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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 7, 2022 | 讚壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chagigah 26

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Gila Loike in honor of her mother, Dr. Marian Stoltz-Loike. 鈥淪he always sets aside time to expand her Torah knowledge and share her deep insights. Thank you, Imma, for sharing your love of learning and instilling that love in each of your children.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lee Wax in loving memory of Mitch Wax. 鈥淢y father was a huge character, who brought fun and wisdom into people’s lives, and who loved learning & teaching Yiddishkeit. May his memory always be a blessing.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Jeff Kronisch and family in honor of Rachel and Oren Seliger on their Siyum of Seder Moed. 鈥淢ay you continue to be role models. Mazal tov! And a thank you to Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber for your visionary leadership.鈥

The rabbis designated the area from Modiim to Jerusalem as a place where an am haaretz could sell earthenware vessels and be trusted regarding their purity under certain conditions. The Gemara quotes a braita specifying in which directions the potter and the buyer need to be going in order to permit a sale in Modiim itself. Abaye supports this braita from inferences in our Mishna. The law is limited however to small vessels, not large ones. How small? The vessels are pure but if they are filled with liquids, we do not trust them regarding the purity of the liquids, even though the vessel itself is considered pure. If am haaretz tax collectors or robbers came to one鈥檚 house, are they believed regarding items they touched or not? On what does it depend? In Jerusalem itself, vessels can be purchased from an am haaretz as well – special dispensations were made in Jerusalem as there were no kilns there. Also during the holiday season, they are even trusted regarding teruma. Why is there a unique halacha for the holidays? If an am haaretz who was trusted during the holiday season has leftovers, are they still considered pure after the holiday? There is a tannaitic debate regarding this. The rabbis do not permit it 鈥 however, does this mean they can leave it for the next holiday or can it never be considered pure? They would purify the Temple at the end of the holiday as anything an am haaretz touches is pure during the holidays but after the holiday it is retroactively impure. What if the holiday ended on Friday or Thursday, when would they purify everything? All the vessels would be purified except the table with the showbread, therefore, they would warn people not to touch the table. Was it only the table or also the Menorah. Why can鈥檛 the table go in the mikveh? Why does the table need purification, isn鈥檛 it wood that is not meant to be moved which cannot become impure? It seems the table was moved during the holiday to show people the miracle of the showbread. But why is it considered wood and not metal, as it is covered in gold?

讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻诇讞讜抓

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

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛拽讚专 砖诪讻专 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讜转 讜谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讛讗 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讛讗 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讙讜驻讛 谞讗诪谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讚专 讬讜爪讗 讜讞讘专 谞讻谞住 讻讗谉 讘砖砖谞讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檌m area is deemed credible, which indicates that the only reason he is deemed credible is that he is inside the Modi鈥檌m area, thus implying that in Modi鈥檌m 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鈥檌m 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 岣ver 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.

转谞讗 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讛讚拽讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转

搂 A tanna taught in the Tosefta (3:33): All people, including amei ha鈥檃retz, are deemed credible with regard to purity from Modi鈥檌m 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鈥檃retz credible concerning them. The amora鈥檌m 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 Yo岣nan said: Even if they cannot be picked up in one hand, they can still be called small vessels.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 专讬拽谞讬谉 讗讘诇 诪诇讗讬谉 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗驻讬拽专住讜转讜 诇转讜讻讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 注爪诪谉 砖讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 诇讙讬谉 诪诇讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讙讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

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

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讘讗讬谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讻谉 讛讙谞讘讬诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讗 谞讙注谞讜 讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of amei ha鈥檃retz 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鈥檃retz, 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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讙讘讗讬谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讬砖 讙讜讬 注诪讛谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讗 谞讻谞住谞讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 谞讻谞住谞讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讙注谞讜

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

讜讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪转 讙讜讬 注诇讬讛谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪转 诪诇讻讜转 注诇讬讛谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讞砖讜讘

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

讜讻谉 讛讙谞讘讬诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讙谞讘讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗讬谞讜 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讛讙谞讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻砖注砖讜 转砖讜讘讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

搂 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 Pin岣s 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.

讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖 转谞讗 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 讙住讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讜讻诇 讻讱 诇诪讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻讘砖讜谞讜转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐

搂 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鈥檌m for small vessels? Because there is a principle that potters鈥 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.

讜讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讗住祝 讻诇 讗讬砖 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇 讛注讬专 讻讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讞讘专讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讘专讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [岣verim]鈥 (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 岣verim. The final word of the phrase, 岣verim, is a reference to the members of a group dedicated to scrupulous observance of mitzvot, as the term is used by the Sages.

