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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 5, 2014 | ื™ืดื ื‘ืชืฉืจื™ ืชืฉืขืดื”

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

  • 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 26-27


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

ืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื—ื•ืฅ

or both are leaving it, it is considered like outside the perimeter and the แธฅaver may not acquire vessels from him. The reason is that if they are both entering the perimeter they can easily wait until they are inside and then conduct the transaction, and if they are both leaving they should have completed the deal beforehand, and the แธฅaver may not make up for this lapse by doing so now.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ืงื“ืจ ืฉืžื›ืจ ืืช ื”ืงื“ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื ื›ื ืก ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื’ื•ืคื” ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื™ืฆื ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื’ื•ืคื” ื ืืžืŸ ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืงื“ืจ ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ื—ื‘ืจ ื ื›ื ืก ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฉืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Abaye said: We, too, learn this in the mishna. For it is taught there: A potter who was selling pots and entered within the Modiโ€™im area is deemed credible, which indicates that the only reason he is deemed credible is that he is inside the Modiโ€™im area, thus implying that in Modiโ€™im itself he is not deemed credible. But now say the latter clause of the mishna: If he left he is not deemed credible, thus implying that in Modiโ€™im itself he is deemed credible, which contradicts the previous inference. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna the following distinction: Here, in the latter clause, it is referring to a potter who is leaving and a แธฅaver who is entering, in which case he is deemed credible; and there, in the first clause, it is referring to a situation where they are both leaving or both entering, in which case he is not deemed credible. Consequently, both inferences from the mishna are upheld. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.

ืชื ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื”ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื ื™ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื—ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื™ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื—ืช

ยง A tanna taught in the Tosefta (3:33): All people, including amei haโ€™aretz, are deemed credible with regard to purity from Modiโ€™im and inward only with regard to small earthenware vessels, and they may be used for sacrificial food. Since these small vessels were needed by all, the Sages deemed the amei haโ€™aretz credible concerning them. The amoraโ€™im discussed the meaning of the term small vessels. Reish Lakish said: It is speaking of those vessels that can be picked up in one hand, but no larger. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even if they cannot be picked up in one hand, they can still be called small vessels.

ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืจื™ืงื ื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืœืื™ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืืคื™ืงืจืกื•ืชื• ืœืชื•ื›ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืœื’ื™ืŸ ืžืœื ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื’ื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืฉื‘ืขื” ื•ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ

Reish Lakish said further: They taught in the baraita only that amei haโ€™aretz are deemed credible with regard to empty vessels, but if they are full of liquid they are not deemed credible. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even if the jugs are full, and even if his garment [apikarsuto] is inside the vessel, the Sages were not concerned about impurity, as they did not apply their decree to such vessels at all. And Rava said: And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan concedes with regard to the liquids themselves in the vessel that they are impure, for although the Sages declared the vessels to be pure they did not waive the decree that liquids touched by amei haโ€™aretz are impure. And do not be perplexed by this apparent contradiction, for there is a similar halakha in a case of an earthenware pitcher full of liquid in a room with a corpse and the pitcher is tightly sealed with another earthenware vessel of an am haโ€™aretz, where the halakha is that the pitcher is impure with a seven-day impurity, while the liquids remain pure.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ื’ืขื ื• ื•ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืจื’ืœ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืชืจื•ืžื”

MISHNA: In the case of amei haโ€™aretz tax collectors who entered a house to collect items for a tax, and similarly thieves who returned the vessels they had stolen, they are deemed credible when they say: We did not touch the rest of the objects in the house, and those items remain pure. And in Jerusalem all people, even amei haโ€™aretz, are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, and during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื”ื’ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืœื• ื˜ืžื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื ื™ืฉ ื’ื•ื™ ืขืžื”ืŸ ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ื›ื ืกื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื ืืžื ื™ื ืœื•ืžืจ ื ื›ื ืกื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื ื’ืขื ื•

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Teharot 7:6): If amei haโ€™aretz tax collectors entered a house, the entire house is impure. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as that mishna is referring to a situation where there is a gentile with them, in which case they conduct a thorough search in the whole house, and certainly will have touched everything; whereas this mishna deals with a case when there is no gentile with them, and their claim not to have touched anything is therefore accepted. As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 7:6): If there is a gentile with the tax collectors, they are deemed credible if they were to say: We did not enter the house at all; but they are not deemed credible if they were to say: We entered the house but did not touch its vessels.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืื™ืžืช ื’ื•ื™ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืื™ืžืช ืžืœื›ื•ืช ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ืฉื•ื‘

