when he claims to have immersed? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Concerning a 岣ver who comes before those in charge of sprinkling water of purification to be sprinkled with that water, and claims that the requisite three days have passed since his contamination by a corpse, they may sprinkle upon him immediately. But concerning an am ha鈥檃retz who comes before them and claims that three days have passed, they may not sprinkle upon him until he performs and counts in our presence the third day and the seventh day? This shows that an am ha鈥檃retz is not trusted concerning the purity of his own body.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转讜讱 讞讜诪专 砖讛讞诪专转 注诇讬讜 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讛拽诇转 注诇讬讜 讘住讜驻讜

Rather, Abaye said, modifying his previous explanation: Because of the stringency that you applied to the am ha鈥檃retz in his beginning, i.e., at the beginning of the purification process, by not allowing him to purify himself without first ensuring that he has not been in contact with a corpse for three days, you may be lenient with him in his end, in that he is trusted regarding having immersed at the end of the seven days, removing the impurity contracted through contact with a corpse.

讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 诪讗讬 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱

搂 The mishna teaches: The halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside apply to vessels used for teruma, but not for sacrificial food. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The back and its inside?

讻讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗讬谉 转讜讻讜 讗讜讙谞讜 讗讝谞讜 讜讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara explains. As we learned in a mishna (Keilim 25:6): A vessel whose back part, as opposed to its inside, was defiled by contact with impure liquid. Its back is impure, while its other parts, such as its inside, its rim, its ear-shaped handles, and its straight handles are pure. By Torah law, foods and liquids cannot impart ritual impurity to a vessel at all, but by rabbinic law liquids can. In order to clarify that it is only a rabbinic decree, they instituted that the impurity thereby imparted, if the liquid touched the outside of the vessel, should affect only the part touched by the liquid, but not its inside or the other parts of its outside. However, if its inside was defiled, even by impurity only according to rabbinic law, it is all impure. This halakha applies only to teruma, but regarding offerings, the defilement of any part of the vessel renders it all impure.

讜讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖爪讜讘讟讜 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬爪讘讟 诇讛 拽诇讬 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞拽讬讬 讛讚注转 爪讜讘注讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And its place for gripping. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Place for gripping [beit hatzevita]? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is the place where he grips the vessel in order to pass [tzovet] it, a kind of indentation used for grasping the vessel. And similarly it states: 鈥淎nd he pinched [vayitzbat] some parched corn for her鈥 (Ruth 2:14), which means that he gave her a little of the corn. Therefore, the term is referring to a place on the vessel used to grasp it. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is the place that fastidious people use for dipping. A small receptacle for spices and the like would be attached to the sides of vessels for dipping one鈥檚 food.

转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 讜讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 诇转专讜诪讛

Rav Beivai taught the following baraita before Rav Na岣an: No vessels have this difference between the back and inside, whether they are vessels used for consecrated foods of the Temple or those used for consecrated foods of outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple. In these cases, if one of the parts of the vessel was defiled with impure liquids the entire vessel becomes impure. Rav Na岣an said to him: What are these consecrated foods of outlying areas mentioned in the baraita? This term is usually applied to teruma, but if so the baraita contradicts the mishna. For didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside and its place for gripping apply to vessels used for teruma?

讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 拽讗诪专转

Rav Na岣an continued: Perhaps when you said the consecrated foods of outlying areas you were not referring to teruma, but rather you are speaking of non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, and you called them consecrated foods of outlying areas because this level of purity can be observed outside the Temple as well.

讗讚讻专转谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪注诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讗讞专讜谞讜转 诇拽讜讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖

In the course of this discussion Rav Na岣an said to Rav Beivai: You have now reminded me of something that Rabba bar Avuh said concerning this issue: They taught eleven stringencies of sacrificial food here in the mishna. The first six apply both to sacrificial food and to non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, whereas the last five apply only to sacrificial foods but not to non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food. Rabba bar Avuh鈥檚 statement therefore corroborates the interpretation of the baraita as dealing with non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial foods.

讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛诪讚专住 谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 拽讜讚砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪注讘讬专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: One who carries an object trodden by a zav may carry teruma at the same time, if he is careful that neither he nor the impure object come into contact with the teruma, but this may not be done with sacrificial food. The Gemara asks: Concerning sacrificial food, what is the reason that he may not carry it? As long as contact with the food is prevented, why should he not carry sacrificial food as well? The Gemara answers: This enactment was made due to an incident that occurred. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was once an incident involving someone who was transferring a barrel of sacrificial wine from one place to another,

  • 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: 21 – 27 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This we will continue learning about the world of purity and impurity. We will learn how and when vessels are...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Who is an Am Haaretz? – Gefet 28

https://youtu.be/Gx3Sgut8YOo

Chagigah 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 22

讜讻讞诇诇讛 讘砖转讬 讗爪讘注讜转 讞讜讝专讜转 诇诪拽讜诪谉

and its space, which is equivalent to the width of two fingers going around in their place, i.e., a space large enough to insert two fingers and twist them around inside. If one body of water contains the requisite forty se鈥檃, while another, adjacent body is lacking this amount, then if the opening between the two bodies of water is wider than this measurement, the two bodies are considered as one, and the smaller body is also considered an acceptable ritual bath. Since any opening smaller than this is not considered to connect two bodies of water, the water inside a bottle with a narrow mouth would be considered disconnected from the water of the ritual bath, and smaller vessels inside such a narrow-necked vessel would not be considered as having come into contact with the water of the ritual bath. The Sages therefore enacted a decree rendering prohibited the immersion of any vessel inside another vessel.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪注诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讗讞专讜谞讜转 诇拽讜讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖

The Gemara notes: Rava holds in accordance with this statement that Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught eleven stringencies of sacrificial food here in this mishna, rather than Rabbi Ila鈥檚 ten. The first six stringencies apply both to sacrificial food itself and to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, whereas the last five apply only to actual sacrificial food but not to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讚专讘讗 诇讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinion of Rava, i.e., that the Sages rendered it prohibited to immerse one vessel inside of another because they were concerned lest one immerse needles in a vessel whose mouth is narrower than the tube of a wineskin, and the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who holds that their concern was about interposition?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟讘讬诇 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讬讜转 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讜 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讛谉 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a basket or a wicker bin [gargutni] that one has filled with smaller vessels and has immersed them all together. According to Rabbi Ila, the one who said it is prohibited to immerse one vessel inside another due to the concern of interposition, in this case as well there is such a concern, as the inner vessels might weigh down against the basket and prevent the water from touching the contact points. But according to Rava, the one who said it is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree lest one immerse needles and hooks inside a vessel whose mouth does not have the width of the tube of a wineskin, there are no such things as baskets and wicker bins whose mouth does not have the width of the tube of a wineskin, and therefore the decree would not apply to them.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

The Gemara notes: And Rava follows his line of reasoning, as Rava said: A basket or wicker bin that one has filled with smaller vessels and has immersed them all together, they are pure in all regards, even for sacrificial food.

讜诪拽讜讛 砖讞诇拽讜 讘住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 讛讟讜讘诇 砖诐 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讚讛讗 讗专注讗 讻讜诇讛 讞诇讞讜诇讬 诪讞诇讞诇讗 讜讘注讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚

Rava stated a second teaching with regard to baskets and bins as well: And in the case of a ritual bath that one divided into two sections by inserting a basket or wicker bin, so that each section is left with less than the required forty se鈥檃, if one immerses there, his immersion is ineffective for him. Despite the certainty that water seeps through the basket or bin, this is not enough to join the two incomplete sections of the ritual bath to be counted as one. We know that this is so, for the earth is entirely porous, and nevertheless we do not rely on this to allow several adjacent, small ditches full of water to add up to forty se鈥檃, but rather require that there be forty se鈥檃 together in one place.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻诇讬 讟讛讜专 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讟诪讗 诪讬讙讜 讚住诇拽讗 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪谞讗 住诇拽讗 诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讻诇讬诐 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛

The Gemara comments: And this halakha, that small vessels such as needles cannot be immersed inside a vessel with a narrow opening, applies only if he immersed them in a pure vessel, which does not require purification on its own. But if he did so in an impure vessel, which requires purification in its own right, since the immersion is effective for the whole of the outer vessel, including its inside, it is also effective for the vessels that are inside of it. Since the water that enters the outer vessel is considered attached to the rest of the ritual bath for purposes of purification of the outer vessel, so is it considered attached with regard to the purification of the inner vessels.

