Chagigah 23
וְנִפְסְקָה רְצוּעָה שֶׁל סַנְדָּלוֹ, וּנְטָלָהּ וְהִנִּיחָהּ עַל פִּי חָבִית, וְנָפְלָה לַאֲוִיר הֶחָבִית, וְנִטְמֵאת. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמְרוּ: הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הַמִּדְרָס — נוֹשֵׂא אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
and the strap of his sandal, which had been rendered ritually impure by being trodden by a zav, broke off, and he picked up the strap and placed it on top of the mouth of the barrel, and it fell into the airspace of the barrel, thereby rendering the entire barrel impure. At that time the Sages said and issued a permanent decree that one who carries an object that is impure by having been trodden by a zav may carry teruma at the same time, but not sacrificial food.
אִי הָכִי, תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי! הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא אָסְרוּ אֶלָּא בַּיַּרְדֵּן וּבִסְפִינָה, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה.
The Gemara asks: If so, if they prohibited doing so due to that incident, they should have made the same decree with regard to teruma also, because if the same incident would occur with teruma it would defile the teruma as well. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is that of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, who said concerning a similar issue: They prohibited it only in the Jordan River, and only in a boat, in a situation similar to the incident that occurred, which triggered the enactment. In his opinion, whenever the Sages enacted a decree prohibiting something due to a particular incident, they did not extend the prohibition to related cases, but only to the same set of circumstances that pertained to that specific incident.
מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם מֵי חַטָּאת וְאֵפֶר חַטָּאת וְיַעֲבִירֵם בַּיַּרְדֵּן וּבִסְפִינָה, וְלֹא יַעֲמוֹד בְּצַד זֶה וְיִזְרְקֵם לְצַד אַחֵר, וְלֹא יְשִׁיטֵם עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, וְלֹא יִרְכַּב עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי חֲבֵירוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ רַגְלָיו נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע. אֲבָל מַעֲבִירָן עַל גַּבֵּי הַגֶּשֶׁר וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ; אֶחָד הַיַּרְדֵּן וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר הַנְּהָרוֹת. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָסְרוּ אֶלָּא בַּיַּרְדֵּן וּבִסְפִינָה, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה.
The Gemara presents the background to Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya’s statement: What is that enactment that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya was referring to? As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not carry the water of purification and the ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan River, and this is if he is on a boat. Nor may he stand on one side of the river and throw them to the other side. Nor may he float them across the river. Nor may he ford the river riding on an animal or on his friend and carrying the water or ashes of purification, unless his feet are touching the ground as he fords the river. But he may transfer them across the river over a bridge without concern about transferring them improperly. This decree applies both to the Jordan and to other rivers. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: The Sages prohibited these acts only in the Jordan River, and only if he transports them in a boat, and in circumstances exactly like those of the incident that occurred.
מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה? דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מַעֲבִיר מֵי חַטָּאת וְאֵפֶר חַטָּאת בַּיַּרְדֵּן וּבִסְפִינָה וְנִמְצָא כְּזַיִת מֵת תָּחוּב בְּקַרְקָעִיתָהּ שֶׁל סְפִינָה. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמְרוּ: לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם מֵי חַטָּאת וְאֵפֶר חַטָּאת וְיַעֲבִירֵם בַּיַּרְדֵּן בִּסְפִינָה.
The Gemara inquires: What was the incident that occurred? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was once an incident involving a person who was transferring water of purification and ashes of purification in the Jordan, and he was on a boat, and an olive-bulk from a corpse was discovered stuck in the floor of the boat, over which the water of purification had passed, thereby rendering them impure and invalid. At that time the Sages said: A person may not carry water of purification and ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan, and this is if he is on a boat. Just as in that case, Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya stated that the decree was limited to the specific circumstances of the original incident, here too, he would say that since the original incident involved sacrificial food and not teruma the Sages did not apply the decree to teruma.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: סַנְדָּל טָמֵא, סַנְדָּל טָהוֹר מַהוּ? חָבִית פְּתוּחָה, חָבִית סְתוּמָה מַהוּ? עָבַר וְנָשָׂא מַהוּ?
