Vessels that have been finished in purity require Immersion [before they are used] for hallowed things, but not [before they are used] for Terumah. A vessel unites all its contents [for defilement] in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of Terumah. Hallowed things become invalid [by uncleanness] at the Fourth remove, but Terumah [only by uncleanness] at the third remove. In the case of Terumah, if one hand of a man became unclean, the other remains clean, but in the case of hallowed things, he must immerse both [hands], because the one hand defiles the other for hallowed things but not for Terumah.
Vessels that have been finished in purity require Immersion [before they are used] for hallowed things, but not [before they are used] for Terumah. A vessel unites all its contents [for defilement] in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of Terumah. Hallowed things become invalid [by uncleanness] at the Fourth remove, but Terumah [only by uncleanness] at the third remove. In the case of Terumah, if one hand of a man became unclean, the other remains clean, but in the case of hallowed things, he must immerse both [hands], because the one hand defiles the other for hallowed things but not for Terumah.
t.Hag.3.2
A. He who immerses in order to rise up from uncleanness to cleanness, lo, this person is clean for all purposes.
B. He who immerses -
C. if he had the intention [of becoming clean], he becomes clean.
D. And if not, [he remains] unclean.
E. But he who immerses his hands -
F. one way or the other, his hands are clean.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.3.1Greater stringency applies to hallowed things than to Terumah: for vessels within vessels may be immersed [together] for Terumah, but not for hallowed things. The outside and inside and handle [of a vessel are regarded as separate] for Terumah, but not for hallowed things. He that carries anything possessing Midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] Terumah, but not hallowed things. The garments of those who eat Terumah posses Midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] hallowed things. The rule [for the Immersion of garments] for [those who would eat of] Terumah is not like the rule for [those who would eat of] hallowed things: for in the case of hallowed things, he must [first] untie [any knots in the unclean garment], dry it [if it is wet, then] immerse it, and afterwards retie it; but in case of Terumah, it may [first] be tied and afterwards immersed.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.3.2Vessels that have been finished in purity require Immersion [before they are used] for hallowed things, but not [before they are used] for Terumah. A vessel unites all its contents [for defilement] in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of Terumah. Hallowed things become invalid [by uncleanness] at the Fourth remove, but Terumah [only by uncleanness] at the third remove. In the case of Terumah, if one hand of a man became unclean, the other remains clean, but in the case of hallowed things, he must immerse both [hands], because the one hand defiles the other for hallowed things but not for Terumah.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.3.3Dry foodstuffs may be eaten with unwashed hands, with Terumah, but not with hallowed things. b.Hag.21a a mourner [prior to the burial of the deceased], and one who needs to bring his atonement sacrifice [in order to complete his purification] require Immersion for hallowed things, but not for Terumah.
GEMARA: Why not in the case of hallowed things? R. Ela [PA3] said: Because the weight of the [inner] vessel forms an interposition. But since the latter clause [of the Mishnah] is based on [the rule of] interposition. For it is taught in the latter clause: the rule [for the Immersion of garments] for [those who would eat of] Terumah is not like the rule for [those who would eat of] hallowed things: for in the case of hallowed things, he must [first] untie [any knots in the unclean garment], dry it [if it is wet, then] immerse it, and afterwards retie it; but in the case of Terumah, it may [first] be tied and afterwards immersed! Both the former clause and the latter clause are based on [the rule of] interposition, and they are both required. For if [the Mishnah] taught us the former clause [only], I might have thought that the reason why it is not [permitted to immerse vessels within vessels] for hallowed things is because of the weight of the vessel [which interposes], but in the latter clause where there is no weight of a vessel [to interpose], I might have thought that it would not be deemed an interposition even for hallowed things; and if [the Mishnah] taught us the latter clause, I might have thought that the reason why it is not [permitted] in the case of hallowed things is because b.Hag.21b a knot becomes tightened in water, but in [the case of] the former clause, where the water causes the vessel to float, it would not be deemed an interposition; therefore [both clauses] are required. R. Ela [PA3] [in explaining the former clause to be based on the rule of interposition] is consistent in his view. For R. Ela [PA3] said that R. Hanina b. Papa said: Ten distinctions [of hallowed things over Terumah] are taught here. The former five apply both to hallowed things and to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things: the latter [five] apply to hallowed things, but not to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. What is the reason? The former five, which involve the risk of eventual violation of the law of Impurity according to the Torah, the Rabbis enacted both in regard to hallowed things and in regard to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. The latter [five], which do not involve the risk of the eventual violation of the law of purity according to the Torah, the Rabbis enacted in regard to hallowed things, but not in regard to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. Raba [BA4] said: Since the latter clause is based on [the rule of] interposition, the former clause cannot be based on [the rule of] interposition; and as to the former clause, the reason is this: It is a Precautionary enactment so that one might not immerse needles and hooks in a vessel the mouth of which is not the size of the spout of a skin-bottle. As we have learnt: The union of immersion pools [requires a connecting stream] the size of the spout of a skin-bottle in breadth b.Hag.22a and in area, [namely, One in which] two fingers can make a complete revolution. Thus he [Raba] agrees with R. Nahman who said that Rabbah b. Abbuha [BA2] said: Eleven distinctions are taught here: the former six apply both to hallowed things and to unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things; the latter [five] apply to the hallowed things, but not to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. What is [the practical difference] between [the explanations of] Raba [BA4] and R. Ela [PA3]? There is [a practical difference] between them [in the case of] a basket or a net which was filled with vessels and immersed. According