The garments of an Am-ha-aretz possess Midras -uncleanness for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees possess Midras-uncleanness for those who eat Terumah; the garments of those who eat Terumah possess Midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] hallowed things; the garments of [those who eat] hallowed things possess Midras uncleanness for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Jose b. Jo`ezer [BCE2] was the most Pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who ate] hallowed things. Johanan b. Gudgada [T1] used all his life to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for hallowed things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.
t.Hag.2.7
A. Whoever reflects upon four things would have been better off had he not been born: What is above, what is below, what is within, and what is beyond [M.Hag.2.1C-D].
B. Might one suppose that this applies before the works of Creation?
C. Scripture says, [For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you] since the day that God created man upon the earth(Deut 4.32)
D. Might one suppose that this is before the order of the seasons was created [established]?
E. Scripture says, And ask from one end of heaven to the other [whether such a great thing as this has ever happened or was ever heard of] (Deut.4.32).
F. What, then, is the meaning of this Scripture, Since the day that God created man upon the earth?
G. Concerning matters since the day that God created man upon the earth you may expound.
H. But you may not seek to know what is above, what is below, what is within, and what is beyond.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.2.5The hands have to be rinsed for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for Terumah [heave-offering]; but for hallowed things [the hands] have to be immersed. In regard to the [water of] purification, if one`s hands became defiled, one`s [whole] body is deemed defiled. If one bathed for unconsecrated [food], and intended to be rendered fit solely for unconsecrated [food], one is prohibited from [partaking of second] tithe.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.2.6If one bathed for [second] tithe, and intended to be rendered fit solely for [second] tithe, one is prohibited from [partaking of] Terumah. If one bathed for Terumah, and intended to be rendered fit solely for Terumah, one is prohibited from [partaking of] hallowed things. If one bathed for hallowed things, and intended to be rendered fit solely for hallowed things one is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one bathed for something possessing a stricter [degree of sanctity], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of sanctity]. If one bathed but without special intention, it is as though one had not bathed.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.2.7The garments of an Am-ha-aretz possess Midras -uncleanness for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees possess Midras-uncleanness for those who eat Terumah; the garments of those who eat Terumah possess Midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] hallowed things; the garments of [those who eat] hallowed things possess Midras uncleanness for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Jose b. Jo`ezer [BCE2] was the most Pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who ate] hallowed things. Johanan b. Gudgada [T1] used all his life to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for hallowed things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.
GEMARA: Do unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe then require rinsing of the hands? Now we can show this to conflict with [the following Mishnah]: For Terumah and first fruits one may incur the penalty of death, or [a fine of] an [added] fifth, and they are prohibited to non-priests and they are the property of the priest, and are neutralized in one hundred and one [parts], and require rinsing of the hands, and sunset; these [rules] apply to Terumah and first fruits but not to [Second] Tithe. How much less then to unconsecrated food. Thus there is a contradiction in regard to [Second] Tithe and a contradiction also in regard to unconsecrated food! Granted that in regard to [Second] Tithe [it can be shown that] there is no contradiction: the one [Mishnah] is according to R. Meir [T4] and the other is according to the Rabbis. For we have learnt: Whosoever requires immersion by enactment of the Scribes defiles hallowed things and invalidates Terumah, but is permitted [to eat] unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe this is the view of R. Meir [T4]; but the Sages prohibit in the case of [Second] Tithe. In regard to unconsecrated food, however, there is a contradiction! There is no contradiction: the one case refers to eating [unconsecrated food] and the other to touching [it]. To this R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred: The Rabbis differ from R. Meir [T4] only in regard to the eating of [Second] Tithe, but in regard to the touching of [Second] Tithe and the eating of unconsecrated food they do not differ! Both [Mishnahs], therefore, must refer to eating; but there is no contradiction: the one refers to the eating of bread, the other refers to the eating of fruit. For R. Nahman said: Whosoever rinses his hands for fruit belongs to the haughty of spirit.