Several dilemmas were raised before the scholars: It is clear that this halakha, like the incident itself, applies to an object that has actually contracted impurity by being trodden by a zav, such as an impure sandal. But if it is a pure sandal, what is the halakha? Is the decree so far-reaching as to include a prohibition against carrying even a pure sandal together with sacrificial food? Similarly, the halakha certainly applies to an open barrel, where there is a danger that the sandal may enter the airspace of the barrel, as in the original incident, but if it was a closed barrel, where there is no such danger, what is the halakha? Does the decree apply in this case as well? Another question: If someone transgressed this decree and carried an impure sandal together with sacrificial food, what is the halakha? Did the Sages decree that the sacrificial food would become defiled because their decree was transgressed or not?
רַבִּי אִילָא אָמַר: אִם עָבַר וְנָשָׂא — טָמֵא. רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: עָבַר וְנָשָׂא — טָהוֹר.
The Gemara presents a conclusion for the last dilemma. Rabbi Ila said: If one transgressed and carried sacrificial food together with an impure sandal, it is indeed rendered impure. Rabbi Zeira said: If he transgressed and carried sacrificial food in this manner, it is still pure.
כֵּלִים הַנִּגְמָרִים בְּטָהֳרָה כּוּ׳. דְּגַמְרִינְהוּ מַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּגַמְרִינְהוּ חָבֵר, לְמָה לְהוּ טְבִילָה?
§ The mishna states: Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity require immersion for sacrificial food but not for teruma. The Gemara asks: Who completed the work of these vessels? If we say that it was a ḥaver, an individual who is meticulous about the halakhot of ritual purity, who completed them, why should they require immersion, given that he is meticulous about the halakhot of purity?
אֶלָּא דְּגַמְרִינְהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ — נִגְמָרִין בְּטׇהֳרָה קָרֵי לְהוּ? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְעוֹלָם דְּגַמְרִינְהוּ חָבֵר, וּמִשּׁוּם צִינּוֹרָא דְּעַם הָאָרֶץ.
Rather, it must mean that an am ha’aretz completed them. But can one call these vessels completed in purity? The very touch of an am ha’aretz renders them impure. Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with vessels that a ḥaver completed, and the Sages declared them impure for sacrificial food due to a concern that the spittle of an am ha’aretz might have fallen on them, which would render them impure if he were a zav.
דִּנְפַל אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיגְמְרֵיהּ — הָא לָאו מָנָא הוּא. אֶלָּא בָּתַר דְּגַמְרֵיהּ — מִיזְהָר זְהִיר בֵּהּו! לְעוֹלָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ דְּגַמְרֵיהּ, וְדִלְמָא בְּעִידָּנָא דְּגַמְרֵיהּ עֲדַיִין לַחָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the vessel? If we say it was before he completed the vessel, in that case it is not yet a vessel, and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage at all. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a ḥaver, he is careful about it. He would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become defiled. The Gemara responds: Actually, we must explain that the spittle fell before he completed it, when the ḥaver was not yet guarding it against impurity, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he completed the vessel the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of defiling the finished vessel, for the continued presence of the spittle on the vessel might have escaped the attention of the ḥaver craftsman.
טְבִילָה אִין, הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ לָא.
The Gemara comments: The mishna states that the vessel requires immersion, implying: Immersion, yes, but the setting of the sun after immersion, not, i.e., it is considered pure immediately after immersion, even though generally the purification engendered by immersion does not take effect until sunset.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דִּתְנַן: שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת שֶׁחֲתָכָהּ לְחַטָּאת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִטְבּוֹל מִיָּד. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יְטַמֵּא וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטְבּוֹל. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: דְּחַתְכַהּ מַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּחַתְכַהּ חָבֵר — לְמָה לִי טְבִילָה? וְאֶלָּא דְּחַתְכַהּ עַם הָאָרֶץ, בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יְטַמֵּא וְיִטְבּוֹל? הָא טָמֵא וְקָאֵי!
The Gemara asks: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (Para 5:4): Regarding a tube of reed, which one cut for storing ashes of purification, Rabbi Eliezer says: He should immerse it immediately; Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should first render it impure by touching it to an actual source of impurity and only after that immerse it. And we discussed the mishna’s case, asking: Who cut this tube? If we say a ḥaver cut it, why do I need immersion? The ḥaver prepared it with the strictest adherence to the halakhot of purity. Rather, it must be that an am ha’aretz cut it. But in that case, would Rabbi Yehoshua say that he should first render it impure and only then immerse it? Isn’t it already impure, due to the handling of the am ha’aretz?
וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְעוֹלָם דְּחַתְכַהּ חָבֵר, וּמִשּׁוּם צִינּוֹרָא דְּעַם הָאָרֶץ. דִּנְפַל אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיחְתְּכַהּ — הָא לָאו מָנָא הוּא, וְאֶלָּא בָּתַר דְּחַתְכַהּ — מִיזְהָר זְהִיר בַּהּ! לְעוֹלָם מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיחְתְּכַהּ, דִּלְמָא בְּעִידָּנָא דְּחַתְכַהּ עֲדַיִין לַחָה הִיא.
And in response to this question, Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the case is that a ḥaver cut it, and the reason it requires immersion is because the Sages were concerned that the spittle of an am ha’aretz might have touched it. The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the tube? If we say it was before he cut the tube, in that case it is not yet a vessel and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a ḥaver, he is careful about it and would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become impure. The Gemara responds: Actually we must explain that the spittle fell before he cut it, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he cut the tube the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of rendering the finished tube impure.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא הֶיכֵּירָא לְצַדּוּקִין.
The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is found that there is an act of recognition performed in opposition to the Sadducees, in order to demonstrate that the Sages do not take their opinions into account.
דִּתְנַן: מְטַמְּאִין הָיוּ אֶת הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַפָּרָה, לְהוֹצִיא מִלִּבָּן שֶׁל צַדּוּקִין. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: בִּמְעוֹרְבֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ הָיְתָה נַעֲשֵׂית.
As we learned in a mishna (Para 3:7): They would render impure the priest who burns the red heifer, in order to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who used to say: The ritual of the red heifer was to be performed by those who had experienced sunset after their immersion. The Sadducee opinion was that all those involved in the preparation of the red heifer must be completely pure, having undergone immersion as well as having waited until after sunset, when the purification takes full effect. The Sages, however, maintain that the red heifer may be prepared by people immediately after immersion, without waiting for sunset. In order to clearly demonstrate their rejection of the Sadducee opinion they would deliberately defile the people involved with preparing the red heifer and then immerse them. It is for this reason as well that Rabbi Yehoshua ruled that the tube must be rendered impure before it is immersed.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּעָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא הֶיכֵּירָא לְצַדּוּקִין. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ — מַאי הֶיכֵּירָא לְצַדּוּקִין אִיכָּא?
But according to Rabbi Eliezer, granted, if you say that generally, the setting of the sun is required after a vessel is completed, it is found that there is some act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees, as according to him, the tube used for the red heifer ashes, which should normally have required the setting of the sun, is used without waiting for sunset. But if you say that generally the setting of the sun is not required to remove the impurity caused by the touch of an am ha’aretz, and immersion alone is sufficient, what act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees is there here? It must be, therefore, that Rabbi Eliezer requires the setting of the sun for purification from the impurity imparted by an am ha’aretz. Therefore, the mishna, which implies that immersion alone is sufficient, does not accord with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion.
אָמַר רַב:
Rav said: Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does not require the setting of the sun for vessels that have been completed in purity, but there is nevertheless a demonstrative sign that the opinion of the Sadducees is rejected,
עֲשָׂאוּהָ כִּטְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.
as they treated the tube with severity as though it had been rendered impure by contact with a dead creeping animal. Therefore, in not requiring the setting of the sun they made it noticeable that they were opposed to the Sadducees.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לֹא תְּטַמֵּא אָדָם, אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: חוֹתְכָהּ וּמַטְבִּילָהּ — טָעוּן טְבִילָה! וְאֶלָּא: עֲשָׂאוּהָ כִּטְמֵא מֵת. אִי הָכִי תִּיבְעֵי הַזָּאַת שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי,
The Gemara raises a difficulty. However, if that is so, that the tube is treated as if defiled by a creeping animal, it should not render a person impure, as something defiled by a creeping animal is impure to the first degree of ritual impurity, which cannot impart ritual impurity to people. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses the tube for the red heifer ashes requires immersion himself, which shows that the tube does defile people? But rather, say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse, for such objects do defile people as well. The Gemara asks: If that is so, the tube should also require the sprinkling of the water of purification on the third and seventh days of its purification, like all things defiled by a corpse.
אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: חוֹתְכָהּ וּמַטְבִּילָהּ — טָעוּן טְבִילָה. טְבִילָה אִין, הַזָּאַת שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי לָא! אֶלָּא: עֲשָׂאוּהָ כִּטְמֵא מֵת בִּשְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ,
Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses it requires immersion, which indicates that immersion for the tube, yes, this is required, but sprinkling of the third and the seventh day, no. Rather, you must say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse that is already in its seventh day, after its sprinklings, when it is still impure and imparts impurity to those who touch it, but requires only immersion and no further sprinkling.
וְהָתַנְיָא: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא חִידְּשׁוּ דָּבָר בַּפָּרָה.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Sages never made any innovations in the halakhot of impurity with regard to the red heifer procedure. In other words, although the Sages added stringencies to the red heifer procedure, they never created new halakhot for it that do not exist elsewhere in other areas of halakha. We have said that the tube is treated as if it had had contact with a corpse even though it did not; this is an innovation that is not found anywhere else.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ קוּרְדּוֹם מְטַמֵּא מוֹשָׁב. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְהַיּוֹשֵׁב עַל הַכְּלִי״. יָכוֹל כָּפָה סְאָה וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ, תַּרְקַב וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ — יְהֵא טָמֵא,
The Gemara answers: Abaye said: When they said that the Sages did not make innovations, they were not referring to something of this nature, but meant that they did not say that a spade upon which a zav sits can become impure as a seat. They thereby preserved the basic halakhot of impurity, as it is taught in a baraita: It states with regard to a zav: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6). One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se’a and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a tarkav, i.e., a half-se’a, and sat on it, that the vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַיּוֹשֵׁב עַל הַכְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו … יִטְמָא״ — מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד לִישִׁיבָה, יָצָא זֶה, שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ.
The baraita concludes: Therefore, the verse states: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits…and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel for which we would say to someone sitting on it: Stand up, so we can do our work. A spade and a measuring bowl, then, are not subject to the impurity of the seat of a zav, even if a zav sat on them. Rather, they are considered to be on the lower level of impurity transmitted through simple contact with a zav. The same halakha was applied to the vessels used in preparation of the red heifer; the Sages did not add stringency and decree that a vessel not generally used for sitting should be considered as the seat of a zav.
הַכְּלִי מְצָרֵף מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כַּף אַחַת עֲשָׂרָה זָהָב מְלֵאָה קְטֹרֶת״, הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאוֹ לְכׇל מַה שֶּׁבַּכַּף — אַחַת.
§ The mishna states: A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source for this stringency? Rabbi Ḥanin said: The verse states with regard to the sacrificial donations of the tribal princes: “One golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), which teaches us that the verse treats everything inside the pan as one unit, even if the items are not attached to each other.
מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: הוֹסִיף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הַסֹּלֶת, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַגֶּחָלִים, שֶׁאִם נָגַע טְבוּל יוֹם בְּמִקְצָתוֹ — פָּסַל אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
Rav Kahana raised an objection against this based on the mishna that teaches (Eduyyot 8:1): Rabbi Akiva added to the list of items that are considered combined when in the same vessel fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals, saying that if one who immersed himself that day but has not waited until sunset touched a part of the contents of a vessel containing these substances, all of the vessel’s contents are disqualified, as the vessel combines them.
וְהָא דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא. מִמַּאי, מִדְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: הֵעִיד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן בְּתֵירָא עַל אֵפֶר חַטָּאת שֶׁנָּגַע הַטָּמֵא בְּמִקְצָתוֹ — שֶׁטִּימֵּא אֶת כּוּלּוֹ, וְקָתָנֵי: הוֹסִיף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!
Isn’t this halakha that these substances are considered combined by rabbinic law? From where do we know that this is so? From the fact that it teaches in the first clause of that mishna: Rabbi Shimon ben Beteira testified with regard to ashes of purification in a vessel that if an impure person or object touched part of it, it renders all of it impure. The purification ashes of the red heifer are neither food nor a sacrificial item, so Rabbi Ḥanin’s verse does not apply to the ashes, and the vessel certainly does not combine the ashes together by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. And it is taught immediately following this: Rabbi Akiva added, which shows that Rabbi Akiva’s halakha, like the previous halakha, deals with an additional level of impurity instituted by the Sages rather than a Torah law.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא:
Reish Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara:
