If one bathed for [second] tithe, and intended to be rendered fit solely for [second] tithe, one is prohibited from [partaking of] Terumah. If one bathed for Terumah, and intended to be rendered fit solely for Terumah, one is prohibited from [partaking of] hallowed things. If one bathed for hallowed things, and intended to be rendered fit solely for hallowed things one is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one bathed for something possessing a stricter [degree of sanctity], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of sanctity]. If one bathed but without special intention, it is as though one had not bathed.
t.Hag.2.6
A. M`SH B: R. Joshua [T2] was walking in a piazza, and Ben Zoma [T3] was coming toward him.
B. When he reached him, he did not greet him.
C. He said to him, ``From whence and whither, Ben Zoma [T3]?``
D. He said to him, ``I was concentrating upon the works of Creation, and there is not even a handbreadth [of distance] between the upper waters and the nether waters,
E. ``for it says, The spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters (Gen.1.2).
F. ``And it says, Like an eagle that stirs up its nest [that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, so the Lord alone did lead him] (Deut.32.11-12).
G. ``Just as this eagle flutters above its nest, touching and not touching, so there is no more space between the upper waters and the nether waters than a handbreadth.``
H. Said R. Joshua [T2] to his disciples, ``Ben Zoma [T3] already is on the outside [among the sectarians].``
I. The days were only a few before Ben Zoma [T3] disappeared.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.2.5The hands have to be rinsed for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for Terumah [heave-offering]; but for hallowed things [the hands] have to be immersed. In regard to the [water of] purification, if one`s hands became defiled, one`s [whole] body is deemed defiled. If one bathed for unconsecrated [food], and intended to be rendered fit solely for unconsecrated [food], one is prohibited from [partaking of second] tithe.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.2.6If one bathed for [second] tithe, and intended to be rendered fit solely for [second] tithe, one is prohibited from [partaking of] Terumah. If one bathed for Terumah, and intended to be rendered fit solely for Terumah, one is prohibited from [partaking of] hallowed things. If one bathed for hallowed things, and intended to be rendered fit solely for hallowed things one is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one bathed for something possessing a stricter [degree of sanctity], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of sanctity]. If one bathed but without special intention, it is as though one had not bathed.
MISHNAH: m.Hag.2.7The garments of an Am-ha-aretz possess Midras -uncleanness for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees possess Midras-uncleanness for those who eat Terumah; the garments of those who eat Terumah possess Midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] hallowed things; the garments of [those who eat] hallowed things possess Midras uncleanness for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Jose b. Jo`ezer [BCE2] was the most Pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who ate] hallowed things. Johanan b. Gudgada [T1] used all his life to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for hallowed things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.
GEMARA: Do unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe then require rinsing of the hands? Now we can show this to conflict with [the following Mishnah]: For Terumah and first fruits one may incur the penalty of death, or [a fine of] an [added] fifth, and they are prohibited to non-priests and they are the property of the priest, and are neutralized in one hundred and one [parts], and require rinsing of the hands, and sunset; these [rules] apply to Terumah and first fruits but not to [Second] Tithe. How much less then to unconsecrated food. Thus there is a contradiction in regard to [Second] Tithe and a contradiction also in regard to unconsecrated food! Granted that in regard to [Second] Tithe [it can be shown that] there is no contradiction: the one [Mishnah] is according to R. Meir [T4] and the other is according to the Rabbis. For we have learnt: Whosoever requires immersion by enactment of the Scribes defiles hallowed things and invalidates Terumah, but is permitted [to eat] unconsecrated food and [Second] Tithe this is the view of R. Meir [T4]; but the Sages prohibit in the case of [Second] Tithe. In regard to unconsecrated food, however, there is a contradiction! There is no contradiction: the one case refers to eating [unconsecrated food] and the other to touching [it]. To this R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred: The Rabbis differ from R. Meir [T4] only in regard to the eating of [Second] Tithe, but in regard to the touching of [Second] Tithe and the eating of unconsecrated food they do not differ! Both [Mishnahs], therefore, must refer to eating; but there is no contradiction: the one refers to the eating of bread, the other refers to the eating of fruit. For R. Nahman said: Whosoever rinses his hands for fruit belongs to the haughty of spirit.