讚转谞谉 讻诇讬诐 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讟讘诇 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜诪讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚

We know this, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 6:2): With regard to vessels that one filled with other vessels and immersed them all together, they are pure, regardless of the width of the opening of the outer vessel. And if he did not immerse, the joining of waters is not effective until they are joined like the width of the tube of a wineskin. This second sentence of the mishna is unclear, and the Gemara seeks to clarify it. What is the mishna saying here when it says: And if he did not immerse? The Gemara explains. This is what the mishna is saying: And if he has no need to immerse the outer vessel, as it was already pure, and similarly in a case of two bodies of water that are joined together by means of a hole, it is not valid until the water is joined through a space as wide as the tube of a wineskin.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讗 讜讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住诇 讜讙专讙讜转谞讬 砖诪讬诇讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇谉 讘讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讬谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇拽讜讚砖

搂 The Gemara notes: And this dispute between Rava and Rabbi Ila is also a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a basket or a wicker bin that one filled with vessels and then immersed them, whether for purposes of sacrificial food or for purposes of teruma, they are pure. This is identical to Rava鈥檚 opinion. Abba Shaul says: They are pure for purposes of teruma but not for purposes of sacrificial food. This is identical to Rabbi Ila鈥檚 opinion.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇诪讗谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讞讘专讬诐 讞讘专讬诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬

The Gemara asks: If so, in light of these two reasons we have given for concern with regard to immersing vessels inside other vessels, this should not be permitted for teruma either. The Gemara responds: For whom do we say the principle that one vessel may not be immersed inside another? For 岣verim, individuals devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity. Others do not carefully follow these halakhot in any event. And 岣verim know such things well, that water is considered detached from the ritual bath if it is separated by a narrow opening, and that if one vessel is weighing down on another, preventing the water from reaching that spot, the top vessel must be lifted to allow the water to touch all parts of the vessel. Therefore, there is no need to apply these concerns and stringencies to the case of teruma.

讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讜讚砖 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讟讘讬诇

The Gemara counters with another question. If so, we should say the same thing in the case of sacrificial food too, i.e., that all these halakhot are for 岣verim, who meticulously follow ritual purity for sacrificial food and inquire about such halakhot. Why, then, did the Sages apply these concerns and stringencies to the case of sacrificial food? The Gemara responds: With regard to sacrificial food they were concerned that a common person [am ha鈥檃retz], who is not meticulous about ritual purity, may see the 岣ver immersing small vessels inside of large vessels, and will then go and immerse vessels of his own in this manner. But he will not take the same precautions as the 岣ver would, ensuring that the outer vessel has a wide opening and that the vessels on top do not weigh down on the lower ones.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讗讝讬诇 诪讟讘讬诇 诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara objects: But the same concern could be raised with regard to teruma as well. It is possible that an am ha鈥檃retz may see the 岣ver immerse vessels for teruma in this manner, and he will then go and immerse his vessels this way, without taking the precautions that the 岣ver would take. The Gemara answers: We do not accept teruma from amei ha鈥檃retz, as they are not trustworthy with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity, and therefore it does not matter if the vessels he uses for teruma are not immersed properly. Therefore, the Sages were not concerned that the am ha鈥檃retz may come to a misunderstanding when observing a 岣ver immersing vessels within vessels.