The Gemara raises a question: And when there is a gentile with them, what of it? Why does this affect the halakha? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar disputed this issue. One said: The fear of the gentile, who is their senior, is upon them, for they are afraid he might punish them. And one said: The fear of the kingdom, i.e., the government, is upon them, as the gentile might report them to the authorities if they do not carry out a thorough search. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is the case of a gentile who is not important, i.e., he does not have senior authority. In that case they are not afraid of him personally, but there is still concern that he might report them to the government authorities.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ื ื• ื˜ืžื ืืœื ืžืงื•ื ื“ืจื™ืกืช ืจื’ืœื™ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคื ื—ืก ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืขืฉื• ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

ยง It is taught in the mishna: And similarly thieves who returned vessels are deemed credible. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Teharot 7:6): Concerning the thieves who entered a house, only the place where the feet of the thieves had trodden is impure. The implication is that all the vessels of the section of the house where they had entered are impure, and they are not deemed credible if they say that they did not touch a particular item. Rav Pinแธฅas said in the name of Rav: The mishna here is referring to a case where the thieves repented, which is why they are deemed credible, whereas the mishna in Teharot is referring to a case in which the thieves did not repent. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Thieves who returned vessels, which indicates that they repented and made restoration willingly. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.

ื•ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืชื ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื’ืกื™ืŸ ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ื›ืš ืœืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: And in Jerusalem all people are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food. A tanna taught in a baraita: They are deemed credible even with regard to large earthenware vessels for sacrificial food, and not only small ones. And why did the Sages exhibit so much leniency, waiving their regular decrees of impurity within Jerusalem for large vessels and all the way to Modiโ€™im for small vessels? Because there is a principle that pottersโ€™ kilns may not be made in Jerusalem, in order to preserve the quality of the air in the city. It is therefore necessary to bring in earthenware vessels from outside the city, and consequently the Sages were lenient concerning such utensils.

ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืจื’ืœ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืชืจื•ืžื” ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืืกืฃ ื›ืœ ืื™ืฉ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื›ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื

ยง It was taught in the mishna: And during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma. The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived, i.e., that there is a difference between Festival days and other periods? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse states concerning the incident of the concubine in Gibeah: โ€œAnd all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [แธฅaverim]โ€ (Judges 20:11). This verse is interpreted to teach that whenever the entire people of Israel gathers together in a single place, the Torah makes, i.e., considers, all of them แธฅaverim. The final word of the phrase, แธฅaverim, is a reference to the members of a group dedicated to scrupulous observance of mitzvot, as the term is used by the Sages.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืคื•ืชื— ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื”ืžืชื—ื™ืœ ื‘ืขื™ืกืชื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื’ืžื•ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื™ื’ืžื•ืจ

MISHNA: In the case of one who opens his barrel of wine for public sale, and similarly one who starts selling his dough during the time of the pilgrimage Festival, and these items perforce come into contact with amei haโ€™aretz, Rabbi Yehuda says: Since the food was pure, despite its contact with amei haโ€™aretz, when he began selling it, he may finish selling it in a state of purity even after the Festival, and there is no concern about the contact that has been made by amei haโ€™aretz during the Festival. But the Rabbis say: He may not finish selling it.

ื’ืžืณ ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืืงื™ืœืขื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืคืชื— ื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa were once sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa. One of them opened the discussion and said: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility of him leaving his wine for another, subsequent pilgrimage Festival and continuing to sell it at that point? Although according to the Rabbis one may not continue selling it once the Festival has concluded, may he leave the barrel aside until the next Festival, at which point it would once again be able to be sold in purity?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื“ืš ื™ื“ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื˜ื• ืขื“ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืœืื• ื™ื“ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื“ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื‘ืจื’ืœ ืจื—ืžื ื ื˜ื”ืจื” ืืœื ื”ืฉืชื ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื™ื

The other Sage said to him: Everyoneโ€™s hand has touched it, and yet you are saying that perhaps he may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then sell it in purity? How could such a possibility even be considered? He said back to him: Is that to say that until now, throughout the Festival, everyoneโ€™s hand was not touching it? It was permitted during the Festival despite the fact that everyone was touching it; apparently, their touching did not render it impure at all. He said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, until now, the Merciful One declares pure the impurity of the am haโ€™aretz during the Festival, and consequently his impurity is disregarded, but now that the Festival has passed, the touch of an am haโ€™aretz is once again considered impure.

ื ื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Let us say this dispute between amoraโ€™im is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. For it is taught in one baraita: He may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then continue to sell it. And it was taught in a different baraita: He may not leave it for another Festival. What, is it not so that this very issue is a dispute between these two tannaโ€™im, the authors of these two baraitot?

ืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื™ื’ืžื•ืจ ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื”ื ื™ื—ื”

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible that this baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, follows the opinion, cited in the mishna, of Rabbi Yehuda, who allows the wine seller to finish selling his wine after the Festival, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit him to finish it. The Gemara questions this conclusion: And how can you understand it that way? Didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehuda say he may finish it after the Festival? Consequently, there would be no need for him to leave it for another Festival. Rather, say as follows: This baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what is the meaning of the statement: He may not leave it for another Festival? It means that he has no need to leave it for another Festival, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains he can finish selling it in purity immediately.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืฉืขื‘ืจ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ืจืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ืขื‘ืจ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืœื™ื•ื ืฉืฉื™ ืœื ื”ื™ื• ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ื”ืฉื‘ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: Once the pilgrimage Festival has passed by, the priests pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification, since they were touched by am haโ€™aretz priests during the Festival. If the Festival passed by into a Friday, i.e., if the Festival ended on Thursday night, they would not pass the vessels through the purification process on that day, due to the honor of Shabbat, in order to give the priests time to prepare the requirements of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: They do not even purify them on Thursday, in the event that the Festival ended on Wednesday night, because the priests are not free to do so.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ื“ืฉืŸ

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita, in explanation of Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s words: The priests do not purify the vessels of the Temple courtyard on Thursday, as the priests are not free from removing the ashes. During the Festival days a large quantity of ash would accumulate on the altar, due to the large number of offerings brought at that time. Because they would not remove the ashes on the Festival itself, they would have to remove a very large amount afterward. Consequently, all the priests were kept busy with this task upon the conclusion of the Festival, which did not leave them with enough time to deal with other matters.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ืจืช ืขื–ืจื” ืžื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื”ื–ื”ืจื•

MISHNA: How do they pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification? They immerse the vessels that were in the Temple. And they say to the am haโ€™aretz priests who served in the Temple during the Festival: Be careful

ืฉืœื ืชื’ืขื• ื‘ืฉืœื—ืŸ

that you not touch the table of the shewbread. If you defile it by touching it, it would need to be removed for immersion, and this would lead to the temporary suspension of the mitzva of the shewbread, which had to be on the table at all times.

ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืฉื ื™ื™ื ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ื ืฉืื ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื™ื‘ื™ืื• ืฉื ื™ื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื˜ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื ื—ืฉืช ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ืงืจืงืข ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืคื™ืŸ

The mishna continues: All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third substitute vessels, so that if the first ones became impure they could bring the second ones in their place. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion after the Festival, apart from the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they are considered like the ground and therefore, like land itself, not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: It is because they are coated.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ื”ื–ื”ืจื• ืฉืžื ืชื’ืขื• ื‘ืฉื•ืœื—ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืชื ื™ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืชืžื™ื“ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืชืžื™ื“

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am haโ€™aretz priests: Be careful lest you touch the table, as explained above, or the candelabrum, as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: And regarding the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he did not teach that they were instructed not to touch the candelabrum as well? The Gemara answers: With regard to the table it is written: โ€œShewbread before Me alwaysโ€ (Exodus 25:30), indicating that the table holding the shewbread must always be in its place, whereas with regard to the candelabrum it is not written โ€œalways,โ€ and therefore it can be removed for immersing.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืช ื”ืžื ื•ืจื” ื ื›ื— ื”ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืชืžื™ื“ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื‘ื•ืข ืœื” ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

The Gemara asks: And regarding the other tanna, in the baraita, why does he include the candelabrum? The Gemara answers: Since it is written: โ€œAnd you shall set the table without the veil and the candelabrum opposite the tableโ€ (Exodus 26:35), indicating that the candelabrum must always be placed opposite the table; it is as though it is written โ€œalwaysโ€ with regard to the candelabrum as well. And the other tanna, in the mishna, who does not object to removing the candelabrum for immersion, would reply: That verse comes only to establish a place for the candelabrum, to describe where it must be positioned, but it does not mean to say that it must be opposite the table at all times.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ื“ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ื”ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉืง ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืง ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœ ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœ ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื

The Gemara poses a question concerning the requirement to keep amei haโ€™aretz away from the table: And let us derive it, i.e., let it be established, that it is not necessary to take care against contact with the table, as it is incapable of contracting ritual impurity. This is because it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and the halakha is that any large, wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place cannot become impure. What is the reason for this halakha? Since wooden vessels and sacks are juxtaposed in the verse describing their impurity (Leviticus 11:32), we require a wooden vessel to be similar to a sack in order to be capable of contracting impurity, in the following manner: Just as a sack is carried when it is both full and empty, so too any wooden vessel that is carried full and empty can contract impurity, as opposed to vessels, such as the table, that are designated to rest in a fixed place. The table should therefore not be susceptible to impurity at all.

ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœ ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื ื”ื•ื ื›ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื”ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื

The Gemara answers: The table too is in fact carried full and empty, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish. For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œAnd you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure tableโ€ (Leviticus 24:6)? The words โ€œpure tableโ€ teach by inference that it is capable of becoming impure, and therefore the Torah warns us to make sure it is pure when the twelve loaves of bread are placed there.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžื’ื‘ื™ื”ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืžืจืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืœืขื•ืœื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื”ื ืจืื• ื—ื™ื‘ืชื›ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืกื™ืœื•ืงื• ื›ืกื™ื“ื•ืจื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื ืก ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื›ืกื™ื“ื•ืจื• ื›ืš ืกื™ืœื•ืงื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœืฉื•ื ืœื—ื ื—ื•ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืœืงื—ื•

And why indeed is the table susceptible to ritual impurity, being that it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place and should therefore not be susceptible to impurity? Rather, this verse teaches that they would lift the table with the shewbread on it to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, as it was prohibited for Israelites to enter the Sanctuary, where the table stood, and they would say to them: Behold your affection before God, Who performs a perpetual miracle with the bread, for when it is removed from the table on Shabbat it is just as fresh as when it was arranged on the previous Shabbat. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: As its condition during its arrangement, so was its condition during its removal, as it is stated: โ€œTo place hot bread on the day when it was taken awayโ€ (Iย Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ื”ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื•ื”ื“ื•ืœืคืงื™ ืฉื ืคื—ืชื• ืื• ืฉื—ื™ืคืŸ ื‘ืฉื™ื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ื”ื ืžืงื•ื ื”ื ื—ืช ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื ื—ืช ื”ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช

The Gemara asks another question: Let us derive this fact, i.e., that the table can contract ritual impurity, not because it is portable but due to its golden coating. For didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 22:1): Concerning a table and a dulpaki that some of its surface became broken off, or that one coated with marble, i.e., stone not being susceptible to impurity: If he left on them a place on the surface that remained unbroken or uncoated, big enough for placing cups, it remains susceptible to impurity as a wooden vessel. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have an unbroken and uncoated place big enough for placing pieces of meat and bread as well in order to maintain susceptibility to impurity as a wooden vessel. It is clear from this mishna that if a table is completely coated with stone it is not susceptible to impurity, showing that the status of a vessel follows its external coating, not its main material. The Temple table, which was coated with gold, should have the status of a metal vessel.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืฉืื ื™ ืขืฆื™ ืฉื˜ื™ื ื“ื—ืฉื™ื‘ื™ ื•ืœื ื‘ื˜ืœื™ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื›ืกืœื’ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืกืžื™ื ืœื ื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืกืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara proposes a possible answer: And if you would say that acacia wood, from which the Temple table was made, is different, as it is an important, valuable kind of wood and is therefore not nullified by a coating, this works out well according to Reish Lakish, who said: They taught that a wooden vessel is nullified by its coating only with regard to vessels made of cheap akhselag wood which comes from overseas, but vessels made of expensive masmi wood are not nullified by a coating. According to this opinion it is fine, for we can say that the acacia wood of the table is also not nullified by its golden coating. But according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said: Even expensive masmi vessels are also nullified by a coating, what is there to say?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืขื•ืžื“ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืžื“ ื”ื ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืขื•ืžื“ ืื• ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืžื“ ื‘ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื• ืื• ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื•

The Gemara proposes another possible answer: And if you would say that the mishna is not applicable because here in the mishna the wood is nullified by its coating because it is speaking of a fixed coating, whereas there in the case of the Temple table the golden coating is not fixed onto the wood, this is impossible. For didnโ€™t Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Does this law that vessels follow their coating deal only with a fixed coating or even with a coating that is not fixed? And he asked him further: Does it deal only with a coating that covers the tableโ€™s rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืขื•ืžื“ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืœื—ืŸ

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him in response: It is not different if it is a fixed coating and it is not different if it is a coating that is not fixed; and it is not different if the coating covers the tableโ€™s rim and it is not different if it does not cover its rim. Therefore, since the coating always determines the status of the vessel, the Temple table, with its gold coating, should be susceptible to impurity. Rather, we must say a different explanation as to why the coating does not make the table susceptible to impurity: The table is different

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

  • 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

From Sacred Space to Sacred Time - Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson

From Sacred Space to Sacred Time

From Hadran's Siyum Seder Moed https://youtu.be/7oxK4SIiPcs
Humanityโ€™s Role in Kedushat Zman - Dr. Elana Stein Hain

Humanityโ€™s Role in Kedushat Zman

From Hadran's Siyum Seder Moed https://youtu.be/hqqxSJ12Dlo
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...
WhatsApp Image 2022-03-08 at 22.38.32

Siyum Masechet Chagigah and Seder Moed by Hadran

Welcome to Hadranโ€™s Siyumย Masechet Chagigah and Seder Moed! Featuring: The Last Daf with Rabbanit Michelle Farber Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson...

