The 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.
t.Hag.2.5
A. To what is the matter to be compared?
B. To a royal garden, with an upper room built over it [to guard it]. What is [the guard`s] duty? To look, but not to feast his eyes from it.
C. And they further compared the matter to what? To a platoon passing between two paths, one of fire and one of ice.
D. [If] it turns to this side, it will be smitten by fire, [and if] it turns to that, it will be smitten by ice.
E. Now what should a person do? He should go right down the middle,
F. and not turn either to this side or to that.
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] They [merely] wash the hands for eating unconsecrated food, tithe, and heave-offering;
[B] for eating food in the status of Holy Things they [wholly] immerse;
[C] and as to [the preparation of] purification-water [through the burning of the red cow], if one`s hands are made unclean, his entire body is deemed to be unclean as well. y.Hag.2.5 I
[A] Now does [the consideration of cleanness of] hands pertain to unconsecrated food [at all] ?
[B] But [the rule of m.Hag.2.5A] accords with the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar [T5], since R. Simeon b. Eleazar [T5] says, ``The [consideration of cleanness of] hands pertains [even] to unconsecrated food [so that one must clean the hands prior to eating unconsecrated food, as M. indicates].``
[C] [No, in fact the passage represents] the view of all parties. It is so that [an ordinary person] will keep away from food in the status of heave-offering [which does require cleanness of hands]. [If when the person eats unconsecrated food, he washes hands, he will surely be careful not to impart uncleanness to food in the status of heave-offering.]
[D] R. Simeon b. Eleazar [T5] taught in the name of R. Meir [T4], ``Hands are in the first remove of uncleanness so far as unconsecrated food [is concerned], and in the second remove of uncleanness so far as food in the status of heave-offering [is concerned]. [In both instances, unwashed hands then have the power to invalidate unconsecrated food and heave-offering food for use by people who are cultically clean.]``
[E] Shall we then say that R. Simeon b. Eleazar [T5] concurs with the view [only] of R. Aqiba?
[F] For we have learned there:He who pokes his hands into a house afflicted with nega [a Father of uncleanness] - ``His hands are ii the first remove of uncleanness, `` the words of R. Aqiba. And sages say, ``His hands are in the second remove of uncleanness`` [m.Yad.2.1A-C]. [Aqiba maintains that if contaminated by something that is a Father of uncleanness, the hands become unclean in the first remove. Sages do not concur that the hands enter the first remove.]
[G] [The Mishnah] concurs with rabbis [not with Aqiba] there. What is their reason here [for maintaining, as they do, that the hands are not unclean in the first remove and so do not affect unconsecrated food at all]? If you merely tell a person that his hands are in the second remove so far as uncleanness is concerned [in which case the hands affect heave-offering but not unconsecrated food], he will nonetheless keep away from food in the status of heave-offering.
[H] [But did sages not decree uncleanness on hands] because of the consideration of uncleanness affecting liquids? [Liquids may also become unclean by reason of contact with something unclean in the second remove. The hands, once made unclean, impart uncleanness to liquid, and the liquid thereby becomes unclean in the first remove. For that reason, sages decreed uncleanness affecting the hands, so that they will not affect liquids.]
[I] But should the hands be deemed in the first remove of uncleanness?
[J] [There is an] argument a fortiori [to prove the opposite, namely, that the hands are unclean in the second remove, not in the first remove; so far as heave-offering is concerned, they invalidate it, but they do not invalidate unconsecrated food at all.
[K] Now if one who has immersed on the self-same day and awaits sunset to complete the process of purification, whose status derives from the law of the Torah, merely invalidates [heave-offering, should he touch it before sunset], the hands, which are unclean merely by a decree of the sages, all the more so [should be in the second remove of uncleanness and invalidate heave-offering, but have no affect upon unconsecrated food].
[L] Another consideration: Was the decree of uncleanness] of hands not [merely] so that a person [with unclean hands] will keep away from heave-offering? But since you tell him that his hands are unclean in the second remove [at which stage, the hands will invalidate food in the status of heave-offering], in any event he will keep his hands away from food in the status of heave-offering. y.Hag.2.5 I:2
[A] There we have learned:[As to food in the status of] heave-offering and first fruits, people are liable on their account [for violating their sanctity] to the death penalty or to paying the added fifth. Such produce is prohibited to non-priests. They constitute the property of a priest. They may be nullified in a mixture of a hundred and one. They require the washing of hands and [in the case of one who has immersed for a major uncleanness], waiting for sunset. Lo, these rules apply to food in the status of heave-offering and first fruits, which is not the case [with regard to the] tithe [m.Bik.2.1].
[B] There you have said that tithe does not require the washing of hands, and here you have said that tithe does require the washing of hands. [That is, m.Bik.2.1 states explicitly that one does not have to wash hands prior to eating tithe, while m.Hag.2.5A is explicit that one does.]
[C] That which you say, ``Tithe requires washing of hands,`` is according to the sages; that which you say, ``Tithe does not require washing of hands,`` is according to R. Meir [T4].
[D] For we have learned there:Whatever requires immersion in water according to the rules of the scribes renders holy things unclean and spoils heave-offering but is permitted in respect to unconsecrated food and tithe, `` the words of R. Meir [T4]. And sages prohibit in the case of tithe [and so require washing of hands prior to eating food in the status of tithe] [m.Par.11.5F-H].