拽讜讚砖 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞拽讘讬诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛

The Gemara continues its line of questioning. If so, we should likewise not accept sacrificial food from amei ha鈥檃retz, since they are not sufficiently meticulous with ritual purity, and we should therefore not care if they immerse their vessels improperly. The Gemara responds: The am ha鈥檃retz will have feelings of antagonism if sacrificial food is not accepted from him, and this would lead to internal discord and conflict within Israel.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 讞讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of teruma he will also have feelings of antagonism if teruma is not accepted from him. Why were the Sages concerned about this factor only with regard to sacrificial food and not teruma? The Gemara replies: An am ha鈥檃retz does not care if his teruma is not accepted by 岣verim, as he can always go and give his teruma to an am ha鈥檃retz priest who is his friend and who will accept it from him. In the case of sacrificial food, however, there is only one Temple, and care must be taken not to make the amei ha鈥檃retz feel they are being rejected.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讗讬讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讻诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讜谞讛 讘诪讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜砖讜专祝 驻专讛 讗讚讜诪讛 诇注爪诪讜

The Gemara notes that this sensitivity of not causing offense to the am ha鈥檃retz is expressed elsewhere as well: And who is the tanna that is concerned for such antagonism of amei ha鈥檃retz? It is Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: For what reason are all people, i.e., even amei ha鈥檃retz, trusted with regard to the purity of their wine and oil that they bring to the Temple for sacrificial purposes throughout the year? Why is the status of these items not investigated to determine that they were prepared with the necessary regard for ritual purity? In order to avoid schisms among the people, so that each and every individual should not go off and build a private altar for himself and burn a red heifer for himself. Were the Sages to reject sacrificial wine and oil from amei ha鈥檃retz, they would become alienated and go off and create schisms, going so far as to build their own separate temples and bring their own private offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 诪拽讘诇讬谞谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 住讛讚讜转讗 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion do we accept testimony nowadays from an am ha鈥檃retz, despite the concern of some Sages that their carelessness with regard to observance of halakha might also lead to personal untrustworthiness? In accordance with whom is this done? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 诇砖讗诇讛

搂 We have established that the reason for leniency with regard to immersing one vessel inside another for teruma is based on the fact that we do not care if the vessels amei ha鈥檃retz use for teruma are improperly purified, since we do not accept teruma from them in any event. The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned about borrowing vessels from them. Although 岣verim do not accept teruma from an am ha鈥檃retz, they do sometimes borrow their vessels and use them for teruma. It should therefore be a matter of concern for us if those vessels are not properly purified.

讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 诪爪讬诇 注诇 讛讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜注诇 讛诪砖拽讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住

The Gemara proves that it is acceptable to borrow vessels from an am ha鈥檃retz: As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:14): An earthenware vessel of an am ha鈥檃retz shields all kinds of items from the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. There are two applications of this fact: If there are objects or foods inside a tightly sealed earthenware vessel located inside a room containing a corpse, the vessel prevents the impurity from reaching the items inside it. Also, if there is a corpse in the first floor of a house and food or vessels are located in a second story of the same building, with an opening such as a skylight in the floor between the two stories, an earthenware vessel plugging up the opening will prevent the ritual impurity from spreading to the second story. This is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: It shields only food, drink, and earthenware vessels, but not utensils of metal, wood, cloth, etc.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讗讬谉 讻诇讬 讟诪讗 讞讜爪抓 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讟讬讛专转诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻砖讟讬讛专谞讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讜

The mishna continues: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: For what reason do you make this distinction? It is clear that a closed, pure earthenware vessel serves as a barrier, blocking the spread of impurity in a room with a corpse (see Numbers 19:15). Beit Shammai said to them: Because the earthenware vessel itself is impure on account of its contact with an am ha鈥檃retz. The Sages decreed that anything touched by an am ha鈥檃retz is impure, since such people are not meticulous or sufficiently knowledgeable about the halakhot of purity; therefore his vessels are considered impure. And the principle is that an impure vessel does not serve as a barrier from impurity. Beit Hillel said to them: But didn鈥檛 you declare the food and drink inside the earthenware vessel to be pure? If the vessel of an am ha鈥檃retz cannot serve as a barrier, why do you say that some items inside it are pure? Beit Shammai said to them: When we declared the food and drink inside it to be pure,

诇注爪诪讜 讟讛专谞讜

we declared them pure for the am ha鈥檃retz himself, not for 岣verim, since 岣verim in any event do not consider anything touched by an am ha鈥檃retz to be pure. A 岣ver would therefore never relate to the food of an am ha鈥檃retz as pure, and he would not use the earthenware vessels of an am ha鈥檃retz for preparation of pure food, since an earthenware vessel cannot be purified through immersion. However, he might borrow a metal vessel, for instance, and purify it through immersion before using it for pure food.