诪转谞讬壮 讛驻讜转讞 讗转 讞讘讬转讜 讜讛诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 注诇 讙讘 讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

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

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 驻转讞 讞讚 讜讗诪专 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were once sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讬讚 讛讻诇 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇讗讜 讬讚 讛讻诇 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘专讙诇 专讞诪谞讗 讟讛专讛 讗诇讗 讛砖转讗 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗

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

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

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

诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘谞谉 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讙诪讜专 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛谞讬讞讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖注讘专 讛专讙诇 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讛注讝专讛 注讘专 讛专讙诇 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讞诪讬砖讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 驻谞讜讬讬谉

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鈥檃retz 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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 驻谞讜讬讬谉 诪诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讚砖谉

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

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 注讝专讛 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讛诐 讛讝讛专讜

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鈥檃retz priests who served in the Temple during the Festival: Be careful

砖诇讗 转讙注讜 讘砖诇讞谉

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.

讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讬砖 诇讛诐 砖谞讬讬诐 讜砖诇讬砖讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖谞讬讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讟注讜谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 讜诪讝讘讞 讛谞讞砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讻拽专拽注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪爪讜驻讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讛讝讛专讜 砖诪讗 转讙注讜 讘砖讜诇讞谉 讜讘诪谞讜专讛 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 诪谞讜专讛 砖诇讞谉 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 转诪讬讚 诪谞讜专讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 转诪讬讚

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am ha鈥檃retz 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: 鈥淪hewbread before Me always鈥 (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 鈥渁lways,鈥 and therefore it can be removed for immersing.

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 谞讻讞 讛砖诇讞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 转诪讬讚 讚诪讬 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

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

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖拽 讘注讬谞谉 诪讛 砖拽 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐 讗祝 讻诇 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐

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

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐 讛讜讗 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讛讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淎nd you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table鈥 (Leviticus 24:6)? The words 鈥減ure table鈥 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪专讗讬谉 讘讜 诇注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讛诐 专讗讜 讞讬讘转讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 住讬诇讜拽讜 讻住讬讚讜专讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞住 讙讚讜诇 谞注砖讛 讘诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讻住讬讚讜专讜 讻讱 住讬诇讜拽讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇砖讜诐 诇讞诐 讞讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讛诇拽讞讜

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: 鈥淭o place hot bread on the day when it was taken away鈥 (I聽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.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 爪讬驻讜讬 讚讛转谞谉 讛砖诇讞谉 讜讛讚讜诇驻拽讬 砖谞驻讞转讜 讗讜 砖讞讬驻谉 讘砖讬讬砖 讜砖讬讬专 讘讛诐 诪拽讜诐 讛谞讞转 讻讜住讜转 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 讛谞讞转 讛讞转讬讻讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注爪讬 砖讟讬诐 讚讞砖讬讘讬 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讻住诇讙讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 诪住诪讬诐 诇讗 讘讟诇讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 诪住诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘爪讬驻讜讬 注讜诪讚 讻讗谉 讘爪讬驻讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘爪讬驻讜讬 注讜诪讚 讗讜 讘爪讬驻讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜 讗讜 讘砖讗讬谞讜 讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜

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鈥檛 Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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鈥檚 rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘爪讬驻讜讬 注讜诪讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘爪讬驻讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讗讬谞讜 讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 砖诇讞谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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 dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

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

This we will continue learning about the world of purity and impurity. We will learn how and when vessels are...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 26: Trusting the Am Ha’Aretz

The daf discusses a variety of different scenarios where an Am Ha鈥檃reaz can or cannot be trusted. What happens to...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 25: Navigating Purity Diversity as Home

Why the Galileans weren't considered reliable with regard to purity and impurity. And possible solutions that would have enabled them...

Chagigah 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 26

讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻诇讞讜抓

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

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛拽讚专 砖诪讻专 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讜转 讜谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讛讗 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讛讗 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讙讜驻讛 谞讗诪谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讚专 讬讜爪讗 讜讞讘专 谞讻谞住 讻讗谉 讘砖砖谞讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檌m area is deemed credible, which indicates that the only reason he is deemed credible is that he is inside the Modi鈥檌m area, thus implying that in Modi鈥檌m 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鈥檌m 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 岣ver 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.