to the view that [the former clause] is based on [the rule of] interposition, it applies [here too]; according to the view that [the former clause] is a Precautionary enactment lest one immerse needles and hooks in a vessel the mouth of which is not the size of the spout of a skin-bottle, [it does not apply here, because] there is no basket or net the mouth of which is not the size of a skin-bottle. Now Raba [BA4] is consistent in his view. For Raba [BA4] said: If one filled a basket or net with vessels and immersed them, they become clean; but if an immersion-pool be divided by a basket or net, then whoever immerses himself therein, his immersion is not effective, for the earth is wholly perforated, nevertheless we require that there should be forty seahs [of undrawn water] in one place. Now this applies only to a clean vessel, but` [in the case of] an unclean vessel, since the immersion is effective for the entire vessel itself, it is effective also for the vessels which are in it. For we have learnt: If one filled vessels with vessels and immersed them, these [interior vessels also] become clean. But if he did not immerse [the outer vessel], then the water [in it] mingled [with the water of the immersion-pool] does not count as mingled unless [the water in the outer vessel and immersion-pool] are mingled [by a stream] the size of the spout of a skin-bottle. What is the meaning of `But if he did not immerse [the outer vessel] etc.`? This is the meaning: But if he did not require to immerse [the outer vessel], then the water [in it] mingled [with the water of the immersion-pool] does not count as mingled unless [the water in the outer vessel and the immersion-pool] are mingled [by a stream] the size of the spout of a skin-bottle. Now the point of difference between Raba [BA4] and R. Ela [PA3] is the subject of dispute between Tannaim. For it is taught: If a basket or net was filled with vessels and immersed, they become clear both for hallowed things and for Terumah. Abba Saul [T4] says: For Terumah, but not for hallowed things. If so, it should apply to Terumah too! For whom do we state this rule]? For Associates. Associates know [the rules of immersion] very well. If so, it should apply to hallowed things too! An Am-ha-aretz may see it and go and immerse [likewise]. In the case of Terumah too an Am-ha-aretz may see it, and go and immerse [likewise]! We do not accept it from him. Let us not accept hallowed things either from him! He would bear animosity. In the case of Terumah too he will bear animosity! [In the case of Terumah], he does not mind, for he can go and give it to his fellow, a priest, who is an Am-ha-aretz. And who is the Tanna who takes account of animosity? It is R. Jose [T4]. For it is taught: R. Jose [T4] said: Wherefore are all trusted throughout the year in regard to the cleanness of the wine and oil [they bring for Temple Else]? It is in order that every one may not go and give and build a high place for himself, and burn a red heifer for himself. R. Papa [BA5] said: According to whom is it that we accept nowadays the testimony of an Am-ha-aretz? According to whom? According to R. Jose [T4]. But should we not apprehend [the contingency] of borrowing [by an Associate]? For we have learnt: An earthenware vessel protects everything [therein from contracting uncleanness from a corpse that is under the same roof]: so Beth hillel. Beth Shammai [CE1] say: It protects only foodstuffs and liquids and [other] earthenware vessels. Said Beth Hillel [CE1] to Beth Shammai [CE1]: Wherefore? Beth Shammai [CE1] answered: Because it is unclean on account of the `am ha arez, and an unclean vessel cannot interpose. Said Beth Hillel [CE1] to them: But have ye not declared the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean? Beth Shammai [CE1] answered: When we declared the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean, b.Hag.22b we declared them clean [only] for [the Am-ha-aretz] himself; but should we [therefore] declare [also] the vessel clean, which would make it clean for thee as well as for him? It is taught: R. Joshua [T2] said: I am ashamed of your words, O Beth Shammai [CE1]! Is it possible that if a woman [in the upper chamber] kneads [dough] in a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean for seven days, but the dough remains clean; that if there is [in the upper room] a flask full of liquid, the flask contracts seven-day uncleanness, but the liquid remains clean! [Thereupon] one of the disciples of Beth Shammai [CE1] joined him [in debate] and said to him: I will tell thee the reason of Beth Shammai [CE1]. He replied, Tell then! So he said to him: Does all unclean vessel bar [the penetration of uncleanness] or not? He replied: It does not bar it. Are the vessels of an Am-ha-aretz clean or unclean? He replied: Unclean. And if thou sayest to him [that they are] unclean, will he pay any heed to thee? Nay, more, if thou sayest to him [that they are] unclean, he will reply: Mine are clean and thine are unclean. Now this is the reason of Beth Shammai [CE1]. Forthwith, R. Joshua [T2] went and prostrated himself upon the graves of Beth Shammai [CE1]. He said: I crave your pardon, bones of Beth Shammai [CE1]. If your unexplained teachings are so [excellent], how much more so the explained teachings. It is said that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts. Now it says, `For thee as well as for him`; accordingly we may borrow from them! When we borrow [vessels] from them, we immerse them. If so, Beth Hillel [CE1] could have replied to Beth Shammai [CE1]: When we borrow [vessels] from them, we immerse them! That which is rendered unclean by a corpse requires sprinkling on the third and seventh day, and people do not lend a vessel for seven days. But are they not trusted in regard to immersion? For behold it is taught: The Am-ha-aretz is trusted in regard to the purification by immersion of that which is rendered unclean by a corpse! Abaye [BA4] answered: There is no contradiction: the one [teaching] refers to his body, the other to his vessels. Raba [BA4] answered: Both refer to his vessels; but there is no contradiction: the one refers to a case where he says: I have never immersed one vessel in another; the other refers to a case where he says: I have immersed [one vessel in another], but I have not immersed in a vessel the mouth of which is not the size of the spout of a skin-bottle. For it is taught: An Am-ha-aretz is believed if he says: The produce has not been rendered susceptible [to uncleanness], but he is not believed if he says: The produce has been rendered susceptible [to unclean ness], but it has not been made unclean. But is he trusted in regard to his body? For behold it is taught: If an Associate comes to receive sprinkling, they at once sprinkle upon him; but if an Am-ha-aretz comes to receive sprinkling, they do not sprinkle upon him until he observes before us the third and seventh day! Abaye [BA4] answered: As a result of the stringency you impose upon him at the beginning, you make it easier for him, at the end. The outside and the inside. What is meant by the outside and the