讗讘诇 谞讟讛专 讗转 讛讻诇讬 砖讟讛专转讜 诇讱 讜诇讜

But how can we purify a vessel of metal and other materials, whose purity would be relevant both for you and for him? A 岣ver may one day borrow a metal vessel from the am ha鈥檃retz, and not realize that it was once inside an earthenware vessel in the same room as a corpse and as a result requires extensive purification from corpse contamination through the ashes of the red heifer, rather than mere immersion. Therefore, the am ha鈥檃retz is informed that his vessels of metal and other materials have contracted impurity from the corpse, and must undergo the extensive purification process, and after this is done these vessels will now be fit for use of the 岣ver after mere immersion.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讜砖谞讬 诪讚讘专讬讻诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗驻砖专 讗砖讛 诇砖讛 讘注专讬讘讛 讗砖讛 讜注专讬讘讛 讟诪讗讬谉 砖讘注讛 讜讘爪拽 讟讛讜专 诇讜讙讬谉 诪诇讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讜讙讬谉 讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am ashamed of your words, Beit Shammai, for they are illogical. Is it possible that there should be a corpse on the first floor, with an earthenware vessel blocking the opening to the second story, and a woman is standing upstairs kneading dough in a metal bowl, and the woman and the bowl are impure for seven days owing to the impurity of the corpse, while the dough inside the trough is pure? For that would be the result according to Beit Shammai, who distinguishes between food and earthenware vessels on the one hand and metal vessels on the other. Similarly: Is it possible that there is a metal pitcher [login] full of liquid in the second story, and the pitcher should be impure with impurity of seven days, while the liquids remain pure?

谞讟驻诇 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讜诪专 诇讱 讟注诪谉 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇讬 讟诪讗 讞讜爪抓 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讻诇讬 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讟诪讗 讗讜 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讟诪讗 讻诇讜诐 诪砖讙讬讞 注诇讬讱 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讟诪讗 讗讜诪专 诇讱 砖诇讬 讟讛讜专 讜砖诇讱 讟诪讗

After Rabbi Yehoshua posed this question, one student from among the students of Beit Shammai approached him and said to him: I will tell you Beit Shammai鈥檚 reasoning. He said to him: Speak. He said to him: Does an impure vessel serve as a barrier to corpse contamination or does it not serve as a barrier? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: It does not serve as a barrier. The student asked further: And is a vessel of an am ha鈥檃retz pure or impure? He said to him: Impure. The student responded: And if you tell him that his vessel is impure, will he pay attention to you at all? Clearly he will not. What is more, if you say to him that it is impure, he will say to you: On the contrary, my vessel is pure and yours is impure.

讜讝讛讜 讟注诪谉 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

And that is Beit Shammai鈥檚 reasoning: Food, drink, and earthenware vessels inside a sealed earthenware vessel remain pure, as, since they belong to an am ha鈥檃retz, a 岣ver will not eat the food or borrow the earthenware vessel. Vessels of metal or similar materials may one day be borrowed by a 岣ver, however, and therefore Beit Shammai declared these to be impure.

诪讬讚 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜谞砖转讟讞 注诇 拽讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 谞注谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 注爪诪讜转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讛 住转讜诪讜转 砖诇讻诐 讻讱 诪驻讜专砖讜转 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讜砖讞专讜 砖讬谞讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转注谞讬讜转讬讜