Our Rabbis taught: He who raises his hands, if he did so with intention, his hands are [levitically] clean; but if he did so without intention, his hands are unclean. Similarly one who bathes his hands, if he did so with intention, his hands are clean, but if he did so without intention his hands are unclean. But behold it is taught: Whether he did it with intention or without intention, his hands are clean! R. Nahman answered: There is no contradiction: the one [statement] refers to unconsecrated food, b.Hag.19a the other to [Second] Tithe. And whence do you infer that unconsecrated food does not require intention? For we have learnt: If a wave was sundered [from the sea] and contained forty seahs and it fell upon a person or upon vessels [that were unclean], they become clean. Thus a person is likened to vessels: just as vessels have no intention so too [the Mishnah] speaks of a person who had no intention. But why so? Perhaps we are dealing with a case where one was sitting and waiting for the wave to become sundered, and so vessels are likened to a person; just as a person is capable of intention, so too in the case of the vessels one had intention with regard to them! And should you say: If it is a case of one who sits and waits [for the wave to be sundered], what need is there to teach it? [I will answer]: You might have thought it should be prohibited, as a preventive measure, [to bathe in a detached wave] lest one come to battle in a torrent of rainwater, or that we ought to prohibit, as a preventive measure, [immersion in] the ends [of the wave] on account of the crest, therefore [the Mishnah] teaches us that we make no such prohibition. (And whence do you infer that one may not immerse [vessels] in the crest [of the wave]? For it is taught: One may immerse [vessels] in the ends [of the wave] but not in the crest, because one may not immerse in the air.) Rather [is it to be inferred] from that which we have learnt: If produce fell into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out [his hands] and took it, his hands became clean and [the law], if [water] be put on, does not apply to the produce; but if [he did so] in order that his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean, but [the law], `If [water] be put on`, applies to the produce. Rabbah [BA3] put an objection to R. Nahman: if one bathed for unconsecrated [food], and intended to be rendered fit solely for unconsecrated [food], one is prohibited from [partaking of second] tithe. [Thus] if one intended to be rendered fit [therefor], One may [eat unconsecrated food], but if one did not intend to be rendered fit [therefor], one may not [eat unconsecrated food]! This is the meaning: Even though one had intention for unconsecrated, one is still prohibited from [partaking of Second] Tithe.
He put [another] objection to him: if one bathed, but without special intention, it is as though one had not bathed. Surely it means that he is as though he had not bathed at all! No, [it means that] he is as though he had not bathed for [Second] Tithe, but did bathe for unconsecrated food. He thought [at first] that he was merely putting him off, [but] he went forth, examined [the matter] and found that it is taught: If one bathed, but without special intention, one is prohibited [from partaking of Second] Tithe, but one is permitted [to partake of] unconsecrated [food].