inside? As we have learnt: If the outside of a vessel was rendered Unclean by [unclean] liquid, [only] its outside becomes unclean; but the inside, rim, hanger and handles, remain clean. But if the inside became unclean, the whole is unclean. And handle. What is meant by the handle? Rab Judah [BA2] said that Samuel [BA1] said: The part by which one hands it; and thus it says: And they handed her parched corn. R. Assi [BA1 or PA3] said that R. Johanan [PA2] said: The part where the fastidious hold it. R. Bebai recited before R. Nahman: There is no differentiation [in the case of uncleanness] between the outside and the inside of any vessel, be it [for] the hallowed things of the Sanctuary, be it [for] the hallowed things of the provinces. Said [the latter] to him: What is meant by `the hallowed things of the provinces`? Terumah. But we have learnt: the outside and inside and handle [are regarded as separate] for Terumah! Perhaps you mean unconsecrated food prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. [Indeed], you have recalled something to my mind. For Rabbah b. Abbuha [BA2] said: Eleven distinctions are taught here [in our Mishnah]: the former six apply both to hallowed things and to unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things; the latter [five] apply to hallowed things, but not to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. He that carries anything possessing Midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] Terumah, but not hallowed things. Why not hallowed things? Because of a certain occurrence. For Rab Judah [BA2] said that Samuel [BA1] said: Once someone was conveying a jar of consecrated wine from one place to another b.Hag.23a , when the thong of his sandal broke, and he took it and placed it on the mouth of the jar, and it fell into the hollow of the jar, which was thus rendered unclean. At that time they enjoined: He that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] Terumah, but not hallowed things. If so, [it should be forbidden to carry] Terumah too! This is according to R. Hananiah b. Akabia [T4] who said: They Prohibited it only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to [the circumstances of] the occurrence. What is this? It is taught: A man shall not take water of purification or ashes of purification, and convey them over the Jordan in a ship, nor stand on one side [of a river] and throw them to the other side, nor float them over the water, nor ride upon all animal or his fellow, unless his feet touch the ground; but one may unhesitatingly convey them over a bridge, be it across the Jordan or any other river. R. Hananiah b. Akabia [T4] says: They prohibited it only on the Jordan and in a ship and according to [the circumstances of] the occurrence. What was the occurrence? Rab Judah [BA2] said that Rab [BA1] said: Once someone was conveying water of purification on the Jordan in a ship, and a [piece of a] corpse the size of an olive was found stuck in the bottom of the ship. At that time they enjoined: A man shall not take water of purification and ashes of purification and convey them over the Jordan in a ship. A question was raised: [It happened with] all unclean sandal; what of a clean sandal? [It happened with] all open jar, what of a closed jar? How is it if a man transgressed and carried [them thus]? R. Ela [PA3] said: If he transgressed and carried [them thus], they are unclean. R. Zera [PA3] said: If he transgressed and carried [them thus] they are clean. Vessels that have been finished in purity etc. Who finished them? Should one say that an Associate finished them, then why do they require immersion? If, on the other hand, an Am-ha-aretz, finished them, can they be called `finished in purity`? Rabbah b. Shilah said that R. Mattenah said that Samuel [BA1] said: Actually, [one can say] that an Associate finished them, yet [the vessel requires immersion] lest the spittle of an Am-ha-aretz [fell upon it]. When could it have fallen [upon it]? Should one say, before he finished it, then it is not yet a vessel! If, on the other hand, after he had finished it, then he would surely take good care of them! Actually, [one can say that it fell upon it] before he finished it, but perhaps at the time when he finished it, it was still moist. [It states:] It requires [only] immersion, but not sunset; our Mishnah, therefore, is not according to R. Eliezer [T2 or T5]. For we have learnt: If a [reed] pipe was cut for [putting therein ashes of] purification, R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] says: It must be immersed forthwith; R. Joshua [T2] says: It must [first] be rendered unclean, and then immersed. Now we raised the point: Who could have cut it? Should one say that an Associate cut it, then why is im mersion required? If, on the other hand, an Am-ha-aretz cut it, how can R. Joshua [T2], in such a case, say: It must [first] be rendered unclean, and then immersed? Behold, it is already unclean! Now Rabbah b. Shila said that R. Mattenah said that Samuel [BA1] said: Actually, [you can say] that an Associate cut it, yet [immersion is required] lest the spittle of an Am-ha-aretz [fell upon it]. [Again] when could it have fallen [upon it]? Should one say before he cut it, then it is not yet a vessel! If, on the other hand, after he had cut it, he would surely take good care of it! Actually, [you can say that it fell on the vessel] before he cut it, but perhaps at the time that he cut it, it was still moist. Granted [then] according to R. Joshua [T2], a distinction is thus made, [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees. For we have learnt: They used to render the priest that was to burn the [red] heifer unclean, as a demonstration against the view of the Sadducees, who used to say: It must be performed [only] by those on whom the sun had set. But according to R. Eliezer [T2 or T5], granted if you say that in an other cases we do require sunset, a distinction is thus made [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees, but if you say that in other cases [too] we do not require sunset, what distinction is there, [as a demonstration] against the Sadducees? Rab [BA1] answered: b.Hag.23b They rendered it as though defiled by a [dead] reptile. If so. it should not render a person unclean; why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion? [You must say], therefore, They rendered it as though defiled by a corpse. If so, it should require sprinkling on the third and seventh day; why then is it taught: He who cuts it and immerses it requires immersion? [implying only] immersion, but not sprinkling on the third and seventh day! [You must say], therefore, They rendered it as though in its seventh day after defilement by a corpse. But surely it is taught: They never introduced any innovation in connection with the [red heifer! Abaye [BA4] answered: [It means] that they never said that a spade. [for instance] should be rendered unclean as a seat [on which a gonorrhoeist sat]. As it is taught: And he that sitteth on any thing: I might [have thought] that if [the gonorrhoeist] inverted a seah [measure] and sat upon it, [or] a Tarkab [measure] and sat upon it, it should become un clean, therefore the text teaches us: And he that sitteth on any thing whereon, [he that hath the issue] Sat... shall become unclean; [meaning] that which is appointed for sitting; but that is excluded in regard to which we can say, Stand up that we may do our work. A vessel unites all its contents [for defilement] in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of Terumah. Whence is this deduced? R. Hanin said: Scripture says: One golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense: thus, the verse made an the contents of the pan one. R. Kahana [BA1, PA2, BA3 or BA6] raised an objection: [We have learnt], R. Akiba [T3] added [with regard to] the fine flour and the incense, the frankincense and the coals, that if one who had taken an immersion that day [but had not yet awaited sunset] touched a part thereof, he renders the whole in valid. Now this is [an enactment] of the Rabbis! Whence [is this proven]? Since it teaches in the first clause: R. Simeon b. Bathyra [T2] testified concerning the ashes of purification that if an unclean person touched a part thereof, he rendered the whole unclean; and then it teaches: R. Akiba [T3] added: Resh Lakish [PA2] answered in the name of Bar Kappara [T6] b.Hag.24a : It refers only to the remains of the meal-offering, for according to the Torah that which requires the vessel, the vessel unites, that which does not require the vessel, the vessel does not unite; and the Rabbis came and decreed that even though it does not require the vessel, the vessel should unite it. Granted with regard to the fine flour, but how are the incense and the frankincense to be explained? R. Nahman answered that Rabbah b. Abbuha [BA2] said: For instance, if he heaped them upon a leather spread: according to the Torah, that which has an inside can unite [its contents], that which has no inside, cannot unite [them]; and the Rabbis came and enacted that even that which has no inside should unite [its contents]. Now R. Hanin`s teaching win conflict with that of R. Hiyya b. Abba, for R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan [PA2] said: This Mishnah was taught as a resent of R. Akiba`s [T3] testimony. Hallowed things become invalid [by uncleanness] at the Fourth remove. It is taught: R. Jose [T4] said: Whence [is it deduced] that hallowed things become invalid [by uncleanness even] at the fourth remove? Now it is [to be deduced by] conclusion ad majus: if one who [only] needs to bring his atonement sacrifice [in order to complete his purification] is, whilst being permitted [to partake] of Terumah, [nevertheless] disqualified for hallowed things, how much more so should uncleanness at the third remove, which renders Terumah invalid, produce in the case of hallowed things uncleanness at the fourth remove. Thus, we learn uncleanness at the third remove in respect of hallowed things from the Torah, and uncleanness at the fourth remove by means of an a fortiori argument. Whence [do we deduce] from the Torah uncleanness at the third remove in respect of hallowed things? It is written: And the flesh that toucheth a thing unclean thing shall not be eaten; we are surely dealing [here with a case] where it may have touched something suffering from uncleanness [even] at the second remove, yet the Divine Law says it `shall not be eaten `Uncleanness at the fourth remove by means of? An a fortiori argument`; as we have said [above]. In the case of Terumah, if [one hand of a man] became etc. R. Shezbi said: They taught [this only] of a case where [the hands] are connected, but not where they are not connected. Abaye [BA4] put an objection to him: [It is taught]: A dry [unclean] hand renders the other unclean so as to render hallowed things unclean, but not Terumah this is the view of Rabbi. R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: so as to render invalid, but not unclean. Now granted, if you say that [it refers also to] a case where [the hands] are not connected, [then the fact that the hand is] `dry` is in that case remarkable; but if you say that [it refers only to] a case where [the hands] are connected, but not where they are not connected, what is there remarkable about [the hand being] `dry`? It is also taught: Resh Lakish [PA2] said: They taught [this only] of his [own hand], but not of the hand of his fellow. b.Hag.24b But R. Johanan [PA2] said: Be it his [own] hand or the hand of his fellow; [and] with that hand he can [defile the other hand] so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean. Whence [is this deduced]? From the fact that [the Mishnah] teaches in the second clause that the one hand defiles the other for hallowed things but not for Terumah. Why am I told this again? Behold it has already been taught in the first clause! You must surely infer from this that it comes to include the hand of his fellow. And Resh Lakish [PA2], too, retracted; for R. Jonah [PA5] said that R. Ammi [PA3] said that Resh Lakish [PA2] said: Be it his own hand or the hand of his fellow, with that hand [he can defile the other] so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean. Now [whether the second hand] renders [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean is [disputed by] Tannaim. For we have learnt: Whatsoever renders Terumah invalid defiles the hands with uncleanness at the second remove, and one hand renders the other unclean: this is the view of R. Joshua [T2]. But the Sages say: the hands possess uncleanness at the second remove, and that which possesses uncleanness at the second remove cannot convey uncleanness at the second remove to anything else. Surely, [the meaning is], it cannot convey uncleanness at the second remove, but it can convey uncleanness at the third remove! Perhaps, it does not convey uncleanness either at the second or the third remove! --Rather [is it disputed by] the following Tannaim. For it is taught: A dry [unclean] hand renders the other unclean so as to render unclean in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of Terumah: this is the view of Rabbi. R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: That hand [can defile another] so as to render [hallowed things] invalid but not unclean. Dry foodstuffs may be eaten with unwashed hands etc. It is taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonos [T3] said: Is there [a distinction in favour of] dryness in regard to hallowed things? Does not then the honour in which hallowed things are held render them fit [for uncleanness]? It refers only to a case where his companion inserted [the consecrated food] into his mouth, or he himself picked it up with a spindle or whorl, and he wanted to eat unconsecrated horseradish or onion with it, then in the case of hallowed things the Rabbis prohibited it, in the case of Terumah the Rabbis did not prohibit it. A mourner [prior to the burial of the deceased] and one who needs to bring his atonement sacrifice [in order to complete his purification] etc. What is the reason? Since up till now they were prohibited [from partaking of hallowed things], the Rabbis required them to take an immersion.