[E] [But it is possible to assign the whole matter to the view of sages,] for has that which R. Samuel [BA1] said in the name of R. Zeira [PA3] not been accepted.``What is the meaning of, And sages prohibit in the case of tithe? One`s body has been rendered invalid for eating food in the status of tithe [but one may touch it with one`s hand, which is a separate category].``
[F] Now how [are you going to leave matters]? Are you going to maintain that when you say, ``Tithe requires washing of hands,`` you deal with one who wants to eat such food, and when you say, ``Tithe does not require washing of hands,`` you speak of one who merely wishes to touch it? Are not wanting to eat it and wanting to touch it going to be subject to one and the same law?
[G] [But the hand washing is required in order to make] the washing of hands a habit, [so that when one eats heave-offering, he will have washed his hands automatically].
[H] And have we not learned that it is heave-offering [that is under discussion]? And in the case of heave-offering, is the issue of making the washing of hands a habit relevant?
[I] [But what we deal with is] unconsecrated food that has been prepared in accord with the rules of cleanness governing Holy Things. [We deal with a person who eats all of his food as if it were in the status of Holy Things, and that is the case even with totally unconsecrated food.]
[J] Now is not unconsecrated food prepared according to the rules governing Holy Things still in fact unconsecrated food?
[K] Interpret the matter in accord with one of the following: Either R. Simeon b. Eleazar [T5], or R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Sadoq.
[L] Either in accord with R. Simeon b. Eleazar [T5], for it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar [T5] says in the name of R. Meir [T4], ``Hands are held to be in the first remove as to unconsecrated food, and in the second remove as to heave-offering.``
[M] Or in accord with R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Sadoq, for we have learned there:Unconsecrated food that is prepared in accord with the rules pertaining to Holy Things - lo, this is like unconsecrated food. R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Sadoq says, ``Lo, it is in the status of heave-offering conveying uncleanness at two removes and rendering [heave-offering] unfit at one further remove`` [m.Toh.2.8B-D]. y.Hag.2.5 II
[A] And for eating food in the status of Holy Things, they wholly immerse [the entire body] [m.Hag.2.5B]:
[B] In any context in which we have learned that they must immerse, it must be in forty seahs of water.
[C] But, have we not learned:He who washes his hands for unconsecrated food prepared in accord with cleanness required for Holy Things must pour out a quarter log of water [t.Yad.1.5A]?
[D] Said R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3], ``Here [where we require forty seahs], it is in the case of hands that are cultically unclean.
[E] ``There [where a quarter log suffices], we deal with hands that are cultically clean.``
[F] Said R. Hanina [PA1, PA3 or PA5] b. R. Hillel [BCE1], ``Even if you say that in both cases we deal with hands that are cultically clean, or in both places we deal with hands that are cultically unclean[, there is another distinction to be made]: In one case we deal with Holy Things of the Temple itself, which are sanctified, and in the other case we deal with unconsecrated food that has been prepared in accord with the rules governing food in the status of Holy Things.`` y.Hag.2.5 III
[A] of the red cow, if one`s hands are made unclean, one`s entire body is deemed to be unclean as well [m.Hag.2.5C]:
[B] Said R. Hananiah [PA5], ``It is not that sages have innovated by creating a level of uncleanness affecting only the matter of purification of water, but they have maintained that [in that setting], he who becomes unclean by reason of a very minor source of uncleanness is deemed as if he had been made unclean by a very major source of uncleanness.``
[C] R. Jacob bar Aha [PA3] in the name of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3]: ```And a man who is clean [shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin]` (Num.19.9). [Scripture could have sufficed to say, `a man.`]
[D] ``Why does Scripture specify, `Who is clean`? [Everything must be done in a state of cleanness.] But it is to indicate that even if one collects the ashes of the cow in a ladle, the Torah has said that it remains clean. [That is, the person remains clean until the work is done, at which point the status of uncleanness is imposed.]``
[E] Now what sort of a ladle can be under discussion? If it is a ladle made of metal, then is it not [the rule that] metal utensils that are flat are automatically unclean?
[F] If it is a ladle made of wood, is it not then [in the status] of that which is in readiness for a use that causes uncleanness?
[G] Said R. Hoshaiah, ``Interpret [the passage to speak of the case of] gathering the ashes with a wooden plank [that is flat and insusceptible].``
[H] But is it possible that [the ashes] will not be carried on [such a plank]?
[I] Said R. Yudan [PA4], father of R. Mattenaiah, ``Interpret [the passage to speak of a case of] gathering the ashes with a thick main-beam.`` y.Hag.2.5 III:2
[A] R. Ba bar Mamel asked before R. Ammi [PA3], ``What is the difference between a man who is clean for the purpose of preparing purification-water and an empty utensil that is clean for the purpose of use in preparing purification-water?``
[B] He said to him, ```And a man who is clean shall gather.` Why does Scripture refer to `man`? But it is to place the man in the highest status of cleanness, to treat him as if he himself were the purification-water and the purification-ash.``
[C] R. Yose in the name of R. Simeon b. Laqish, ``[In the case of] uncleanness transferred through merely shifting [without touching or bearing the weight of, a source of uncleanness], which I have declared clean for you in the case of a [dead] creeping-thing [so that one who merely shifts the position of a dead creeping thing is not regarded as unclean], I have declared unclean for you in this case [so that for the purposes of preparing purification-water, merely shifting the position of such a minor source of uncleanness is sufficient to impart uncleanness to the person who does the shifting].``