R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] said: If a man bathed and came up, he may intend to be rendered fit for whatever he pleases. An objection was raised: If he still has one foot in the water, and he had intended to be rendered fit for something of lesser [sanctity], he may intend to be rendered fit for something of higher [sanctity]; but once he has come up he can no longer have intention. Surely [it means that] he can no longer have any intention at all! No, [it means that] if he still [has one foot in the water] even though he intended to render himself fit [for a lesser degree of sanctity], he may still intend to render himself [fit for a higher degree of sanctity]; but once he has come up, if he had no intention to be rendered fit [for anything at all], he may now intend to be rendered fit, but if he had intention to be rendered fit [for any particular degree of sanctity] he may no longer intend to be rendered fit [for any higher degree of sanctity]. Who is the author of the teaching: `If he still has one foot in the water etc.`? R. Pedath said: It is according to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. For we have learnt: If an immersion pool was measured and found to contain exactly forty seahs [of water], and two persons went down and immersed themselves therein one after the other, the first person is clean, but the second is unclean. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said: If the feet of the first person were [still] touching the water [when the second person immersed himself] the second person is also clean. R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute concerns [only] the Rabbinical degrees [of purity], but in a case of purification from [real] uncleanness, all would agree that the second person remains unclean. This then is in agreement with the view of R. Pedath. Another version is: R. Nahman said that Rabbi b. Abbuha said: The dispute concerns purification from [real] uncleanness, but in regard to the Rabbinical degrees [of purity], all would agree that the second person too becomes clean. Thus he differs from the view of R. Pedath. `Ulla [BA3] said: I asked R. Johanan [PA2]: According to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], is it permissible to immerse needles and hooks in the [wet] head of the first [bather]? Does R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] accept [only] the principle of connecting downward, but not of connecting upward; or, perhaps, R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] accepts the principle of connecting upward as well? He replied: Ye have learnt it; If a wady has three depressions, one at the top, one at the bottom and one in the middle, the one at the top and the one at the bottom containing twenty seahs each and the middle one forty seahs, and a torrent of rainwater passes between them, R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: Meir [T4] used to say: One may immerse in the top one. b.Hag.19b But it is taught: R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said: Meir [T4] used to say: One may immerse in the top one, but I say: [One may immerse only] in the bottom one, but not in the top one! He replied: If it is [expressly] taught, it is taught. If one bathed for unconsecrated [food] and intended to be rendered fit solely for unconsecrated [food] etc. According to whom will our Mishnah be? [Presumably] it is according to the Rabbis, who distinguish between unconsecrated [food] and [Second] Tithe. But [then] how will you understand the second part [of the Mishnah]? the garments of an Am-ha-aretz possess Midras-uncleanness for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees possess Midras-uncleanness for those who eat Terumah: this will be according to R. Meir [T4], who said that unconsecrated [food] and [Second] Tithe are [in this respect] the same. Thus the first part [of the Mishnah] will be according to the Rabbis and the second part according to R. Meir [T4]! Indeed, the first part [of the Mishnah] is according to the Rabbis and the second part according to R. Meir [T4]. R. Aha b. Adda teaches [also] in the second part [of the Mishnah] five degrees and attributes it all to the Rabbis. R. Mari said: It follows that unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like hallowed things. Whence [is this to be inferred]? b.Hag.20a From the fact that [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree [of purity]. But perhaps the reason why [the Mishnah] does not teach it as a [special] degree of purity is because if it is like Terumah, behold [the Mishnah] deals with Terumah; and if it is like unconsecrated [food], behold [the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated [food]! For it is taught: Unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like unconsecrated [food]. R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] son of R. Zadok [T2] says: It is like Terumah. Rather [is it to be inferred] from the second part [of the Mishnah]. Jose b. Jo`ezer [BCE2] was the most Pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness [for those who ate] hallowed things. Johanan b. Gudgada [T1] used all his life to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for hallowed things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] Midras-uncleanness for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification. [Only] for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification, but not for hallowed things; thus [the Mishnah] holds that unconsecrated [food] which was prepared according to the purity of hallowed things is like hallowed things.
