Greater 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.
t.Hag.3.1
A. What is the case of confirmation [M.Hag.2.6]?
B. At any point at which one has taken his feet out of the water [of the immersion-pool, which he has entered for the purposes of becoming clean for a given purpose, he is confirmed clean for that purpose].
C. [But] if one`s feet are still in the water, [if] he immersed for that most minor kind of uncleanness, but he then became confirmed for the most stringent kind of uncleanness, what he has done is done [and is valid].
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] [78d] A more strict rule applies to Holy Things than applies to heave offering,
[B] for: They immerse utensils inside of [other] utensils for purification for use with [food in the status of] heave offering, but not [for purification for food in the status of] Holy Things.
[C] [They make distinctions among] outer parts, inside, and holding place in the case of use for heave offering, but not [in the case of use] for Holy Things.
[D] He who carries something affected by midras-uncleanness [may also] carry heave offering, but [he may] not [also carry food in the status of] Holy Things.
[E] The clothing of those who are so clean as to be able to eat heave offering
[F] is deemed unclean in the status of midras-uncleanness for the purposes of Holy Things.
[G] The rule for Holy Things is not like the rule for heave offering.
[H] For in the case of [immersion for use of] Holy Things one unties a knot and immerses and afterward ties it up again.
[I] And in the case of heave offering one ties it and then one immerses. y.Hag.3.1 I
[A] R. Hiyya in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``[The reason that a more strict rule applies to Holy Things than to heave offering is that] those who eat food in the status of heave offering [= priests] are conscientious, and those who eat food in the status of Holy Things [lay persons too] are not [necessarily equivalently] conscientious. [Only priests eat food in the status of heave offering, while non-priests, who own the offering, receive a share therein and are subjected to a more strict requirement.]``
[B] Said R. Hananiah [PA5] before R. Mana [PA5], ``But is this [provision, such as m.Hag.3.1 lists], indeed a gradation? If we dealt with a trait equivalent for this one and for that one, in which what was deemed unclean in the one case was deemed clean in the other, I should regard it as a point of gradation. [In that case we should have a higher degree of strictness for Holy Things than for heave offering. But if the reason is merely that the people who eat the one are more conscientious than those who eat the other, it is then not a consideration of gradation that operates here at all.]``
[C] He said to him, ``Interpret the passage to speak of one who is certified to eat food in the status of Holy Things. [Such a person may be deemed conscientious both for heave offering and for Holy Things. He will refrain for example, from immersing utensils inside of other utensils when said utensils are for use for Holy Things. By imposing the requirement that he do just that, we in any event require a higher grade of conscientiousness for Holy Things than for heave offering than, in general, we should have to do for such a person.]`` y.Hag.3.1 II
[A] As to m.Hag.3.1B, not immersing one utensil inside another,] R. La in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``If the unclean object was as heavy as a liter, they do not immerse it [inside of another one, since it will weigh down on the container and so interpose between the container and the immersion pool`s water].``
[B] R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Saul says, ``Also in the case of utensils used for the preparation of food in the status of heave offering, they immerse [one such vessel inside of another] only in the case of a wicker basket [in which other utensils may be placed]. [But other utensils may not serve as containers for immersion.]``
[C] Said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Saul and R. Simeon [T4] have both said the same thing.
[D] ``For we have learned there:He who kept hold on a man or on utensils and immersed them - they are unclean [since the water has not touched the place by which he holds on to them]. If he rinsed his hand in the water, they are clean. R. Simeon [T4] says, `He should loose his hold on them so that the water may come into them```[m.Miq.8.5D-F].
[E] Said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``It is reasonable to suppose that R. Simeon [T4] will concur with the view of R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Saul. But R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Saul will not concur with R. Simeon [T4]. [Simeon [T4] will be concerned with the weight of the utensil. R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Saul will not concur with Simeon [T4] that rinsing off prior to immersion will not suffice. R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Saul will accept rinsing off prior to immersion.]``
[F] Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``The decided law follows the view of R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Saul.``
[G] And so it has been taught: ``The law accords with his view.``
[H] Said R. Jonah [PA5], ``The Mishnah [which regards m.Hag.3.1B, immersion of one utensil inside another as valid for heave offering but not Holy Things as a gradation that treats Holy Things as superior to heave offering] follows the view of R. Meir [T4].
[I] ``But in the view of sages they may do so [in the case of a large wicker basket] even for food in the status of Holy Things.`` y.Hag.3.1 III
[A] [With reference to m.Hag.3.1C on the holding place, the reason is that we do not distinguish the holding place,] not regarding the holding place as part of the inner part of the utensil. In the case of utensils used for Holy Things, all the parts are deemed comprehended as inside the utensil. [If any of the designated parts is made unclean, the whole of the utensil has been made unclean on the inside. Even if the outer surface alone is unclean, the whole of the utensil is unclean.] [This resumes at III:3, below.] y.Hag.3.1 III:2
[A] R. Jonah [PA5] in the name of R. Hiyya bar Ba: ``There is the story that seven elders came together to intercalate the year, meeting in the Valley of Rimon. Who were they? R. Meir [T4], R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], R. Yose, R. Simeon [T4] [b. Yohai], R. Nehemiah [T4], R. Eliezer b. Jacob [T2 or T4], and R. Yohanan [PA2], the sandal maker.
