תלמוד על חגיגה 2:1

MISHNAH: Sancta are more stringent than heave in that one may immerse vessels inside vessels¹Vessels immersed in a miqweh to be pure for use with sancta must be immersed singly. For heave one may immerse vessels inside vessels if only it is possible for the water to touch each vessel fully inside and out. for heave but not for sancta. One considers back²Clay vessels by biblical standards become impure only from inside a cavity. Any impurity on the concave parts of the outside is rabbinical., inside, and finger-holes³Holes on the outside of a pot or cup into which one puts his fingers to hold the cup are independent cavities. For heave, all these rules of rabbinic impurity are observed. For sancta any impurity of any source disqualifies the vessel. for heave but not for sancta. He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta⁴A person may carry both the shoe of a sufferer from gonorrhea and heave if both of them are placed on wooden planks (impervious to impurity) and the carrier never touches shoe and heave.. The garments of eaters of heave are “support” for sancta⁵Mishnah 2:7.. The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties before immersing whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse⁶For heave one may assume that the water penetrates any rope with which immersed vessels are tied. For sancta this assumption may not be made..

⁵⁵The origin of this paragraph is in Ḥagigah 2:5; a parallel discussion in Babli Ḥagigah 18b. The statement discussed is that tithe, in contrast to heave and First Fruits, may be eaten with unwashed hands. “Tithe” here always means Second Tithe since First Tithe whose heave of the tithe was separated is totally profane.“This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There⁵⁶Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:5., we have stated: “One washes his hands for profane, tithe, and heave; but for sacrifices one immerses⁵⁷One has to immerse his hands in 40 seah of water. “Washing” means that at least a quarter log (1/96 seah) of water flows over the hands..” There⁵⁸“There” is the Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1, “here” is Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:5., you say that tithe does not need washing and here you say, tithe needs washing! Those who say, tithe needs washing, the rabbis; he who says, tithe does not need washing, Rebbi Meїr. There⁵⁹Mishnah Parah 11:5., we have stated: “Anything needing immersion in water by rabbinic decree⁶⁰Any impurity not explicitly stated in the Pentateuch. makes sacrifices impure and heave unusable⁶¹Unwashed hands are always impure in the second degree by rabbinic decree (cf. Berakhot 8, Note 46). Profane food can only become impure in two degrees; the second cannot induce impurity in other profane food. Heave can become impure in three degrees; the third is called “unusable” since it cannot induce impurity in other food (except sacrifices which have four degrees.) but is permitted for profane food and tithe. But the Sages forbid for tithe⁶²Second Tithe cannot be eaten with unwashed hands..” Is that not explained by what Rebbi Samuel says in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, what means the Sages forbid for tithe? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. What is that? May you say tithe needs washing, if he wants to eat; may you say tithe does not need washing, if he wants to touch? No, wanting to touch is the same as wanting to eat⁶³Nobody can expect a food handler not to eat.. So it must be washing as discipline⁶⁴Washing one’s hands for profane food (in the Babli restricted to eating bread) is to teach people the discipline needed to handle heave (sources cf. Note 55).. But we have stated: “heave”! Is there washing as discipline for heave⁶⁵For heave, washing is a biblical requirement. If heave is mentioned in a Mishnah, it cannot be dealing with washing because of rabbinic discipline.? But it is about profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices⁶⁶This was practiced, e. g., by the Qumran sect who ate all their food under the strict rules of impurities applicable to sacrifices. Usually, strict Pharisees prepared their food under the rules of heave.. Is profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices not profane? Explain it either⁶⁷This use of אי is a Babylonism not usually found in the Yerushalmi. following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meїr: Hands are [impure] in the first degree for profane food, in the second for heave⁶⁸They will transfer impurity to any food but that food cannot induce other impurity.. Or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog as it was stated there⁶⁹Mishnah Ṭahorot 2:8.: “Profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices is profane. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog says it is like heave, it may be impure in two degrees and invalidates a third.”

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar²¹¹A person who disregards the rules of impurity (unless on a pilgrimage to the Temple); cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. are “support”²¹²Rabbinically it is considered a source of original impurity. The expression “support” comes from the severe impurity of a menstruating woman where Lev. 15:21 implies that any implement which had supported her body (chair or bed) imparts impurity to anybody touching it and his garments. for Pharisees²¹³People observing the laws on impurity in their daily lives.; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer²¹⁴Cf. Mishnah 2:2. was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief²¹⁷If the wife of the vulgar, still a source of original impurity from her period, sat on the garment, the latter became an original source of impurity. Therefore there is a (slim) possibility that the Pharisaic restriction correspond to a case of actual biblical impurity. Babli Ḥulin 35b. was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow²¹⁵But not for the eaters of sancta. This Mishnah contradicts the practice established after the destruction of the Temple which considers profane food eaten in the purity of sancta not different from other profane food (Note 180)..