R. Jonathan b. Eleazar said: If a man`s wrap fell from off him, and he said to his fellow, `Give it to me`, and he gave it to him, it is unclean. R. Jonathan b. Amram said: If by mistake a man put his Sabbath garments on instead of his weekday garments, they become unclean. R. Eleazar b. Zadok [T2 or T5] said: Once two scholarly women took one another`s garments by mistake in the bathhouse, and the matter came before R. Akiba [T3], and he declared them unclean. To this R. Oshaia [PA1] demurred: If so, if a man stretched forth his hand to the basket with the intention of taking wheat bread and there came up in his hand barley bread, has it also become unclean? And should you say `It is so`; then behold it is taught: If one guards a jug on the assumption that it is [a jug] of wine, and it is found to be [a jug] of oil, it is clean so as not to defile! But according to your reasoning, how do you understand the concluding clause [of the Baraitha]: But it may not be consumed? Why? Said R. Jeremiah [PA4]: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it against anything that might defile it, but not against anything that might invalidate it. But can anything be half-guarded? Indeed; for it is taught: If a man stretched forth his hand into the basket, and the basket was on his shoulder and the shovel was in the basket, and his mind was on the basket but not on the shovel, the basket is clean and the shovel is unclean. [Now it says] `The basket is clean`? [Surely] the shovel should make the basket unclean! One vessel does not make another unclean. Then it should make the contents of the basket unclean! Rabina [BA6] said: It refers to a case where [the keeper] says: I guarded it [the shovel] against anything that might defile it, but not against anything that might invalidate it. In any case, there is a contradiction! And furthermore, Rabbah b. Abbuha [BA2] raised an objection: Once a woman came before R. Ishmael [T3] and said to him: Master, I have woven this garment in purity, but it was not in my mind to guard it in purity. But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael [T3] subjected her, she said to him: Master, a menstruous woman pulled the cord with me. Said R. Ishmael [T3]: How great are the words of the Sages, who used to say: If one had the intention to guard a thing, it is clean; if one did not have the intention to guard it, it is unclean. There was another story of a woman who came before R. Ishmael [T3]. She said to him: Master, I wove this cloth in purity, but it was not in my mind to guard it. But as a result of the cross-examination to which R. Ishmael [T3] subjected her, she said to him: Master, a thread broke and I tied it with my mouth. Said R. Ishmael [T3]: How great are the words of the Sages who used to say: If it is in one`s mind to guard a thing it is clean; if it is not in one`s mind to guard it, it is unclean. Granted in regard to [the teaching of] R. Eleazar b. Zadok [T2 or T5], [it can be explained that] each one [of the women] says [to herself]: `My companion is the wife of an Am-ha-aretz`; and [consequently] she takes her mind off it. In regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Amram too [it can be explained that] since a man takes special care of Sabbath garments, [it is as though] he took his mind off them. But in regard to [the teaching of] R. Jonathan b. Eleazar [it can be objected] that he could [still] guard it in the hand of his companion! R. Johanan [PA2] answered: It is a presumable certainty that one does not guard what is in the hand of his companion. Indeed no? b.Hag.20b But behold it is taught: If a man`s ass-drivers and workmen were laden with [levitically] clean goods, even if he withdrew from them more than a mil his clean goods remain clean. But if he said to them: Go ye, and I shall come after you, then as soon as they are hidden from his sight, his clean goods become unclean. In what respect is the first case different from the second?8 R. Isaac [T5 or PA3] Nappaha said: In the first case he purifies his ass-drivers and workmen for this purpose. If so, [it applies to] the second case too! An Am-ha-aretz does not mind another`s touching. If so, [it applies to] the first case too! It is a case where [the master] can come upon them [suddenly] by a roundabout path. If so [it applies to] the second case too! Since he said to them, `Go ye, and I shall come after you`, their minds are at ease.
[A] He who immerses for the eating of unconsecrated food and is [thereby] confirmed as suitable for eating unconsecrated food is prohibited from eating tithe.
[B] [If] he immersed for eating tithe and is [thereby] confirmed as suitable for eating tithe, he is prohibited from eating heave-offering
[C] [If] he immersed for eating heave-offering and is [thereby] confirmed as suitable for eating heave-offering, he is prohibited from eating food in the status of Holy Things.
[D] [If] he immersed for eating food in the status of Holy Things and is thereby confirmed as suitable for eating food in the status of Holy Things, he is prohibited from [engaging in the preparation of] purification-water.
[E] [If, however,] one immersed for [the matter requiring] the more stringent rule, he is permitted [to engage in the matter requiring] the less stringent rule.
