Chagigah 26

או שניהן יוצאין כלחוץ

or both are leaving it, it is considered like outside the perimeter and the ḥaver 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 ḥaver may not make up for this lapse by doing so now.

אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא הקדר שמכר את הקדירות ונכנס לפנים מן המודיעים טעמא דלפנים מן המודיעים הא מודיעים גופה לא מהימן אימא סיפא יצא אינו נאמן הא מודיעים גופה נאמן אלא לאו שמע מינה כאן בקדר יוצא וחבר נכנס כאן בששניהן יוצאין או שניהן נכנסין שמע מינה

Abaye said: We, too, learn this in the mishna. For it is taught there: A potter who was selling pots and entered within the Modi’im area is deemed credible, which indicates that the only reason he is deemed credible is that he is inside the Modi’im area, thus implying that in Modi’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 Modi’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 ḥaver 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.

תנא נאמנין בכלי חרס הדקין לקודש אמר ריש לקיש והוא שניטלין בידו אחת ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו שאין ניטלין בידו אחת

§ A tanna taught in the Tosefta (3:33): All people, including amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to purity from Modi’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 ha’aretz credible concerning them. The amora’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 Yoḥanan said: Even if they cannot be picked up in one hand, they can still be called small vessels.

אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא ריקנין אבל מלאין לא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מלאים ואפילו אפיקרסותו לתוכו ואמר רבא ומודה רבי יוחנן במשקין עצמן שהן טמאין ואל תתמה שהרי לגין מלא משקין לגין טמאין טומאת שבעה ומשקין טהורין

Reish Lakish said further: They taught in the baraita only that amei ha’aretz are deemed credible with regard to empty vessels, but if they are full of liquid they are not deemed credible. And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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 ha’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 ha’aretz, where the halakha is that the pitcher is impure with a seven-day impurity, while the liquids remain pure.

מתני׳ הגבאין שנכנסו לתוך הבית וכן הגנבים שהחזירו את הכלים נאמנין לומר לא נגענו ובירושלים נאמנין על הקודש ובשעת הרגל אף על התרומה

MISHNA: In the case of amei ha’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 ha’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.

גמ׳ ורמינהי הגבאין שנכנסו לתוך הבית הבית כולו טמא לא קשיא הא דאיכא גוי בהדייהו הא דליכא גוי בהדייהו דתנן אם יש גוי עמהן נאמנין לומר לא נכנסנו אבל אין נאמנים לומר נכנסנו אבל לא נגענו

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Teharot 7:6): If amei ha’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.

וכי איכא גוי בהדייהו מאי הוי רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר חד אמר אימת גוי עליהן וחד אמר אימת מלכות עליהן מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו גוי שאינו חשוב

The Gemara raises a question: And when there is a gentile with them, what of it? Why does this affect the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

וכן הגנבים שהחזירו את הכלים ורמינהי הגנבים שנכנסו לתוך הבית אינו טמא אלא מקום דריסת רגלי הגנבים אמר רב פנחס משמיה דרב כשעשו תשובה דיקא נמי דקתני שהחזירו את הכלים שמע מינה

§ 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 Pinḥas 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.

ובירושלים נאמנין על הקודש תנא נאמנין על כלי חרס גסין לקודש וכל כך למה שאין עושין כבשונות בירושלים

§ 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 Modi’im for small vessels? Because there is a principle that potters’ 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.

ובשעת הרגל אף על התרומה מנהני מילי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר קרא ויאסף כל איש ישראל אל העיר כאיש אחד חברים הכתוב עשאן כולן חברים

§ 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: “And all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [ḥaverim]” (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 ḥaverim. The final word of the phrase, ḥaverim, is a reference to the members of a group dedicated to scrupulous observance of mitzvot, as the term is used by the Sages.

מתני׳ הפותח את חביתו והמתחיל בעיסתו על גב הרגל רבי יהודה אומר יגמור וחכמים אומרים לא יגמור

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 ha’aretz, Rabbi Yehuda says: Since the food was pure, despite its contact with amei ha’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 ha’aretz during the Festival. But the Rabbis say: He may not finish selling it.

גמ׳ יתיב רבי אמי ורבי יצחק נפחא אקילעא דרבי יצחק נפחא פתח חד ואמר מהו שיניחנה לרגל אחר

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa were once sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. 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?

אמר ליה אידך יד הכל ממשמשין בה ואת אמרת יניחנה לרגל אחר אמר ליה אטו עד האידנא לאו יד הכל ממשמשין בה אמר ליה הכי השתא בשלמא עד האידנא טומאת עם הארץ ברגל רחמנא טהרה אלא השתא טמאה היא

The other Sage said to him: Everyone’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, everyone’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 ha’aretz during the Festival, and consequently his impurity is disregarded, but now that the Festival has passed, the touch of an am ha’aretz is once again considered impure.