Chagigah 26-27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 26-27

ืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื—ื•ืฅ

or both are leaving it, it is considered like outside the perimeter and the แธฅaver may not acquire vessels from him. The reason is that if they are both entering the perimeter they can easily wait until they are inside and then conduct the transaction, and if they are both leaving they should have completed the deal beforehand, and the แธฅaver may not make up for this lapse by doing so now.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ืงื“ืจ ืฉืžื›ืจ ืืช ื”ืงื“ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื ื›ื ืก ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื’ื•ืคื” ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื™ืฆื ืื™ื ื• ื ืืžืŸ ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ืขื™ื ื’ื•ืคื” ื ืืžืŸ ืืœื ืœืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืงื“ืจ ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ื—ื‘ืจ ื ื›ื ืก ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฉืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Abaye said: We, too, learn this in the mishna. For it is taught there: A potter who was selling pots and entered within the Modiโ€™im area is deemed credible, which indicates that the only reason he is deemed credible is that he is inside the Modiโ€™im area, thus implying that in Modiโ€™im itself he is not deemed credible. But now say the latter clause of the mishna: If he left he is not deemed credible, thus implying that in Modiโ€™im itself he is deemed credible, which contradicts the previous inference. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna the following distinction: Here, in the latter clause, it is referring to a potter who is leaving and a แธฅaver who is entering, in which case he is deemed credible; and there, in the first clause, it is referring to a situation where they are both leaving or both entering, in which case he is not deemed credible. Consequently, both inferences from the mishna are upheld. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.

ืชื ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื”ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื ื™ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื—ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื™ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื—ืช

ยง A tanna taught in the Tosefta (3:33): All people, including amei haโ€™aretz, are deemed credible with regard to purity from Modiโ€™im and inward only with regard to small earthenware vessels, and they may be used for sacrificial food. Since these small vessels were needed by all, the Sages deemed the amei haโ€™aretz credible concerning them. The amoraโ€™im discussed the meaning of the term small vessels. Reish Lakish said: It is speaking of those vessels that can be picked up in one hand, but no larger. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even if they cannot be picked up in one hand, they can still be called small vessels.

ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืจื™ืงื ื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืœืื™ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืืคื™ืงืจืกื•ืชื• ืœืชื•ื›ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืœื’ื™ืŸ ืžืœื ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื’ื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืฉื‘ืขื” ื•ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ

Reish Lakish said further: They taught in the baraita only that amei haโ€™aretz are deemed credible with regard to empty vessels, but if they are full of liquid they are not deemed credible. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even if the jugs are full, and even if his garment [apikarsuto] is inside the vessel, the Sages were not concerned about impurity, as they did not apply their decree to such vessels at all. And Rava said: And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan concedes with regard to the liquids themselves in the vessel that they are impure, for although the Sages declared the vessels to be pure they did not waive the decree that liquids touched by amei haโ€™aretz are impure. And do not be perplexed by this apparent contradiction, for there is a similar halakha in a case of an earthenware pitcher full of liquid in a room with a corpse and the pitcher is tightly sealed with another earthenware vessel of an am haโ€™aretz, where the halakha is that the pitcher is impure with a seven-day impurity, while the liquids remain pure.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ื’ืขื ื• ื•ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืจื’ืœ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืชืจื•ืžื”

MISHNA: In the case of amei haโ€™aretz tax collectors who entered a house to collect items for a tax, and similarly thieves who returned the vessels they had stolen, they are deemed credible when they say: We did not touch the rest of the objects in the house, and those items remain pure. And in Jerusalem all people, even amei haโ€™aretz, are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, and during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื”ื’ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืœื• ื˜ืžื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื ื™ืฉ ื’ื•ื™ ืขืžื”ืŸ ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ื›ื ืกื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื ืืžื ื™ื ืœื•ืžืจ ื ื›ื ืกื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื ื’ืขื ื•

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Teharot 7:6): If amei haโ€™aretz tax collectors entered a house, the entire house is impure. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as that mishna is referring to a situation where there is a gentile with them, in which case they conduct a thorough search in the whole house, and certainly will have touched everything; whereas this mishna deals with a case when there is no gentile with them, and their claim not to have touched anything is therefore accepted. As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 7:6): If there is a gentile with the tax collectors, they are deemed credible if they were to say: We did not enter the house at all; but they are not deemed credible if they were to say: We entered the house but did not touch its vessels.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืื™ืžืช ื’ื•ื™ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืื™ืžืช ืžืœื›ื•ืช ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ืฉื•ื‘