[F] [If] he immersed but was not confirmed, it is as though he did not immerse. y.Hag.2.6 I
[A] And does immersion for the sake of eating unconsecrated food require intent [that the immersion serve for such a purpose] ?
[B] [The Mishnah at m.Hag.2.6A] comes to tell you an additional point, which is this:Even if one immersed for the eating of unconsecrated food and is [thereby] confirmed as suitable for eating unconsecrated food, he is prohibited from eating tithe [m.Hag.2.6A]. y.Hag.2.6 I:2
[A] Did not R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] state, ``As we count removes of uncleanness in the case of unconsecrated food, so we count removes of uncleanness in the case of tithe``? [Why is there a strict rule here at m.Hag.2.6A in connection with tithe?]
[B] In the one case [where we impose a strict rule], it is for the purpose of actually eating [such food], while in the other case [where we impose a lenient rule], it is merely to be able to touch [such food]. y.Hag.2.6 I:3
[A] He who immerses, without specification [as to his purpose], is permitted food in all levels.
[B] Said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``That rule applies in a case in which one is confirmed for the purpose of eating all of them.``
[C] [T.`s version:] What is the case of confirmation [m.Hag.2.6]?
[D] 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].
[E] [But] if one`s feet are still in the water, [if] he immersed for the 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] [t.Hag.3.1]. y.Hag.2.6 I:4
[A] There we have learned:A stick that is wholly covered by unclean liquids - ``Once one has stuck it into the pool [prior to total immersion], it is clean. [The water on the stick forms a slope and is regarded as wholly connected,]`` the words of R. Joshua [T2]. And sages say, ``[It is not clean] until one immerses the whole thing``[m.Toh.8.9A-C].
[B] R. Simeon b. Laqish says, ``Where they dispute it is in respect to uncleanness deriving from a minor source of uncleanness, but in the case of uncleanness deriving from a major source of uncleanness, R. Joshua [T2] will concur with the view of sages [that a ``slope`` does not constitute a connection to the immersion pool, and the man or object immersed remains unclean until wholly immersed].``
[C] R. Yohanan [PA2] said, ``Also [in the case of] uncleanness [deriving] from a major source, they differ as well.``
[D] The following Tannaite teaching differs from [the theory of] R. Simeon b. Laqish:
[E] If one`s feet are still in the water, if he immersed for the 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 [t.Hag.3.1C]. [Here ``slope`` does constitute a connection for purposes of immersion.]
[F] Interpret that passage to speak of one who ate food in the state of uncleanness or who drank liquid in the state of uncleanness [in the position of Joshua; the uncleanness is minor in status, being of rabbinical origin].
[G] Did not R. Jacob bar Zabedi, R. Abbahu [PA3] in the name of R. Simeon b. Laqish [say]: ``He who eats unclean food or drinks unclean liquids - his body remains in the state of cleanness [even if he immersed] without the intent [of becoming clean from these minor sorts of uncleanness to which he has been exposed]?
[H] ``Once one has set his mind on achieving a level of uncleanness higher than that, he does not require intent [for these minor things].``
[I] The following passage of the Mishnah [also] stands at variance [78c] with the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish:
[J] An immersion pool that contains exactly forty seahs - two people went down and immersed in it - both are clean. If they immersed one after the other - the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says, ``If the feet of the first one were touching the water as the second immersed, even the second person is clean`` [m.Miq.7.6A-D].
[K] This is a further instance in which one has eaten unclean food or drunk unclean liquid[, and the uncleanness is minor].
[L] The following passage of the Mishnah stands at variance with the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish:
[M] A radish that is in cave water - a menstruant rinses it off, and it is no longer unclean.If she brought it out of the water in any measure at all, [having been made susceptible to uncleanness in the water,]it is unclean [m.Makh.4.6F-H].
[N] In this regard it has been taught: R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] declares it clean in the name of R. Joshua [T2].
[O] Now is not a menstruating woman a most severe source of uncleanness?
[P] This then differs from the interpretation offered by R. Simeon b. Laqish, and his view cannot be sustained.