Our Rabbis taught: He who raises his hands, if he did so with intention, his hands are [levitically] clean; but if he did so without intention, his hands are unclean. Similarly one who bathes his hands, if he did so with intention, his hands are clean, but if he did so without intention his hands are unclean. But behold it is taught: Whether he did it with intention or without intention, his hands are clean! R. Nahman answered: There is no contradiction: the one [statement] refers to unconsecrated food, b.Hag.19a the other to [Second] Tithe. And whence do you infer that unconsecrated food does not require intention? For we have learnt: If a wave was sundered [from the sea] and contained forty seahs and it fell upon a person or upon vessels [that were unclean], they become clean. Thus a person is likened to vessels: just as vessels have no intention so too [the Mishnah] speaks of a person who had no intention. But why so? Perhaps we are dealing with a case where one was sitting and waiting for the wave to become sundered, and so vessels are likened to a person; just as a person is capable of intention, so too in the case of the vessels one had intention with regard to them! And should you say: If it is a case of one who sits and waits [for the wave to be sundered], what need is there to teach it? [I will answer]: You might have thought it should be prohibited, as a preventive measure, [to bathe in a detached wave] lest one come to battle in a torrent of rainwater, or that we ought to prohibit, as a preventive measure, [immersion in] the ends [of the wave] on account of the crest, therefore [the Mishnah] teaches us that we make no such prohibition. (And whence do you infer that one may not immerse [vessels] in the crest [of the wave]? For it is taught: One may immerse [vessels] in the ends [of the wave] but not in the crest, because one may not immerse in the air.) Rather [is it to be inferred] from that which we have learnt: If produce fell into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out [his hands] and took it, his hands became clean and [the law], if [water] be put on, does not apply to the produce; but if [he did so] in order that his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean, but [the law], `If [water] be put on`, applies to the produce. Rabbah [BA3] put an objection to R. Nahman: if one bathed for unconsecrated [food], and intended to be rendered fit solely for unconsecrated [food], one is prohibited from [partaking of second] tithe. [Thus] if one intended to be rendered fit [therefor], One may [eat unconsecrated food], but if one did not intend to be rendered fit [therefor], one may not [eat unconsecrated food]! This is the meaning: Even though one had intention for unconsecrated, one is still prohibited from [partaking of Second] Tithe.
He put [another] objection to him: if one bathed, but without special intention, it is as though one had not bathed. Surely it means that he is as though he had not bathed at all! No, [it means that] he is as though he had not bathed for [Second] Tithe, but did bathe for unconsecrated food. He thought [at first] that he was merely putting him off, [but] he went forth, examined [the matter] and found that it is taught: If one bathed, but without special intention, one is prohibited [from partaking of Second] Tithe, but one is permitted [to partake of] unconsecrated [food].
R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] said: If a man bathed and came up, he may intend to be rendered fit for whatever he pleases. An objection was raised: If he still has one foot in the water, and he had intended to be rendered fit for something of lesser [sanctity], he may intend to be rendered fit for something of higher [sanctity]; but once he has come up he can no longer have intention. Surely [it means that] he can no longer have any intention at all! No, [it means that] if he still [has one foot in the water] even though he intended to render himself fit [for a lesser degree of sanctity], he may still intend to render himself [fit for a higher degree of sanctity]; but once he has come up, if he had no intention to be rendered fit [for anything at all], he may now intend to be rendered fit, but if he had intention to be rendered fit [for any particular degree of sanctity] he may no longer intend to be rendered fit [for any higher degree of sanctity]. Who is the author of the teaching: `If he still has one foot in the water etc.`? R. Pedath said: It is according to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. For we have learnt: If an immersion pool was measured and found to contain exactly forty seahs [of water], and two persons went down and immersed themselves therein one after the other, the first person is clean, but the second is unclean. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said: If the feet of the first person were [still] touching the water [when the second person immersed himself] the second person is also clean. R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute concerns [only] the Rabbinical degrees [of purity], but in a case of purification from [real] uncleanness, all would agree that the second person remains unclean. This then is in agreement with the view of R. Pedath. Another version is: R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute concerns purification from [real] uncleanness, but in regard to the Rabbinical degrees [of purity], all would agree that the second person too becomes clean. Thus he differs from the view of R. Pedath. `Ulla [BA3] said: I asked R. Johanan [PA2]: According to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], is it permissible to immerse needles and hooks in the [wet] head of the first [bather]? Does R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] accept [only] the principle of connecting downward, but not of connecting upward; or, perhaps, R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] accepts the principle of connecting upward as well? He replied: Ye have learnt it; If a wady has three depressions, one at the top, one at the bottom and one in the middle, the one at the top and the one at the bottom containing twenty seahs each and the middle one forty seahs, and a torrent of rainwater passes between them, R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: Meir [T4] used to say: One may immerse in the top one. b.Hag.19b But it is taught: R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said: Meir [T4] used to say: One may immerse in the top one, but I say: [One may immerse only] in the bottom one, but not in the top one! He replied: If it is [expressly] taught, it is taught. If one bathed for unconsecrated [food] and intended to be rendered fit solely for unconsecrated [food] etc. According to whom will our Mishnah be? [Presumably] it is according to the Rabbis, who distinguish between unconsecrated [food] and [Second] Tithe. But [then] how will you understand the second part [of the Mishnah]? the garments of an Am-ha-aretz possess Midras-uncleanness for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees possess Midras-uncleanness for those who eat Terumah: this will be according to R. Meir [T4], who said that unconsecrated [food] and [Second] Tithe are [in this respect] the same. Thus the first part [of the Mishnah] will be according to the Rabbis and the second part according to R. Meir [T4]! Indeed, the first part [of the Mishnah] is according to the Rabbis and the second part according to R. Meir [T4]. R. Aha b. Adda teaches [also] in the second part [of the Mishnah] five degrees and attributes it all to the Rabbis. R. Mari said: It follows that unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like hallowed things. Whence [is this to be inferred]? b.Hag.20a From the fact that [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree [of purity]. But perhaps the reason why [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree of purity is because if it is like Terumah, behold [the Mishnah] deals with Terumah; and if it is like unconsecrated [food], behold [the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated [food]! For it is taught: Unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like unconsecrated [food]. R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] son of R. Zadok [T2] says: It is like Terumah. Rather [is it to be inferred] from the second part [of the Mishnah]. Jose b. Jo`ezer [BCE2] was the most Pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness [for those who ate] hallowed things. Johanan b. Gudgada [T1] used all his life to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for hallowed things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification. [Only] for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification, but not for hallowed things; thus [the Mishnah] holds that unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like hallowed things.
R. Jonathan b. Eleazar said: If a man`s wrap fell from off him, and he said to his fellow, `Give it to me`, and he gave it to him, it is unclean. R. Jonathan b. Amram said: If by mistake a man put his Sabbath garments on instead of his weekday garments, they become unclean. R. Eleazar b. Zadok [T2 or T5] said: Once two scholarly women took one another`s garments by mistake in the bathhouse, and the matter came before R. Akiba [T3], and he declared them unclean. To this R. Oshaia [PA1] demurred: If so, if a man stretched forth his hand to the basket with the intention of taking wheat bread and there came up in his hand barley bread, has it also become unclean? And should you say `It is so`; then behold it is taught: If one guards a jug on the assumption that it is [a jug] of wine, and it is found to be [a jug] of oil, it is clean so as not to defile! But according to your reasoning, how do you understand the concluding clause [of the Baraitha]: But it may not be consumed? Why? Said R. Jeremiah [PA4]: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it against anything that might defile it, but not against anything that might invalidate it. But can anything be half-guarded? Indeed; for it is taught: If a man stretched forth his hand into the basket, and the basket was on his shoulder and the shovel was in the basket, and his mind was on the basket but not on the shovel, the basket is clean and the shovel is unclean. [Now it says] `The basket is clean`? [Surely] the shovel should make the basket unclean! One vessel does not make another unclean. Then it should make the contents of the basket unclean! Rabina [BA6] said: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it [the shovel] against anything that might defile it, but not against anything that might invalidate it. In any case, there is a contradiction! And furthermore, Rabbah b. Abbuha [BA2] raised an objection: Once a