Dry foodstuffs may be eaten with unwashed hands, with Terumah, but not with hallowed things. 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.
t.Hag.3.3
A. For his entire life Rabban Gamaliel [T1, T2 or T6] ate his food in accord with the requirements of uncleanness applying to unconsecrated food,
B. but his handkerchief was in the status of midras uncleanness so far as those engaged in eating Holy Things were concerned [M.Hag.2.7B-C, E].
C. For his entire life Onqelos the proselyte ate his food in accord with the requirements of cleanness applying to Holy Things,
D. but his handkerchief was in the status of midras-uncleanness so far as those engaged in the preparation of purification-water were concerned [M.Hag.2.7D, F].
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] With dirty hands they eat food that has not been wet down [and therefore is not susceptible to uncleanness] in the case of heave offering,
[B] but not in the case of Holy Things.
[C] He who [prior to interment of the deceased] mourns his near of kin [even without having contracted corpse-uncleanness] and one whose atonement rite is not complete [because an offering is yet required] require immersion for the purposes of Holy Things,
[D] but not for the purposes of heave offering y.Hag.3.3 I
[A] Said R. Hanina b. Antigonos [T3], ``And does the rule that dry food [is not susceptible to uncleanness] apply in the case of Holy Things at all?
[B] ``One spears a piece of dry food with a spindle or a wood chip and eats an olive`s bulk of meat with it,
[C] ``in the case of heave offering, but not in the case of Holy Things.`` y.Hag.3.3 I:2
[A] There we have learned:If one was eating a fig with dirty hands and poked his hand into his mouth to remove the pit - R. Meir [T4] declares the fig unclean. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] declares the fig clean. R. Yose says, ``If he turned over the fig in his mouth, the fig is unclean If not, it is clean`` [m.Kel.8.10F-J]. [The fig is in the status heave offering. It may be made unfit by what is unclean in the second remove. Dirty hands are by definition unclean in the second remove. In Meir [T4]`s view the spit in the mouth renders the food susceptible to uncleanness, and the hand renders it unclean. Judah does not see the spit as capable of imparting susceptibility uncleanness. Yose says if the man turns the fig over in his mouth. so detaching some spit from the sides of the mouth, the spit imparts susceptibility, and the rest follows.]
[B] Hezekiah said, ``This rule has been taught only with regard to a fig in the case in which the man wants the liquid which is on his finger. [In that case, he puts his finger into his mouth with liquid. on it, so touching the fig is done with liquid which has the capacity to impart susceptibility to uncleanness, in line with m.Makh.1.1]. But for all other things that is not so.``
[C] R. Yohanan [PA2] said, ``There is no difference between a fig and anything else. [Spit by itself imparts susceptibility to uncleanness, not merely liquid on the man`s finger, introduced from outside the mouth to soften the fig.]``
[D] The cited passage of the Mishnah stands at variance with Hezekiah`s view:As to one unclean because of having touched a corpse, who had in his mouth foods and liquids - if he poked his head into the airspace of a clean oven, the liquids have made it unclean. As to a clean person who had food and liquid in his mouth and poked his head into the airspace of an unclean oven, the liquids have been made unclean [m.Kel.8.1OA-E]. [The oven is unclean in the first instance because of the liquids, which are unclean in the first remove. The liquid is made unclean in the second case by being in the contained airspace of the unclean oven.]
[E] Now there is no problem as to the rule governing the liquid`s being made unclean. But as to the food, how has the food been rendered susceptible to uncleanness? Is it not from the liquid in the man`s mouth? [Hezekiah says the liquid in the mouth, that is, spit, does not have the power to impart susceptibility to uncleanness. Here it clearly does.]
[F] Interpret the passage as follows: Either in the case of the fig, we speak of a very fat one, or in the case of the food, we speak of a food that has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness while it was outside [of the mouth].
[G] The following passage of the Mishnah stands at variance with the view of Yohanan [PA2] [on the power of spit to impart susceptibility to uncleanness]:
[H] With dirty hands they eat food that has not been wet down in the case of heave offering, but not in the case of Holy Things [m.Hag.3.3A-B]. [If the spit has rendered the food susceptible to uncleanness, then why may he eat it with dirty hands in the case of heave offering?]
[I] Interpret the passage to speak of a case in which he tosses the food down his throat [without having it touch his spit].
[J] If that is the case, that we deal with tossing the food into the gullet, then he should be permitted to do so even in the case of food in the status of Holy Things.