[A] Utensils that are completely processed in a state of insusceptibility to uncleanness [and so when completed are clean nonetheless], require immersion for use in connection with Holy Things,
[B] but not for use in connection with heave offering.
[C] A utensil unites everything contained therein for the purposes of Holy Things,
[D] but not for the purposes of heave offering.
[E] [That which is made unclean in] the fourth remove from the original source of uncleanness in the case of Holy Things is invalid,
[F] but only [that which is made unclean in] the third in the case of heave offering
[G] And in the case of heave offering, if one of one`s hands is made unclean, the other is clean.
[H] But in the case of Holy Things one has to immerse both of them.
[I] For one hand imparts uncleanness to the other for the purposes of Holy Things,
[J] but not for the purposes of heave offering y.Hag.3.2 I
[A] It has been taught [in T.`s version]:There was the case of a woman who was weaving cloth in a state of insusceptibility to uncleanness. She came to R. Ishmael [T3] for inspection. She said to him, ``Rabbi, I know that the cloth was not made unclean, but I did not have the intention to guard it [from receiving uncleanness].`` In the course of the questions that R. Ishmael [T3] asked her, she said to him, ``Rabbi, I know that a menstruating woman came and pulled on the rope with me.``
[B] Said R. Ishmael [T3], ``How great are the words of sages, who have laid down the rule, `If one did not intend to guard [the cleanness of an object], it is unclean.``` [Y.: Who have said that utensils that are completely processed in a state of cleanness (nonetheless) require immersion for use in connection with Holy Things but not for use in connection with heave offering (m.Hag.3.2A-B).]
[C] There was the further case of a woman who was weaving a covering in a state of cleanness [as above, and she came before R. Ishmael [T3], who inspected her about it. She said to him, ``Rabbi, I know that the covering was not made unclean, but I did not have the intention to guard it [from receiving uncleanness].`` In the course of the questions that R. Ishmael [T3] asked her, she said to him, ``Rabbi, I know that one thread was broken, and I tied it with my mouth.``
[D] Said R. Ishmael [T3], ``How great are the words of sages, who have laid down the rule, `If one did not intend to guard [the cleanness of an object], it is unclean``` [t.Kel. BB.1.2-3]. [Y: Utensils that are completely processed in a state of insusceptibility to uncleanness require immersion for use in connection with Holy Things, but not for use in connection with heave offering (m.Hag.3.2A).] y.Hag.3.2 I:2
[A] He who cuts off a reed for use with Holy Things - he who cuts the reed and he who immerses it must undergo immersion.
[B] 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?
[C] Said R. Ila [T3 or PA3], ``Interpret the rule to apply to the case of one who cut it off with the stipulation that he will immerse it.`` y.Hag.3.2 I:3
[A] Said R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1], ``Up to this point [the strict rules of which M. informs us] pertain to Most Holy Things of the sanctuary.
[B] ``From this point onward [the rules of which M. informs us] pertain to unconsecrated food that is prepared in accord with the rules of cleanness governing Holy Things.`` y.Hag.3.2 II
[A] [As to m.Hag.3.2C, A utensil unites everything contained therein,]said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``This rule is one of the testimonies of R. Aqiba, for we have learned there:
[B] ``Added R. Aqiba, `Fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals [lying even on a flat tray], part of which one who had immersed on that selfsame day has touched - he has invalidated the whole quantity of them``` [m.Ed.8.1 D-E].
[C] Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, ``They knew perfectly well that a utensil of [Temple] service joins together [its contents, so what affects part of what is in the utensil affects all of what is in it]. Now what was it that Aqiba came to add by his testimony? It concerned residue of meal-offerings, which are deemed to be joined together among themselves [so that what affects part of the residue affects the whole of it].``
[D] R. Yose b. R. Zaminah in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``On what account have they stated that residues of heave offerings are deemed to be joined together among themselves? Because they all were supposed to be put in a single utensil [from which the handful would be taken, m.Hag.3.2C]. [Accordingly, they are deemed a single quantity of meal.]``
[E] R. Aha [PA4], R. Ila [T3 or PA3] in the name of R. Yose, ``They knew full well that a utensil of [Temple] service joins them together into a single quantity [in the case of meal-offering], and what did R. Aqiba come to contribute through his testimony? It was the rule governing fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals.``
[F] There is no problem in understanding why that should be the case for fine flour, incense, frankincense. But what is the point of the coals [which are not susceptible to uncleanness anyhow]?