[B] ``They said, `How many gradations [of rulings] apply to Holy Things and to heave offering [such as are listed at m.Hag.3.1]?`
[C] ``R. Meir [T4] says, `Thirteen.`
[D] ``R. Yose says, `Twelve.`
[E] ``Said R. Meir [T4], `Thus did I hear from R. Aqiba: ``Thirteen.```
[F] ``Said R. Yohanan [PA2], the sandal maker, `I served R. Aqiba standing up, while you served him only sitting down [so I know his traditions better than you do, having invested more energy in acquiring them].```
[G] They said, ``R. Yohanan [PA2], the sandal maker, really is an Alexandrian.``
[H] [Resuming the narrative:] ``And they arose from their meeting with a kiss.``
[I] And whoever in the group did not have a cloak - his fellow cut his cloak in half and gave it to him.
[J] And why did they do so? Because each one of them interpreted the following verse in seven different ways [and each had to dress appropriately for the presentation of his exegesis]: ``Let me sing for my beloved a love song concerning his vineyard; my beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill`` (Isa.5.1).
[K] And they praised [the exegesis] of the last of them, because he had found a fine aspect of the verse. They say it was R. Simeon b. Yohai [T4].
[L] And why were they forced [to meet in the valley of Rimon, rather than in a settled place]?
[M] For they interpreted the verse as follows: ``You shall make for yourself no molten gods`` (Exod.34.7).
[N] And what is written immediately thereafter? ``The feast of unleavened bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month Abib; for in the month Abib you came out from Egypt`` (Exod.34.8).
[O] They held, ``Whoever has sufficient grounds for doubt to expect that it is necessary to intercalate the year and does not do so is as if he worships idols.``
[P] When they were ready to leave, they said, ``Come and let us leave a memorial to what we have done,`` and they saw a marble stone, and each one of them took a nail and hammered it in, and the nail went into the stone as into a piece of dough, and up to the present time it is called, ``The marble with the nails.`` y.Hag.3.1 III:3
[A] [Resuming III:1:] Said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``As to the holding place of which they have spoken [at m.Hag.3.1C], whether it is on the inside or the outside of the utensil, it is in accord with the way in which fastidious people hold [the utensil].``
[B] Said R. Zeira [PA3], ``It is not possible to speak in this connection of a dry utensil, for the hands will not impart uncleanness to a dry one.
[C] ``But it [also] is not possible to state the rule in connection with one that is full of liquid. For if the hands have touched [such liquid], they have rendered liquid unclean.
[D] ``But we must interpret the rule to speak of the case of a holding place on a utensil used for containing Holy Things, in which the hand or the holding place is soiled with liquid. [In such a case we take account of the condition of the holding place.]``
[E] R. Yohanan [PA2] in the name of R. Benaiah: ``They have treated liquid located in the holding place as equivalent to liquid in the [Temple] slaughterhouse. Just as you say there,`The liquid in the [Temple] slaughterhouse is clean [m.Ed.8.1]when located in its original place, but unclean when in any other place,` so the liquid that is located in the holding place is held to be clean when in that place, but unclean in any other place. [That accounts for the distinction made at M.]``
[F] R. Simon [T4] in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1]: ``[If] liquid of the [Temple] slaughterhouse should go out [of the courtyard], it is deemed to have been made unclean.``
[G] And lo, we have learned, ``If liquid of the Temple slaughterhouse went out [of the Temple courtyard], it remains in its status of sanctification``?
[H] Said R. Yose, ``R. Simeon [T4] interpreted the statement, [and so too did] R. Hinena [PA3], R. Simon [T4] in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1]: `When the liquid went out and then came back.```
[I] If the liquid at the top [of the utensil] was made unclean and it dripped down outside [the Temple courtyard], [as to this case, in which some of the liquid dropped outside of the courtyard, while the rest remained inside:] R. Ba and R. Bun bar Hiyya -
[J] one said, ``That which remains in its place [in the courtyard] is clean, and that which drips down and outside the courtyard is unclean.``
[K] The other said, ``Since that which drips outside derives from a source that remains clean, it too is clean [insusceptible to uncleanness].``
[L] R. Aha [PA4] in the name of R. Zeira [PA3], ``That which you have said [that liquids of the Temple courtyard are insusceptible to uncleanness] applies to liquid made unclean through unclean food [which is only a rabbinic ordinance]; but as to liquid made unclean by a dead creeping thing, it is indeed unclean, [since it is of biblical origin].`` y.Hag.3.1 III:4
[A] There we have learned:All utensils have outer parts and an inner part, and they further have a part by which they are held. [These are regarded as distinct, and if one is made unclean, an=other part remains clean.] R. Tarfon [T3] says, ``This distinction in the outer parts applies only to a large wooden trough.`` R. Aqiba says, ``To cups.`` R. Meir [T4] says, ``To unclean and clean hands.`` R. Yose said, ``They have spoken only concerning clean hands alone.`` [If clean hands touched one part of a utensil and another part was unclean, the hands are not made unclean. It is for this case that provision is made for distinguishing an outer part and a holding part] [m.Kel.25.7].