[K] [But he may not do so,] lest he forget and allow it to touch the spit.
[L] If the consideration is that he must not be allowed to do so lest he forget and it touch the spit, then that should be the rule even in the case of food in the status of heave offering, so that even here he should be forbidden to do so.
[M] What is the upshot of the matter?
[N] Those who eat food in the status of heave offering are conscientious, and will not forget their obligations, while those who eat food in the status of Holy Things are not conscientious and are likely to forget. y.Hag.3.3 II
[A] [As to the status of one who has suffered a bereavement and not yet buried the deceased, m.Hag.3.3C-D,] there we have learned:A priest who has suffered a bereavement but not yet buried his next of kin may touch Holy Things but does not offer and does not share in Holy Things to eat them in the evening [m.Zeb.12.1B].
[B] There you have said that it is permitted for him to touch Holy Things, and here you have said that it is forbidden for him to touch them.
[C] Said R. Yannai, ``Here [where he is prohibited to touch them] it is a case in which he ceased to pay attention [to the status of the food and hence may have become unclean], while there [where he is permitted to touch them] it is where he has not ceased to pay attention.``
[D] R. Yose raised the question, ``If we deal with a case in which he has ceased to pay attention [to the matter], then even in the case of food in the status of heave offering, he should be forbidden [to touch such food without having immersed, contrary to m.Hag.3.3D].``
[E] What is the upshot of the matter?
[F] It is in accord with that which R. Jeremiah [PA4] said in the name of R. Ba bar Mamel, ``[In reference to Holy Things] they have treated that food as food in the fourth remove in uncleanness [and so imposed a strict ruling, by raising to a fourth remove the possibilities for contamination in the case of Holy Things]. [There is no such consideration for heave offering.]``
[G] That is to say, as to one who is in the fourth remove`s eating food in the status of Holy Things, he is forbidden to eat such food but he is permitted to touch it.
[H] And here he is forbidden to eat such food and permitted to touch it. y.Hag.3.3 II:2
[A] There we have learned: [With reference to a woman who is sitting out the blood of purifying, in line with Lev.12.1ff., after having given birth, m.Nid.10.7 proceeds:] The House of Shammai [BCE1] say, ``She requires immersion at the end.``
[B] And the House of Hillel [BCE1] say, ``She does not require immersion at the end.`` [The Houses regard the woman as in the status of one who has immersed on the selfsame day and requires waiting until sunset before her rite of purification is complete. What is under dispute is whether immersion at the end of the forty or eighty days of uncleanness is required. The woman immerses at the end of seven or fourteen days of uncleanness after childbirth. Then there are thirty-three or sixty-six days of purifying. The Shammaites find this first immersion insufficient. Another immersion at the end of thirty-three or sixty-six days is required. The Hillelites differ.]
[C] Now how shall we interpret what is at issue here?
[D] If at issue is [immersion for] eating food in the status of heave offering, there is a problem for the view of the House of Shammai [BCE1]. For is she not in the status of one who has immersed on the selfsame day, and does not one who has immersed on the selfsame day allow the sun to set and then eat food in the status of heave offering? [The sun set after her first immersion, on the seventh or fourteenth day, so why is she not clean?]
[E] If the dispute has to do with the eating of food in the status of Holy Things, there is a problem for the House of Hillel [BCE1].
[F] For is she not one whose atonement rite is not complete, and does not one whose atonement rite is not complete require immersion for the purposes of Holy Things [in line with m.Hag.3.3C]?
[G] Now if you say that the dispute there [at m.Nid.10.7] has to do with food in the status of heave offering, and the passage that we learn here represents the view of all parties at the outset and a dispute at the end [that is, all parties concur on Holy Things at m.Hag.3.3C but differ as to heave offering at m.Hag.3.3D], [then you have one possible solution].
[H] If you say that it is with regard to heave offering that we deal here and that the Mishnah we learn there involves concurrence of all parties at the outset and a dispute at the end [then we have another sort of solution].
[I] Said R. Samuel bar Abodemi before R. Mana [PA5], ``We deal there with food in the status of heave offering.
[J] ``The reason of the House of Shammai [BCE1] there is so that ordinary people will not say, `We saw a woman issuing blood and eating food in the status of heave offering.` [Accordingly, the position of the House of Shammai [BCE1] there is only on account of appearance`s sake, and were it not for that, the House of Shammai [BCE1] also would not require immersion at the end of the forty or eighty days.]``