[G] Said R. Bun bar Kahana [PA3], ``Interpret the rule to speak of coals for the Day of Atonement, for on that day as much [cinders] as he scoops out, he brings in [m.Yom.4.4]. But as to the coals of all other days, the rule is not the same, for we have learned there:There were spilled from it about a qab of cinders, which he swept away into the water channel. On the Sabbath he turned a psykter over on them [m.Tam.5.5]. [On the Day of Atonement there is a surplus of coals.]``
[H] [Rejecting this view that we speak about ashes on the Day of Atonement and maintaining it has to do with those of ordinary days,] said R. Mattenaiah, ``And with respect to fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals, is there a fixed measure in this regard? Is it not because [in the case of all of them] they are supposed to be put into a single utensil? And here likewise it is because they all are supposed to be put into a single utensil.``
[I] R. Bun bar Hiyya raised the question: ``He who takes a handful of meal-offering - what is the law as to his [taking it out of a single utensil and] offering it up in two utensils?``
[J] R. Hanin objected, ``And lo, we have learned:The utensil unites everything [contained therein for purposes of Holy Things] [m.Hag.3.2C]. Now if you say that he who offers up the handful of meal offering offers it up in two utensils, then for what purpose have we learned,A utensil unites?``
[K] Said R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] the Southerner, ``Did not R. Yose b. R. Zamina say in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2], `On what account have they stated that residue of heave offerings are deemed to be joined together among themselves? Because they all were supposed to be put in a single utensil.` Here too they are supposed to be put into a single utensil.``
[L] Said R. Mattenaiah, ``And is it not the case that fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals are offered in a number of utensils [and not all together in one utensil]? And you say, `A utensil unites everything` and here a utensil unites them as well. y.Hag.3.2 II:2
[A] Kahana [BA1, PA2, BA3 or BA6] asked rabbis from over there, ``A meal-offering that is put into a plate [and divided up] - if this part is made unclean, is that part made unclean? [Does the plate join the parts?]``
[B] They said to him, ``If this is made unclean, then that is made unclean.``
[C] ``And does the uncleanness jump [from one part of the dish to the other]?``
[D] They said to him, ``And the uncleanness does jump [across the dish].``
[E] ``Even if there is something else between them?``
[F] They said to them, ``Even if there is something else between them.``
[G] ``Does someone take a handful of meal-offering from this part to cover what is [required to be taken from] that part as well?``
[H] They said to him, ``We have heard no tradition on the matter. But we have learned a Tannaite teaching in line with that which we have learned there:
[I] ``If there are two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been taken, and they were mixed up with one another, if one can take a handful from this one by itself [from a part that was not mixed with the other], and from that by itself, they are valid. And if not they are invalid [m.Men.3.3A-D].
[J] ``And the residues of this one do not enter into those of that one.``
[K] R. Jacob bar Aha [PA3], R. Yose in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``One takes a handful from this one for that one.
[L] ``If this one was made unclean, that one was made unclean. But what was in the middle was not made unclean.``
[M] Has it not been taught [vs. K]: ``A single spoon so functions as to unite what is in it``?
[N] Said R. Hinenah, ``A utensil joins together only what is joined to it.`` y.Hag.3.2 II:3
[A] R. Simeon b. Laqish raised the question, ``As to the dry portion of meal-offerings - what is the law on its being subject to the counting of removes of uncleanness?``
[B] R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] objected, ``And is it not written: `Any food in which it may be eaten, upon which water may come, shall be unclean; and all drink that may be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean` (Lev.11.34)? That which is rendered susceptible to uncleanness by reason of water produces the counting of removes of uncleanness, and the susceptibility of which to uncleanness does not depend upon water does not produce counting of re
[C] Objected R. Yohanan [PA2], ``Lo, there is the matter of the carrion of clean fowl. Lo, it imparts uncleanness as does unclean food, without being rendered susceptible to uncleanness and without being made unclean [m.Toh.1.1].``
[D] It is because in the end it will impart a most severe form of uncleanness.
[E] What is the upshot of the matter?
[F] ``Any food in which it may be eaten`` (Lev.11.34) - that which is subject to uncleanness as food produces a counting of removes of uncleanness, and that which does not produce uncleanness as food does not produce the counting of removes of uncleanness. y.Hag.3.2 II:4
[A] R. Jonathan [T4] in the name of Rabbi: ``He who eats food in the third remove of uncleanness in the matter of heave offering - his body is made invalid for the eating of food in the status of heave offering.``
[B] R. Samuel bar R. Isaac raised the question, ``Does Rabbi then concur with R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] [in particular, as against the consensus of sages]?`` For we have learned there:
[C] ``R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] says, `He who eats food unclean in the first remove is unclean in the first remove; in the second remove, is unclean in the second remove; in the third remove is unclean in the third remove [and unfit to eat heave offering]``` [m.Toh.2.2A].
[D] No, what has been said represents the views of all parties. It is so that one will avoid [handling] heave offering [and rendering it unclean].
[E] And along these same lines, he who eats food unclean in the second remove in the case of tithe - is his body rendered invalid for the eating of tithe?
[F] Let us derive the answer from the following:
[G] And sages prohibit in the case of tithe [and so require washing of hands prior to eating food in the status of tithe] [m.Par.11.5F-H].
[H] For has that which Samuel [BA1] said in the name of R. Zeira [PA3] not been heard: ``What is the meaning of And sages prohibit in the case of tithe?`` His body has been rendered invalid for eating food in the status of tithe.
[I] And along these same lines: He who eats food in the fourth remove of uncleanness in the case of Holy Things - has his body been rendered invalid for eating food in the status of Holy Things?
[J] Let us derive the answer from the following, which R. Jeremiah [PA4] stated in the name of R. Ba bar Mamel, ``They have treated him as in the status of one who eats food in the fourth remove from the original source of uncleanness in the case of Holy Things.``
[K] That is to say that he who eats food in the fourth remove from the original source of uncleanness in the case of Holy Things - his body has been rendered invalid for eating food in the status of Holy Things.
[L] Up to this point we have dealt with Most Holy Things of the sanctuary. But is the rule the same even for unconsecrated food that is treated in accord with the rules of cleanness pertaining to Holy Things?
[M] Let us derive the answer to that question from the following, which we have learned there:
[N] He who slaughters a beast, a wild animal, or fowl, from which blood did not exude - they are valid. And they are eaten with dirty hands, because they have not been made susceptible to uncleanness by the application of blood. R. Simeon [T4] says, ``They are rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the act of slaughter itself `` [m.Hul.2.5].