[B] Now in accord with the view of R. Meir [T4], if one`s hands were unclean and the outer sides of a cup were clean, if there is liquid on the outer part of the cup, and one took the cup with its holding place, it is self-evident that the liquid has not been made unclean by the hand so as to impart uncleanness to the cup.
[C] [But is it the case that] just as the liquid does not receive uncleanness from the hand to impart uncleanness to the cup, also the liquid does not receive uncleanness from the hand to impart uncleanness to a loaf of bread located in some other place?
[D] Let us derive the answer from the following [in T.`s version]:Clean liquids that were put at the holding place of a cup and that an unclean loaf of bread touched - the liquids are made unclean [t.Kel. BB.3.1]. In what regard has it made the liquid unclean? Is it not so that the liquid may impart uncleanness to a loaf located in some other place?
[E] It is because the liquid is on the ground. Lo, if the liquid had been on the cup, it would not impart uncleanness.
[F] But if there is liquid located on the hand, and one took the cup by the holding place, even in such a case, is the liquid [on the hand] not made unclean by the cup so as to impart uncleanness to the hand?
[G] Let us derive the answer from the following:
[H] If there was unclean liquid on the ground, and a clean loaf of bread touched it, it is made unclean.
[I] The law has spoken only of a loaf of bread. Lo, if it was a hand [that touched the liquid, it is] not [made unclean].
[J] And in the view of R. Yose, if the hands were clean and the outer part of the cup was unclean, with liquid located on the hand, and one held the cup by its holding place, it is self-evident that the liquid on the hand is not made unclean by the cup so as to impart uncleanness to the hand.
[K] And just as the liquid is not made unclean by the cup to impart uncleanness to the hand, so is the liquid not made unclean by the cup to impart uncleanness to a loaf of bread in some other place?
[L] Let us derive the answer from the following:
[M] Unclean liquid located on the ground - if a clean loaf of bread touched it, it is made unclean.
[N] For what purpose is it made unclean? Is it not made unclean to impart uncleanness to a loaf of bread located in another place?
[O] Now it is because the liquid is on the ground. Lo, if it were on the hand, that would not be the case.
[P] But if there is liquid located on the cup, and one held the cup with its holding place, even in such a case is the liquid not made unclean by the hand to impart uncleanness to the cup?
[Q] Let us derive the answer from the following:
[R] If there is unclean liquid located on the holding place of a cup, and a cup the outer sides of which are clean touched it at its holding place, it is made unclean. y.Hag.3.1 IV
[A] He who carries something affected by midras-uncleanness may also carry heave offering, but he may not also carry food in the status of Holy Things [M.3.1D]:
[B] R. Ba in the name of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]: ``It is because of a case that took place.
[C] ``There was a case of one whose jar was perforated, and he stuffed it up with the thong of his sandal. [The thong fell into the jar, and the wine in the jar was made unclean thereby.]``
[D] R. Zeira [PA3], R. Yose in the name of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3]: ``If one violated the law and did carry [something unclean with midras-uncleanness as well as food in the status of Holy Things, the latter remains] clean.``
[E] That view is in line with what R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] said, ``Now there are some who have said, `He should not carry, but if he transgressed the law and did carry, the food [in the status of Holy Things] is unclean.` There are others who have said, `One should not carry, and if he transgressed the law and did carry, the food remains clean.```
[F] Said R. Zeira [PA3] before R. Mana [PA5], ``Now does this not answer the question we raised above [at Y.Hag.2.7 as to the body of an abstainer, what is the law on its functioning as does a person afflicted with flux-uncleanness [Zab, cf. Lev.15] with respect to food in the status of heave offering and Holy Things], that the sages have not treated his body as equivalent to that of a person afflicted with flux-uncleanness [Zab, cf. Lev.15] so far as Holy Things are concerned? For if you say that they did treat his body as equivalent to that of a person afflicted with flux-uncleanness [Zab, cf. Lev.15] so far as Holy Things are concerned, then even if one had transgressed the law and carried [what was unclean in midras-uncleanness], it should be regarded as unclean.``
[G] He said to him, ``[That is not necessarily so, for] you may interpret the ruling [on this subject] to apply to one who was confirmed as clean for purposes of handling food in the status of Holy Things.`` y.Hag.3.1 V
[A] For the rule for [79a] Holy Things is not like the rule for heave offering [m.Hag.3.1G]:
[B] For in the case of Holy Things one unlooses the knots and dries off the holes and then ties up [the thongs again], while for immersion for the sake of heave offering, one simply ties the knots [of the thongs, e.g., of a basket,] and then immerses the utensil.
[C] Those who eat heave offering are conscientious, and they open [the knots]. Those who eat Holy Things are not conscientious and do not open the knots [on which account they are required to untie them prior to immersion].