woman came before R. Ishmael [T3] and said to him: Master, I have woven this garment in purity, but it was not in my mind to guard it in purity. But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael [T3] subjected her, she said to him: Master, a menstruous woman pulled the cord with me. Said R. Ishmael [T3]: How great are the words of the Sages, who used to say: If one had the intention to guard a thing, it is clean; if one did not have the intention to guard it, it is unclean. There was another story of a woman who came before R. Ishmael [T3]. She said to him: Master, I wove this cloth in purity, but it was not in my mind to guard it. But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael [T3] subjected her, she said to him: Master, a thread broke and I tied it with my mouth. Said R. Ishmael [T3]: How great are the words of the Sages who used to say: If it is in one`s mind to guard a thing it is clean; if it is not in one`s mind to guard it, it is unclean. Granted in regard to [the teaching of] R. Eleazar b. Zadok [T2 or T5], [it can be explained that] each one [of the women] says [to herself]: `My companion is the wife of an Am-ha-aretz`; and [consequently] she takes her mind off it. In regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Amram too [it can be explained that] since a man takes special care of Sabbath garments, [it is as though] he took his mind off them. But in regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Eleazar [it can be objected] that he could [still] guard it in the hand of his companion! R. Johanan [PA2] answered: It is a presumable certainty that one does not guard what is in the hand of his companion. Indeed no? b.Hag.20b But behold it is taught: If a man`s ass-drivers and workmen were laden with [levitically] clean goods, even if he withdrew from them more than a mil his clean goods remain clean. But if he said to them: Go ye, and I shall come after you, then as soon as they are hidden from his sight, his clean goods become unclean. In what respect is the first case different from the second?8 R. Isaac [T5 or PA3] Nappaha said: In the first case he purifies his ass-drivers and workmen for this purpose. If so, [it applies to] the second case too! An Am-ha-aretz does not mind another`s touching. If so, [it applies to] the first case too! It is a case where [the master] can come upon them [suddenly] by a roundabout path. If so [it applies to] the second case too! Since he said to them, `Go ye, and I shall come after you`, their minds are at ease.
[A] The clothing of ordinary folk is in the status of pressure uncleanness [imparted by a Zab, etc., Lev.15.1ff.] for abstainers [who eat unconsecrated food in a state of cultic cleanness].
[B] The clothing of abstainers is in the status of midras-uncleanness for those who eat heave-offering [priests].
[C] The clothing of those who eat heave-offering is in the status of midras-uncleanness for those who eat Holy Things [officiating priests].
[D] The clothing of those who eat Holy Things is in the status of midras-uncleanness for those engaged in the preparation of purification-water.
[E] Yosef b. Yoezer was the most pious man in the priesthood, but his handkerchief was in the status of midras-uncleanness so far as eating Holy Things was concerned.
[F] For his whole life Yohanan b. Gudegedah ate his food in accord with the requirements of cleanness applying to Holy Things, but his handkerchief was in the status of midras-uncleanness so far as those engaged in the preparation of purification-water were concerned. y.Hag.2.7 I
[A] R. Yose in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``It is with respect to actual contact [with such garments] that they have taught [the law of m.Hag.2.7A-D]. [If one has touched the garments, he is made unclean as if he had touched something made unclean by the pressure of a Zab.]``
[B] R. Zeira [PA3] raised the [following] question before R. Yose, ``Whence has this garment of m.Hag.2.7A] been made unclean with midras-uncleanness?``
[C] He said to him, ``Interpret it [to speak of a case] in which the wife of an am haares sat in the nude on his garment [thus by reason of her menstrual period imparting uncleanness to the husband`s garment].`` y.Hag.2.7 I:2
[A] Samuel bar Abba raised the [following] question before R. Zeira [PA3], ``Just as you have said there, `Merely by moving a source of uncleanness [without actual contact, uncleanness is not transferred to] unconsecrated food, but [through a source of uncleanness] moving unconsecrated food with actual contact with the food [uncleanness is transmitted to the food],`
[B] ``along these same lines, [do we say that] transfer of uncleanness through carrying [the source of uncleanness] does not apply to unconsecrated food, but transfer of uncleanness through carrying [the source of uncleanness] will apply to unconsecrated food if there is actual contact with the source of uncleanness?``
[C] R. Samuel [BA1], brother of R. Hoshaiah, said R. Jeremiah [PA4] raised the question, ``If a menstruating woman sat on a chair and touched it, what choice do you have [as to the transfer of uncleanness]? If it is a question of transferring the uncleanness through the chair`s bearing her weight, lo, [the chair has] carried [the weight of the menstruating woman]. If the consideration is touching the chair, lo, there is touching of the chair. [So what question can you wish to raise?]