[O] R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] in the name of R. Hoshaiah: ``The cited Mishnah passage speaks of unconsecrated food that is prepared in accord with the rules governing Holy Things.``
[P] [Reverting to the question from the perspective of Joshua at m.Toh.2.2:] R. Zeira [PA3], R. Yose, R. Yohanan [PA2], R. Yannai [PA1]in the name of Rabbi: ``He who eats food in the third remove of uncleanness in the case of heave offering - his body has been rendered invalid for the eating of food in the status of heave offering.``
[Q] Now is this not an explicit statement of the Mishnah:That which is in the third remove functions as does that which is unclean in the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned [m.Toh.2.2]?
[R] The Mishnah speaks of Most Holy Things of the sanctuary. The passage proposes to tell you a further new point:And it is forbidden in the case of unconsecrated food which is prepared in accord with the rules governing Most Holy Things [m.Toh.2.2].
[S] Said R. Bun bar Hiyya before R. Zeira [PA3], ``The Mishnah has made that same point:Loaves of Holy Things [touching one another] in the hollows [79b] of which is water preserved in cleanness fitting for Holy Things [if one of them was made unclean by a creeping thing, they all are unclean] [m.Toh. I:9A-B].
[T] Is it so bad in your view that it comes to tell you, ``Treat the liquid of his mouth as the liquid of Most Holy Things``?
[U] Said R. Zeira [PA3], ``Just as you have said there, `Treat one who is clean for the purposes of preparing the purification-water as if he is equivalent to purification-water and purification-ash,` so here, treat the liquid of his mouth as the liquid of Most Holy Things.``
[V] R. Zeira [PA3], R. Yose, R. Yohanan [PA2], R. Yannai, and they do not know whether, further, the tradition comes in the name of R. Mattenaiah: ``From that very passage from which you derive support, you derive disproof of your view.
[W] ``From that passage derives support:That which is unclean in the third remove is unclean in the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned, but is not unclean in the second remove so far as heave offering is concerned in the case of unconsecrated food that is prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave offering [m.Toh.2.2B-D].
[X] ``But if it was prepared under conditions of cleanness required for Most Holy Things, his body is deemed to be in the second remove of uncleanness so far as Holy Things are concerned.
[Y] ``The contrary proof for your position derives from the same passage:
[Z] ``He who eats food in the third remove of uncleanness is unclean if the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned, and is not unclean if the second remove so far as heave offering is concerned, ii] the case of that which is prepared in accord with the rules of cleanness governing Holy Things.
[AA] ``But if it was prepared in accord with the rules of cleanness governing heave offering, his body is indeed regarded as in the second remove of uncleanness so far as heave offering is concerned, and all the more so with regard to Holy Things.`` y.Hag.3.2 II:5
[A] It was taught:Said R. Yose, ``How do we know that that which is unclean by a source of uncleanness in the fourth remove from the original source of uncleanness] in the case of Holy Things is invalid [= m.Hag.3.2E-F]?
[B] ``And it is derived a fortiori.
[C] ``Now if one who has not completed his atonement rites [by bringing the required offering, e.g., a person afflicted with flux-uncleanness, a Zab, cf. Lev.15, or a woman after childbirth, Lev.12] is not invalid in the case of heave offering but is invalid in the case of Holy Things,
[D] ``that which is made unclean by a source of uncleanness in the fourth remove, which is invalid in the case of heave offering - is it not reasonable that it should invalidate [that which touches it] in the case of Holy Things?
[E] ``We have learned in Scripture [cf. m.Sot.5.2] that that which is unclean in the third remove from the original source of uncleanness invalidates, and in connection with that which is unclean in the fourth remove [we thus derive the same lesson] by an argument a fortiori [t.Hag.3.18].
[F] Objected R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``Food that has been touched by a Tebul Yom [unclean in the second remove] will prove the contrary.
[G] ``For it is invalid so far as being designated heave offering is concerned [in line with Lev.11.33],
[H] ``but it has no invalidating affect upon Holy Things [in the fourth remove]. [That is: Just as the Tebul Yom invalidates in the case of heave offering, so he invalidates in the case of Holy Things. But he does not render the Holy Things unclean in such wise that the Holy Things will then go and impart uncleanness. In this case, then, the argument a fortiori of Yose will not serve, as it does above, and so it is shown to be invalid.]``
[I] [Providing a second attack on Yose`s reasoning,] R. Hananiah [PA5] in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``The view of R. Yose is in line with the theory of R. Aqiba, his teacher.
[J] ``Just as R. Aqiba said, `will be unclean` [Lev.11.33, referring to food] means `will impart uncleanness` [in the third remove, as at m.Sot.5.2A], as a matter of the law of the Torah,
[K] ``so R. Yose said, `will be unclean` [Lev.11.34, with reference to liquid] means `will impart uncleanness` as a matter of the law of the Torah. [In this case why not construct the same argument a fortiori to prove that we take account of a fourth remove in regard to food in the status of heave offering, and deem such food to be invalid? Now if a Tebul Yom, who is permitted to touch unconsecrated food, is invalid so far as heave offering is concerned, food in the third remove, which is invalid so far as unconsecrated food is concerned (in line with the position of Aqiba at m.Sot.5.2A, unconsecrated food in the third remove is invalid and may not be designated heave offering), all the more so should be deemed to invalidate food in the fourth remove for heave offering. This then is a further argument against the reasoning of Yose at A-E.]``
[L] R. Abbahu [PA3] in the name of R. Yose bar Haninah: ``R. Yose has no need for the argument a fortiori [to prove that that which is in the fourth remove from the original source of uncleanness in the case of Holy Things is invalid].
[M] ``R. Yose is perfectly able to prove the same thing on the basis of the exegesis of the following verse of Scripture:
[N] ``[`Flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten` (Lev.7.19).] `Flesh that touches` - this refers to meat in the second remove of uncleanness which touched that which is unclean in the first remove of uncleanness.