Once he heard the logic behind Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion, Rabbi Yehoshua immediately went and prostrated himself on the graves of Beit Shammai, i.e., the students and proponents of Shammai, and said: I humble myself before you, bones of Beit Shammai. If such clarity and wisdom is found in your rulings that you stated and left unexplained, all the more so must this be the case in your rulings when they were stated and explained. People said of Rabbi Yehoshua: Throughout his days his teeth darkened because of all his fasts that he undertook to atone for having spoken inappropriately of Beit Shammai.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诇讱 讜诇讜 讗诇诪讗 砖讗诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讬 砖讬讬诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara returns to its main point. In any event, this mishna teaches that the status of the vessels of an am ha鈥檃retz is relevant both for you and for him. Apparently, then, we 岣verim may borrow vessels from amei ha鈥檃retz. The question therefore arises: Why are the Sages not concerned that amei ha鈥檃retz may immerse vessels inside of other vessels in an inappropriate way, so that they will remain unpurified when borrowed by a 岣ver? The Gemara answers: For when we 岣verim borrow vessels from them we immerse them before using them. It is therefore inconsequential to us if their vessels were not immersed properly beforehand.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬讛讚专讜 诇讛讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讬 砖讗诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讟诪讗 诪转 讘注讬 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讜诪谞讗 诇砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks: If so, let Beit Hillel respond to Beit Shammai. They can respond as follows: When we borrow vessels from them we immerse them, and that is why we rule that vessels of metal or similar materials are pure. The Gemara explains: That dispute is referring to the impurity of a corpse. And that which becomes impure by proximity to a corpse requires sprinkling of the red heifer鈥檚 ashes on the third and seventh days of its purification, and people do not generally lend vessels for seven days. The solution the 岣ver implements of immersing vessels that he borrows from an am ha鈥檃retz is effective only for other impurities, but not for the impurity imparted by a corpse.

讜讗讟讘讬诇讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 注诇 讟讛专转 讟讘讬诇转 讟诪讗 诪转

The Gemara poses a question with regard to the halakha that a 岣ver must immerse vessels that he borrows from an am ha鈥檃retz: But is it so that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted with regard to immersion? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted with regard to the purification process of immersion of that which has become impure by contact with a corpse? In addition to being sprinkled with purification water on the third and seventh days, a person or article that has been in contact with a corpse must also undergo immersion on the seventh day. An am ha鈥檃retz is believed when he says that he has performed this immersion.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讗 讘讻诇讬讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讻诇讬讜 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讛讟讘诇转讬 讻诇讬 讘转讜讱 讻诇讬 讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛讟讘诇转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讟讘诇转讬 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讜 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚

The Gemara presents two answers for this question. Abaye said one answer: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an am ha鈥檃retz is trusted, is referring to the immersion of his body, whereas this teaching of the Gemara that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted concerning immersion deals with his vessels. Rava said a different answer: Both this and that, both the baraita and the Gemara鈥檚 teaching, refer to the vessels of an am ha鈥檃retz, and it is nevertheless not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an am ha鈥檃retz is trusted, is referring to an am ha鈥檃retz who said: I never immersed one vessel inside another, which is a statement that we accept. And this teaching of the Gemara that amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted deals with one who said: I have immersed vessels inside of other vessels, but I did not immerse with a vessel whose mouth does not have the width of the tube of a wineskin. It is with regard to such details that an am ha鈥檃retz cannot be trusted.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讗诪谉 注诐 讛讗专抓 诇讜诪专 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 驻讬专讜转 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讟诪讗讜

And so it was taught in a baraita to this effect: An am ha鈥檃retz is trusted to say that produce has not been made susceptible to impurity, i.e., that it has never come into contact with water, but he is not trusted to say that the produce has been made susceptible to impurity but has not actually become impure. This baraita shows that amei ha鈥檃retz are trusted concerning basic facts, but not concerning matters that require detailed knowledge and scrupulous care.

讜讗讙讜驻讜 诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讘专 砖讘讗 诇讛讝讜转 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬讚 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讘讗 诇讛讝讜转 讗讬谉 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Abaye鈥檚 opinion: And is an am ha鈥檃retz really trusted concerning his body, when he claims to have immersed? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Concerning a 岣ver who comes before those in charge of sprinkling water of purification to be sprinkled with that water, and claims that the requisite three days have passed since his contamination by a corpse, they may sprinkle upon him immediately. But concerning an am ha鈥檃retz who comes before them and claims that three days have passed, they may not sprinkle upon him until he performs and counts in our presence the third day and the seventh day? This shows that an am ha鈥檃retz is not trusted concerning the purity of his own body.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转讜讱 讞讜诪专 砖讛讞诪专转 注诇讬讜 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讛拽诇转 注诇讬讜 讘住讜驻讜

Rather, Abaye said, modifying his previous explanation: Because of the stringency that you applied to the am ha鈥檃retz in his beginning, i.e., at the beginning of the purification process, by not allowing him to purify himself without first ensuring that he has not been in contact with a corpse for three days, you may be lenient with him in his end, in that he is trusted regarding having immersed at the end of the seven days, removing the impurity contracted through contact with a corpse.

讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 诪讗讬 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱

搂 The mishna teaches: The halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside apply to vessels used for teruma, but not for sacrificial food. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The back and its inside?

讻讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗讬谉 转讜讻讜 讗讜讙谞讜 讗讝谞讜 讜讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara explains. As we learned in a mishna (Keilim 25:6): A vessel whose back part, as opposed to its inside, was defiled by contact with impure liquid. Its back is impure, while its other parts, such as its inside, its rim, its ear-shaped handles, and its straight handles are pure. By Torah law, foods and liquids cannot impart ritual impurity to a vessel at all, but by rabbinic law liquids can. In order to clarify that it is only a rabbinic decree, they instituted that the impurity thereby imparted, if the liquid touched the outside of the vessel, should affect only the part touched by the liquid, but not its inside or the other parts of its outside. However, if its inside was defiled, even by impurity only according to rabbinic law, it is all impure. This halakha applies only to teruma, but regarding offerings, the defilement of any part of the vessel renders it all impure.

讜讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖爪讜讘讟讜 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬爪讘讟 诇讛 拽诇讬 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞拽讬讬 讛讚注转 爪讜讘注讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And its place for gripping. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Place for gripping [beit hatzevita]? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is the place where he grips the vessel in order to pass [tzovet] it, a kind of indentation used for grasping the vessel. And similarly it states: 鈥淎nd he pinched [vayitzbat] some parched corn for her鈥 (Ruth 2:14), which means that he gave her a little of the corn. Therefore, the term is referring to a place on the vessel used to grasp it. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is the place that fastidious people use for dipping. A small receptacle for spices and the like would be attached to the sides of vessels for dipping one鈥檚 food.

转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讞讜专讬诐 讜转讜讱 讜讘讬转 讛爪讘讬讟讛 诇转专讜诪讛

Rav Beivai taught the following baraita before Rav Na岣an: No vessels have this difference between the back and inside, whether they are vessels used for consecrated foods of the Temple or those used for consecrated foods of outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple. In these cases, if one of the parts of the vessel was defiled with impure liquids the entire vessel becomes impure. Rav Na岣an said to him: What are these consecrated foods of outlying areas mentioned in the baraita? This term is usually applied to teruma, but if so the baraita contradicts the mishna. For didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside and its place for gripping apply to vessels used for teruma?

讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 拽讗诪专转

Rav Na岣an continued: Perhaps when you said the consecrated foods of outlying areas you were not referring to teruma, but rather you are speaking of non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, and you called them consecrated foods of outlying areas because this level of purity can be observed outside the Temple as well.

讗讚讻专转谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪注诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖 讗讞专讜谞讜转 诇拽讜讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讜讚砖

In the course of this discussion Rav Na岣an said to Rav Beivai: You have now reminded me of something that Rabba bar Avuh said concerning this issue: They taught eleven stringencies of sacrificial food here in the mishna. The first six apply both to sacrificial food and to non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, whereas the last five apply only to sacrificial foods but not to non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food. Rabba bar Avuh鈥檚 statement therefore corroborates the interpretation of the baraita as dealing with non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial foods.

讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛诪讚专住 谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 拽讜讚砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪注讘讬专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: One who carries an object trodden by a zav may carry teruma at the same time, if he is careful that neither he nor the impure object come into contact with the teruma, but this may not be done with sacrificial food. The Gemara asks: Concerning sacrificial food, what is the reason that he may not carry it? As long as contact with the food is prevented, why should he not carry sacrificial food as well? The Gemara answers: This enactment was made due to an incident that occurred. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was once an incident involving someone who was transferring a barrel of sacrificial wine from one place to another,

Scroll To Top