[D] ``[The question is as follows:] Just as you say with regard to transferring uncleanness through carrying the weight of uncleanness, that the transfer takes place only if [that which bears the weight] bears the greater part [of the weight of the source of uncleanness], so, along these same lines [do you maintain that], in the case of contact, the transfer of uncleanness takes place only if the greater part [of the source of uncleanness] has been in contact [with that which is affected by the uncleanness]?`` [This question is not answered.] y.Hag.2.7 II
[A] [As to] the body of an abstainer, does it function as does a Zab with respect to imparting uncleanness to food in the status of heave-offering? [m.Hag.2.7B has referred to the clothing of abstainers, but not to the body. Is the body subject to the same decree as affects the garment?]
[B] R. Yohanan [PA2] objected [to this possibility], ``And lo, we have learned:He who leaves an am haares in his house to guard it - when [the owner] sees those that enter and leave, the food, drink, and open clay utensils [in the house] are unclean. But couches, seats, and clay utensils sealed with a tight seal are clean [m.Toh.7.5A -D].
[C] ``Now if you maintain that they have treated the body [of the am ha`ares] as equivalent to that of the Zab so far as heave-offering is concerned, then even the clay utensils sealed with a tight seal should be regarded as unclean. [He can have sat on them.]``
[D] Said R. Judah bar Pazzi, ``Interpret the passage to speak of an am haares with regard to an abstainer and derive no law from that case at all. [That is, we asked about the abstainer vis-a-vis heave-offering, not an am haares vis-a-vis an abstainer.]``
[E] Said R. Mana [PA5], ``So did R. Yose, my master, say, `So far as we are able to interpret these cases here to speak of heave-offering, we should do so. You should know that that is the case, for lo, we have learned there thateven food and even clothing - everything is unclean [m.Toh.7.5]. Have they said that everything is unclean not by reason of moving [the object on the part of an unclean person] ? [An am haares does not impart uncleanness merely by shifting an object he has not touched or carried; uncleanness has not been assigned to his person as a Zab, and the same is the fact for the abstainer. His person is not unclean, merely his touch or carrying.]```
[F] [Along these same lines,] has not R. Yohanan [PA2] stated, ``There is no [consideration of] interposition, nor of shifting, nor of [resolving doubt in a strict way by reason of its appearing] in private domain, nor of an am haares as far as heave-offering is concerned.`` y.Hag.2.7 II:2
[A] As to the substance of the heave-offering itself, what is the law as to its being treated [under the rules] governing the Zab, as far as Holy Things [are concerned]?
[B] Let us derive [the answer] from the following:
[C] He who cuts off a reed [to store Holy Things therein] - he who cuts the reed and he who immerses it must undergo immersion. [So a strict rule applies, and implies that that same greater strictness pertains to what is in the status of heave-offering.]
[D] Now there is no difficulty [understanding why the one] who cuts it off must immerse [before doing so. But as to] the one who immerses it, why can he not wrap it in bast and immerse it?
[E] But interpret the rule [to apply to the case of] one who cuts it off with the stipulation that he will immerse it. y.Hag.2.7 II:3
[A] As to the substance of that which is in the status of Holy Things, what is the law on its functioning as does a Zab as far as the purification-rite [is concerned]?
[B] Let us derive [the answer] from the following: Two flagons, one clean [for use] for Holy Things, and one clean [for use] for heave-offering, which touched one another - both of them are deemed clean.
[C] And lo, a Tannaite teaching differs: They have treated one who was clean for the purification-rite [who went and] moved the pit or semen of one who was clean for [the purposes] of heave-offering as unclean.
[D] The same law applies to one who was clean for heave-offering and one who was clean for Holy Things [so far as the purification rite is concerned].