[O] ```Any unclean thing` - this refers to meat in the third remove of uncleanness which touched that which was unclean in the second remove of uncleanness [as is clear in the sequence of the verse].
[P] ```Shall not be eaten` - that which is made unclean at the end is not to be eaten. [That is to say, what touches this meat in the third remove, which itself is in the fourth remove, is not to be eaten. That proves the besought proposition.]`` y.Hag.3.2 II:6
[A] Up to this point we have dealt with food made unclean in the airspace of a clay utensil contaminated by a dead creeping - thing (Lev.11.33). [That is, Aqiba`s proof at m.Sot.5.2, based on Lev.11.33, shows that food made unclean in the contained airspace of a clay utensil into which a dead creeping-thing has fallen has the capacity to impart uncleanness to food that touches it.]
[B] How do we know that food itself, which has been made unclean by a dead creeping-thing, has the power to impart uncleanness to other food?
[C] Now it is derived a fortiori.
[D] If utensils that do not receive uncleanness when they are located in the contained airspace of a clay utensil that has been rendered unclean by a dead creeping-thing - lo, such utensils impart uncleanness as does a dead creeping-thing so that food that touches them will be unclean,
[E] food that is rendered unclean by a dead creeping-thing, is it not a matter of logic that it should have the capacity to impart uncleanness as does a dead creeping-thing to [other] food [with which it comes into contact]? [Surely that is obvious.]
[F] Up to this point we have dealt with the matter in line with the theory of R. Aqiba [who regards the uncleanness imparted in the third remove as a matter of the law of the Torah].
[G] But as to R. Ishmael [T3] [how does he prove that there is a third remove in regard to food that has been in contact with that which has been made unclean]?
[H] It is taught by R. Ishmael [T3]:```Flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten.`
[I] ``[This refers to] food in the first remove, `which touched any unclean thing.`
[J] ```It shall not be eaten` is meant to encompass that which is in the second remove.
[K] ``And as to the third remove, how do we prove that that is taken into account?
[L] ``It is a matter of logical inference.
[M] ``Now if a Tebul Yom, who does not invalidate in the case of unconsecrated food, lo, he has the power to invalidate in the case of heave offering [which he touches, so that said heave offering is deemed unclean and may not be eaten,]
[N] ``food unclean in the second remove, which indeed is invalid in the case of unconsecrated food [as at m.Toh.2.3ff.] - is it not logical that it should have the power to invalidate in the case of heave offering?
[O] ``And as to a fourth remove in the case of Holy Things, how do we prove that proposition?
[P] ``Now it is a matter of logic.
[Q] ``If one who has not yet brought his offerings to complete the process of atonement, who is not invalid for eating heave offering, lo, he is invalid so far as Holy Things are concerned [Lev.12 and 15 indicate that until the offerings are brought to complete the process of atonement, the woman after childbirth and the person afflicted with flux-uncleanness [Zab, cf. Lev.15] and a woman in that status are not permitted to eat Holy Things],
[R] ``that which is in the third remove from the original source of uncleanness, which indeed is invalid so far as heave offering is concerned - is it not logical that it should have the power to invalidate in the case of Holy Things [with which it comes into contact, hence, the fourth remove]?
[S] ``Lo, we have learned from Scripture the law governing the uncleanness of invalidity of that which is in the first remove and the second remove from the original source of uncleanness, and from a logical process we have derived the same rule for that which is in the third remove, and as to that which is in the fourth remove, we have derived the same proposition from an argument a fortiori.
[T] ``[After we have] reasoned one law from the other [deriving the rule governing the third remove in the case of heave offering from the second remove in the case of the Tebul Yom, we derive yet another rule by means of an argument for that which is in the fourth remove, that it is invalid in the case of food in the status of Holy Things], so that all should be governed by the law,
[U] ``thus with the result that heave offering in the third remove, and Holy Things in the fourth remove, should be deemed invalid.`` y.Hag.3.2 III
[A] In the case of heave offering, if one of one`s hands is made unclean, the other is clean [m.Hag.3.2G].
[B] ``As to Holy Things [m.Hag.3.2H], if one hand is unclean, the other imparts uncleanness to Holy Things,`` the words of Rabbi.
[C] R. Yose b. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says, ``It renders Holy Things invalid [but not unclean].``
[D] Does Rabbi then concur with R. Joshua [T2]?
[E] For we have learned there:``Whatever imparts unfitness to heave offering imparts uncleanness to hands, putting them into the second remove of uncleanness. One hand imparts uncleanness to [he second,`` the words of R. Joshua [T2]. And sages say, ``That which is unclean in the second remove does not put something else into a state of uncleanness at the second remove`` [m.Yad.3.2A-C].
[F] The view of R. Joshua [T2] is more strict than that of Rabbi. What Rabbi has said with regard [merely] to Holy Things is what R. Joshua [T2] has said with regard to heave offering. y.Hag.3.2 III:2
[A] R. Simeon b. Laqish said, ``They have referred only to the other hand. Lo, as to someone else`s hand, that is not the case.``
[B] R. Yohanan [PA2] said, ``Even [if the unclean hand touched] another`s hand, it is the case.``
[C] R. Jeremiah [PA4], R. Ammi [PA3] in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``Even in the case of [the hand`s touching] a loaf of bread.``
[D] R. Yohanan [PA2] retracted from this statement [C].
[E] What had he said in this regard prior to his retraction?
[F] He had said only that it imparts uncleanness to a loaf of bread on the principle that whatever invalidates heave offering imparts uncleanness to the hands to put them into the second remove.
[G] Lo, as to imparting uncleanness to a loaf of bread - all parties concur that it does not impart uncleanness on the principle that that which is unclean in the second remove does not put anything else into that same second remove of uncleanness [= Joshua, m.Toh.2.2].