The Gemara raises a question: And when there is a gentile with them, what of it? Why does this affect the halakha? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar disputed this issue. One said: The fear of the gentile, who is their senior, is upon them, for they are afraid he might punish them. And one said: The fear of the kingdom, i.e., the government, is upon them, as the gentile might report them to the authorities if they do not carry out a thorough search. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is the case of a gentile who is not important, i.e., he does not have senior authority. In that case they are not afraid of him personally, but there is still concern that he might report them to the government authorities.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ื ื• ื˜ืžื ืืœื ืžืงื•ื ื“ืจื™ืกืช ืจื’ืœื™ ื”ื’ื ื‘ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคื ื—ืก ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืขืฉื• ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

ยง It is taught in the mishna: And similarly thieves who returned vessels are deemed credible. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Teharot 7:6): Concerning the thieves who entered a house, only the place where the feet of the thieves had trodden is impure. The implication is that all the vessels of the section of the house where they had entered are impure, and they are not deemed credible if they say that they did not touch a particular item. Rav Pinแธฅas said in the name of Rav: The mishna here is referring to a case where the thieves repented, which is why they are deemed credible, whereas the mishna in Teharot is referring to a case in which the thieves did not repent. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Thieves who returned vessels, which indicates that they repented and made restoration willingly. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.

ื•ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืชื ื ื ืืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื’ืกื™ืŸ ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ื›ืš ืœืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: And in Jerusalem all people are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food. A tanna taught in a baraita: They are deemed credible even with regard to large earthenware vessels for sacrificial food, and not only small ones. And why did the Sages exhibit so much leniency, waiving their regular decrees of impurity within Jerusalem for large vessels and all the way to Modiโ€™im for small vessels? Because there is a principle that pottersโ€™ kilns may not be made in Jerusalem, in order to preserve the quality of the air in the city. It is therefore necessary to bring in earthenware vessels from outside the city, and consequently the Sages were lenient concerning such utensils.

ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืจื’ืœ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืชืจื•ืžื” ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืืกืฃ ื›ืœ ืื™ืฉ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื›ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืฉืืŸ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื

ยง It was taught in the mishna: And during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma. The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived, i.e., that there is a difference between Festival days and other periods? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse states concerning the incident of the concubine in Gibeah: โ€œAnd all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [แธฅaverim]โ€ (Judges 20:11). This verse is interpreted to teach that whenever the entire people of Israel gathers together in a single place, the Torah makes, i.e., considers, all of them แธฅaverim. The final word of the phrase, แธฅaverim, is a reference to the members of a group dedicated to scrupulous observance of mitzvot, as the term is used by the Sages.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืคื•ืชื— ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื”ืžืชื—ื™ืœ ื‘ืขื™ืกืชื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื’ืžื•ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื™ื’ืžื•ืจ

MISHNA: In the case of one who opens his barrel of wine for public sale, and similarly one who starts selling his dough during the time of the pilgrimage Festival, and these items perforce come into contact with amei haโ€™aretz, Rabbi Yehuda says: Since the food was pure, despite its contact with amei haโ€™aretz, when he began selling it, he may finish selling it in a state of purity even after the Festival, and there is no concern about the contact that has been made by amei haโ€™aretz during the Festival. But the Rabbis say: He may not finish selling it.

ื’ืžืณ ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืืงื™ืœืขื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืคืชื— ื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa were once sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa. One of them opened the discussion and said: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility of him leaving his wine for another, subsequent pilgrimage Festival and continuing to sell it at that point? Although according to the Rabbis one may not continue selling it once the Festival has concluded, may he leave the barrel aside until the next Festival, at which point it would once again be able to be sold in purity?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื“ืš ื™ื“ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื˜ื• ืขื“ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืœืื• ื™ื“ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื“ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื‘ืจื’ืœ ืจื—ืžื ื ื˜ื”ืจื” ืืœื ื”ืฉืชื ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื™ื

The other Sage said to him: Everyoneโ€™s hand has touched it, and yet you are saying that perhaps he may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then sell it in purity? How could such a possibility even be considered? He said back to him: Is that to say that until now, throughout the Festival, everyoneโ€™s hand was not touching it? It was permitted during the Festival despite the fact that everyone was touching it; apparently, their touching did not render it impure at all. He said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, until now, the Merciful One declares pure the impurity of the am haโ€™aretz during the Festival, and consequently his impurity is disregarded, but now that the Festival has passed, the touch of an am haโ€™aretz is once again considered impure.

ื ื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืœืจื’ืœ ืื—ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Let us say this dispute between amoraโ€™im is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. For it is taught in one baraita: He may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then continue to sell it. And it was taught in a different baraita: He may not leave it for another Festival. What, is it not so that this very issue is a dispute between these two tannaโ€™im, the authors of these two baraitot?

ืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื™ื’ืžื•ืจ ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื”ื ื™ื—ื”

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible that this baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, follows the opinion, cited in the mishna, of Rabbi Yehuda, who allows the wine seller to finish selling his wine after the Festival, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit him to finish it. The Gemara questions this conclusion: And how can you understand it that way? Didnโ€™t Rabbi Yehuda say he may finish it after the Festival? Consequently, there would be no need for him to leave it for another Festival. Rather, say as follows: This baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what is the meaning of the statement: He may not leave it for another Festival? It means that he has no need to leave it for another Festival, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains he can finish selling it in purity immediately.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืฉืขื‘ืจ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ืจืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ืขื‘ืจ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืœื™ื•ื ืฉืฉื™ ืœื ื”ื™ื• ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ื”ืฉื‘ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: Once the pilgrimage Festival has passed by, the priests pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification, since they were touched by am haโ€™aretz priests during the Festival. If the Festival passed by into a Friday, i.e., if the Festival ended on Thursday night, they would not pass the vessels through the purification process on that day, due to the honor of Shabbat, in order to give the priests time to prepare the requirements of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: They do not even purify them on Thursday, in the event that the Festival ended on Wednesday night, because the priests are not free to do so.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ื“ืฉืŸ

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita, in explanation of Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s words: The priests do not purify the vessels of the Temple courtyard on Thursday, as the priests are not free from removing the ashes. During the Festival days a large quantity of ash would accumulate on the altar, due to the large number of offerings brought at that time. Because they would not remove the ashes on the Festival itself, they would have to remove a very large amount afterward. Consequently, all the priests were kept busy with this task upon the conclusion of the Festival, which did not leave them with enough time to deal with other matters.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžืขื‘ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ืจืช ืขื–ืจื” ืžื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื”ื–ื”ืจื•

MISHNA: How do they pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification? They immerse the vessels that were in the Temple. And they say to the am haโ€™aretz priests who served in the Temple during the Festival: Be careful

ืฉืœื ืชื’ืขื• ื‘ืฉืœื—ืŸ

that you not touch the table of the shewbread. If you defile it by touching it, it would need to be removed for immersion, and this would lead to the temporary suspension of the mitzva of the shewbread, which had to be on the table at all times.

ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืฉื ื™ื™ื ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ื ืฉืื ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื™ื‘ื™ืื• ืฉื ื™ื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื˜ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื ื—ืฉืช ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ืงืจืงืข ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืคื™ืŸ

The mishna continues: All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third substitute vessels, so that if the first ones became impure they could bring the second ones in their place. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion after the Festival, apart from the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they are considered like the ground and therefore, like land itself, not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: It is because they are coated.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ื”ื–ื”ืจื• ืฉืžื ืชื’ืขื• ื‘ืฉื•ืœื—ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืชื ื™ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืชืžื™ื“ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืชืžื™ื“

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am haโ€™aretz priests: Be careful lest you touch the table, as explained above, or the candelabrum, as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: And regarding the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he did not teach that they were instructed not to touch the candelabrum as well? The Gemara answers: With regard to the table it is written: โ€œShewbread before Me alwaysโ€ (Exodus 25:30), indicating that the table holding the shewbread must always be in its place, whereas with regard to the candelabrum it is not written โ€œalways,โ€ and therefore it can be removed for immersing.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืช ื”ืžื ื•ืจื” ื ื›ื— ื”ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืชืžื™ื“ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื‘ื•ืข ืœื” ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

The Gemara asks: And regarding the other tanna, in the baraita, why does he include the candelabrum? The Gemara answers: Since it is written: โ€œAnd you shall set the table without the veil and the candelabrum opposite the tableโ€ (Exodus 26:35), indicating that the candelabrum must always be placed opposite the table; it is as though it is written โ€œalwaysโ€ with regard to the candelabrum as well. And the other tanna, in the mishna, who does not object to removing the candelabrum for immersion, would reply: That verse comes only to establish a place for the candelabrum, to describe where it must be positioned, but it does not mean to say that it must be opposite the table at all times.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ื“ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ื”ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉืง ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื” ืฉืง ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœ ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœ ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื

The Gemara poses a question concerning the requirement to keep amei haโ€™aretz away from the table: And let us derive it, i.e., let it be established, that it is not necessary to take care against contact with the table, as it is incapable of contracting ritual impurity. This is because it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and the halakha is that any large, wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place cannot become impure. What is the reason for this halakha? Since wooden vessels and sacks are juxtaposed in the verse describing their impurity (Leviticus 11:32), we require a wooden vessel to be similar to a sack in order to be capable of contracting impurity, in the following manner: Just as a sack is carried when it is both full and empty, so too any wooden vessel that is carried full and empty can contract impurity, as opposed to vessels, such as the table, that are designated to rest in a fixed place. The table should therefore not be susceptible to impurity at all.

ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื˜ืœื˜ืœ ืžืœื ื•ืจื™ืงื ื”ื•ื ื›ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื”ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื

The Gemara answers: The table too is in fact carried full and empty, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish. For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œAnd you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure tableโ€ (Leviticus 24:6)? The words โ€œpure tableโ€ teach by inference that it is capable of becoming impure, and therefore the Torah warns us to make sure it is pure when the twelve loaves of bread are placed there.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื ื—ืช ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžื’ื‘ื™ื”ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืžืจืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืœืขื•ืœื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื”ื ืจืื• ื—ื™ื‘ืชื›ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืกื™ืœื•ืงื• ื›ืกื™ื“ื•ืจื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื ืก ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื›ืกื™ื“ื•ืจื• ื›ืš ืกื™ืœื•ืงื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœืฉื•ื ืœื—ื ื—ื•ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืœืงื—ื•

And why indeed is the table susceptible to ritual impurity, being that it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place and should therefore not be susceptible to impurity? Rather, this verse teaches that they would lift the table with the shewbread on it to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, as it was prohibited for Israelites to enter the Sanctuary, where the table stood, and they would say to them: Behold your affection before God, Who performs a perpetual miracle with the bread, for when it is removed from the table on Shabbat it is just as fresh as when it was arranged on the previous Shabbat. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: As its condition during its arrangement, so was its condition during its removal, as it is stated: โ€œTo place hot bread on the day when it was taken awayโ€ (Iย Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ื”ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื•ื”ื“ื•ืœืคืงื™ ืฉื ืคื—ืชื• ืื• ืฉื—ื™ืคืŸ ื‘ืฉื™ื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ื”ื ืžืงื•ื ื”ื ื—ืช ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื ื—ืช ื”ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช

The Gemara asks another question: Let us derive this fact, i.e., that the table can contract ritual impurity, not because it is portable but due to its golden coating. For didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 22:1): Concerning a table and a dulpaki that some of its surface became broken off, or that one coated with marble, i.e., stone not being susceptible to impurity: If he left on them a place on the surface that remained unbroken or uncoated, big enough for placing cups, it remains susceptible to impurity as a wooden vessel. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have an unbroken and uncoated place big enough for placing pieces of meat and bread as well in order to maintain susceptibility to impurity as a wooden vessel. It is clear from this mishna that if a table is completely coated with stone it is not susceptible to impurity, showing that the status of a vessel follows its external coating, not its main material. The Temple table, which was coated with gold, should have the status of a metal vessel.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืฉืื ื™ ืขืฆื™ ืฉื˜ื™ื ื“ื—ืฉื™ื‘ื™ ื•ืœื ื‘ื˜ืœื™ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื›ืกืœื’ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืกืžื™ื ืœื ื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžืกืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara proposes a possible answer: And if you would say that acacia wood, from which the Temple table was made, is different, as it is an important, valuable kind of wood and is therefore not nullified by a coating, this works out well according to Reish Lakish, who said: They taught that a wooden vessel is nullified by its coating only with regard to vessels made of cheap akhselag wood which comes from overseas, but vessels made of expensive masmi wood are not nullified by a coating. According to this opinion it is fine, for we can say that the acacia wood of the table is also not nullified by its golden coating. But according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said: Even expensive masmi vessels are also nullified by a coating, what is there to say?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืขื•ืžื“ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืžื“ ื”ื ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืขื•ืžื“ ืื• ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืžื“ ื‘ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื• ืื• ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื•

The Gemara proposes another possible answer: And if you would say that the mishna is not applicable because here in the mishna the wood is nullified by its coating because it is speaking of a fixed coating, whereas there in the case of the Temple table the golden coating is not fixed onto the wood, this is impossible. For didnโ€™t Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Does this law that vessels follow their coating deal only with a fixed coating or even with a coating that is not fixed? And he asked him further: Does it deal only with a coating that covers the tableโ€™s rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืขื•ืžื“ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ืฆื™ืคื•ื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืœื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื™ื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืœื—ืŸ

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him in response: It is not different if it is a fixed coating and it is not different if it is a coating that is not fixed; and it is not different if the coating covers the tableโ€™s rim and it is not different if it does not cover its rim. Therefore, since the coating always determines the status of the vessel, the Temple table, with its gold coating, should be susceptible to impurity. Rather, we must say a different explanation as to why the coating does not make the table susceptible to impurity: The table is different

Scroll To Top