转谞讗 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讛讚拽讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转

搂 A tanna taught in the Tosefta (3:33): All people, including amei ha鈥檃retz, are deemed credible with regard to purity from Modi鈥檌m 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鈥檃retz credible concerning them. The amora鈥檌m 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 Yo岣nan said: Even if they cannot be picked up in one hand, they can still be called small vessels.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 专讬拽谞讬谉 讗讘诇 诪诇讗讬谉 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗驻讬拽专住讜转讜 诇转讜讻讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 注爪诪谉 砖讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 诇讙讬谉 诪诇讗 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讙讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

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

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讘讗讬谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讻谉 讛讙谞讘讬诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讗 谞讙注谞讜 讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of amei ha鈥檃retz 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鈥檃retz, 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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讙讘讗讬谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讬砖 讙讜讬 注诪讛谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讗 谞讻谞住谞讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 谞讻谞住谞讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讙注谞讜

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

讜讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪转 讙讜讬 注诇讬讛谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪转 诪诇讻讜转 注诇讬讛谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讞砖讜讘

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

讜讻谉 讛讙谞讘讬诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讙谞讘讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗讬谞讜 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讛讙谞讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻砖注砖讜 转砖讜讘讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

搂 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 Pin岣s 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.

讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖 转谞讗 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 讙住讬谉 诇拽讜讚砖 讜讻诇 讻讱 诇诪讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻讘砖讜谞讜转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐

搂 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鈥檌m for small vessels? Because there is a principle that potters鈥 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.

讜讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讗住祝 讻诇 讗讬砖 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇 讛注讬专 讻讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讞讘专讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讘专讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [岣verim]鈥 (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 岣verim. The final word of the phrase, 岣verim, is a reference to the members of a group dedicated to scrupulous observance of mitzvot, as the term is used by the Sages.

诪转谞讬壮 讛驻讜转讞 讗转 讞讘讬转讜 讜讛诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 注诇 讙讘 讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专

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

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 驻转讞 讞讚 讜讗诪专 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were once sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讬讚 讛讻诇 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇讗讜 讬讚 讛讻诇 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘专讙诇 专讞诪谞讗 讟讛专讛 讗诇讗 讛砖转讗 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗

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

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇专讙诇 讗讞专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

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

诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘谞谉 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讙诪讜专 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬谞讬讞谞讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛谞讬讞讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖注讘专 讛专讙诇 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讛注讝专讛 注讘专 讛专讙诇 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讞诪讬砖讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 驻谞讜讬讬谉

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鈥檃retz 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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 驻谞讜讬讬谉 诪诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讚砖谉

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

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 注讝专讛 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讛诐 讛讝讛专讜

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鈥檃retz priests who served in the Temple during the Festival: Be careful

砖诇讗 转讙注讜 讘砖诇讞谉

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.

讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讬砖 诇讛诐 砖谞讬讬诐 讜砖诇讬砖讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖谞讬讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讟注讜谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 讜诪讝讘讞 讛谞讞砖转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讻拽专拽注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪爪讜驻讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讛讝讛专讜 砖诪讗 转讙注讜 讘砖讜诇讞谉 讜讘诪谞讜专讛 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 诪谞讜专讛 砖诇讞谉 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 转诪讬讚 诪谞讜专讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 转诪讬讚

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am ha鈥檃retz 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: 鈥淪hewbread before Me always鈥 (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 鈥渁lways,鈥 and therefore it can be removed for immersing.

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 谞讻讞 讛砖诇讞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 转诪讬讚 讚诪讬 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

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

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖拽 讘注讬谞谉 诪讛 砖拽 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐 讗祝 讻诇 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐

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

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽诐 讛讜讗 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讛讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淎nd you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table鈥 (Leviticus 24:6)? The words 鈥減ure table鈥 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 讻诇讬 注抓 讛注砖讜讬 诇谞讞转 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪专讗讬谉 讘讜 诇注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讛诐 专讗讜 讞讬讘转讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 住讬诇讜拽讜 讻住讬讚讜专讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞住 讙讚讜诇 谞注砖讛 讘诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讻住讬讚讜专讜 讻讱 住讬诇讜拽讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇砖讜诐 诇讞诐 讞讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讛诇拽讞讜

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: 鈥淭o place hot bread on the day when it was taken away鈥 (I聽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.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 爪讬驻讜讬 讚讛转谞谉 讛砖诇讞谉 讜讛讚讜诇驻拽讬 砖谞驻讞转讜 讗讜 砖讞讬驻谉 讘砖讬讬砖 讜砖讬讬专 讘讛诐 诪拽讜诐 讛谞讞转 讻讜住讜转 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 讛谞讞转 讛讞转讬讻讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注爪讬 砖讟讬诐 讚讞砖讬讘讬 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讻住诇讙讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 诪住诪讬诐 诇讗 讘讟诇讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 诪住诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘爪讬驻讜讬 注讜诪讚 讻讗谉 讘爪讬驻讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘爪讬驻讜讬 注讜诪讚 讗讜 讘爪讬驻讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜 讗讜 讘砖讗讬谞讜 讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜

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鈥檛 Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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鈥檚 rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘爪讬驻讜讬 注讜诪讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘爪讬驻讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讗讬谞讜 讞讜驻讛 讗转 诇讘讝讘讝讬讜 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 砖诇讞谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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