נימא כתנאי דתני חדא יניחנה לרגל אחר ותניא אידך לא יניחנה לרגל אחר מאי לאו תנאי היא

The Gemara suggests: Let us say this dispute between amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’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 tanna’im, the authors of these two baraitot?

לא הא דקתני יניחנה רבי יהודה והא דקתני לא יניחנה רבנן ותסברא הא רבי יהודה יגמור קאמר אלא הא דקתני לא יניחנה רבי יהודה והא דקתני יניחנה רבנן ומאי לא יניחנה שאין צריך להניחה

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? Didn’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.

מתני׳ משעבר הרגל מעבירין על טהרת העזרה עבר הרגל ליום ששי לא היו מעבירין מפני כבוד השבת רבי יהודה אומר אף לא ביום חמישי שאין הכהנים פנויין

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 ha’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.

גמ׳ תנא שאין הכהנים פנויין מלהוציא בדשן

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita, in explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’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.

מתני׳ כיצד מעבירין על טהרת עזרה מטבילין את הכלים שהיו במקדש ואומרין להם הזהרו

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 ha’aretz priests who served in the Temple during the Festival: Be careful

שלא תגעו בשלחן

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.

כל הכלים שהיו במקדש יש להם שניים ושלישים שאם נטמאו הראשונים יביאו שניים תחתיהן כל הכלים שהיו במקדש טעונין טבילה חוץ ממזבח הזהב ומזבח הנחשת מפני שהן כקרקע דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים מפני שהן מצופין

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.

גמ׳ תנא הזהרו שמא תגעו בשולחן ובמנורה ותנא דידן מאי טעמא לא תני מנורה שלחן כתיב ביה תמיד מנורה לא כתיב בה תמיד

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am ha’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: “Shewbread before Me always” (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 “always,” and therefore it can be removed for immersing.

ואידך כיון דכתיב ואת המנורה נכח השלחן כמאן דכתיב בה תמיד דמי ואידך ההוא לקבוע לה מקום הוא דאתא

The Gemara asks: And regarding the other tanna, in the baraita, why does he include the candelabrum? The Gemara answers: Since it is written: “And you shall set the table without the veil and the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35), indicating that the candelabrum must always be placed opposite the table; it is as though it is written “always” 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.

ותיפוק לי דכלי עץ העשוי לנחת הוא וכל כלי עץ העשוי לנחת לא מטמא מאי טעמא דומיא דשק בעינן מה שק מיטלטל מלא וריקם אף כל מיטלטל מלא וריקם

The Gemara poses a question concerning the requirement to keep amei ha’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.

האי נמי מיטלטל מלא וריקם הוא כדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב על השלחן הטהור מכלל שהוא טמא

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: “And you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table” (Leviticus 24:6)? The words “pure table” 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.

ואמאי כלי עץ העשוי לנחת הוא ואינו מקבל טומאה אלא מלמד שמגביהין אותו ומראין בו לעולי רגלים לחם הפנים ואומרים להם ראו חיבתכם לפני המקום סילוקו כסידורו דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי נס גדול נעשה בלחם הפנים כסידורו כך סילוקו שנאמר לשום לחם חום ביום הלקחו

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: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away” (I 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.

ותיפוק לי משום ציפוי דהתנן השלחן והדולפקי שנפחתו או שחיפן בשייש ושייר בהם מקום הנחת כוסות טמא רבי יהודה אומר מקום הנחת החתיכות

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 didn’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.

וכי תימא שאני עצי שטים דחשיבי ולא בטלי הניחא לריש לקיש דאמר לא שנו אלא בכלי אכסלגים הבאין ממדינת הים אבל בכלי מסמים לא בטלי שפיר אלא לרבי יוחנן דאמר אפילו בכלי מסמים נמי בטלי מאי איכא למימר

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 Yoḥanan, who said: Even expensive masmi vessels are also nullified by a coating, what is there to say?

וכי תימא כאן בציפוי עומד כאן בציפוי שאינו עומד הא בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מרבי יוחנן בציפוי עומד או בציפוי שאינו עומד בחופה את לבזבזיו או בשאינו חופה את לבזבזיו

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 didn’t Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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 table’s rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?

ואמר ליה לא שנא בציפוי עומד ולא שנא בציפוי שאינו עומד לא שנא בחופה את לבזבזיו ולא שנא בשאינו חופה את לבזבזיו אלא שאני שלחן

And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 table’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