Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 6, scan section 76

up that which has been made unclean by pressure, may offer the heave-offering, but not the sacred things. The garments of those that eat the heave-offering are unclean through pressure in regard to sacred things. The manner of the heave-offering is not as the manner of the sacred things. For in the case of sacred things, one loosens a knot and wipes and dips and after- wards ties up again, but in the case of a heave-offering he ties up and afterwards dips. Vessels finished in purity need dipping for sacred things, but not for a heave-offering. The vessel includes what is within it for sacred things, but not for heave-offering. The unclean in the fourth degree in the case for sacred things is disqualified, but in the third degree in the case of heave- offering. Though one of his hands be unclean in the case of heave- offering, its fellow is clean ; in the case of sacred things, how- ever, both are dipped, for the hand makes its fellow unclean in the case of hallowed things, but iioL in the case of heave-offering. One may eat dry food with ordinary (not ceremonially clean) hands in the case of heave-offering, but not in the case of sacred things. A mourner, before the burial of the dead (who has not defiled himself yet on the dead), and one who lacks atonement, need dip- ping in a legal bath for sacred things, but not for heave-offering. GEMARA: "■In sacred things^ Why are sacred things more rigorous? Said R. Aila: Because the weight of the inside vessel intervenes. Shall we assume, that as the reason for the 44 TRACT HAGIGA (HOLOCAUST). 45 statement in the latter part of the Mishna is because of inter- vention, the first part has another reason ? (For if both have one and the same reason, why state both ? One would suffice.) Nay, both the earlier and the later cases are because of inter- vention, and still it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned, for if he had taught us the first only, one should say, this is the reason for the rigorousness of sacred things, viz. : because of the vessel's weight, which actually exists. But in the latter case, where the vessel's weight is not an element, one should say, in regard to sacred things, that it is not considered an intervention ; and if he had taught us the latter only, one should say, the reason why it is not allowed for sacred things is because a knot in water is drawn tighter, while in the former case the water makes the vessel to swim, and so the intervention is not considered. Thus it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned. R. Aila is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, who said in the name of R. Hanina bar Papa : Ten degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first five refer alike to sacred things, and to ordinary things which are treated with the observance of the law of purification belonging to sacred things ; the latter refer to sacred things only. Why so ? Because the former five could constitute a biblical defilement (when he dips one vessel in another vessel, and an intervention would be discovered). The rabbis have ordained that they apply to both. The later one, however, in which there can be no biblical defilement, the rabbis did not care to ordain. Rabha, however, said : Since the later portion of the Mishna is on account of intervention, the former is not on that account, but because it is a precautionary measure, in order that needles and pipes should not be dipped in a vessel, the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin bottle. (This will be explained in Mikwooth, VI., 7.) And Rabha holds in this case, as R. Na'hman said elsewhere in the name of Rabba bar Abuhu, viz.: Eleven features of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer alike to sacred things and to ordinary things which are treated with the observance of the laws of purifica- tion belonging to sacred things. The latter ones refer to sacred things only. What real difference is there between Rabha and R. Aila.? It is this: In the case of a basket and a wine-strainer which are filled with vessels and dipped. According to the one who says, the prohibition is because of intervention, there is an intervention ; but according to the one who says, that it is a 46 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. precautionary measure, lest haply needles and pipes should be dipped in a vessel, the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin bottle, there is no such thing in a basket and a wine-strainer. " The outsides and the insides'' etc. What is meant by this? As we have learned in a Mishna [Kelim, XXV., 6] : In the case of a vessel the outside of which is defiled by beverages, its out- side is defiled, but its inside, its rim, and its short handles, and its long handles are clean ; but if its inside is defiled, it is all defiled. ^^ And the place for laying hold^' etc. What is meant by Beth Hazibtah.'' Said R, Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The part by which he reaches it, as it is written [Ruth ii. 14] : "And he reached her parched corn " (Vaitzboth). R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan said : It means that part of the dish of which fas- tidious persons lay hold. " One that takes up that which has been made unclean,'' etc. Why not sacred things? Because of the following occurrence: R. Jehudah in the name of R. Samuel said : It happened to a certain man, who was carrying a cask of wine from one place to another, and the thong of his sandal came off, and he took it up and placed it on the mouth of the cask, and it fell into the inside of the cask, and it was made unclean. And thereupon it was ordained : One that taketh up that which has been made unclean by pressure may offer the heave-offering, but not the sacred things. If so, why not also the heave-offering? This is in accordance with R. Hananiah b. Aqabia, who said: This restriction was made only as regards Jordan or a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was that ? It was that which R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh : It hap- pened with a man who was carrying the sprinkling water and the ashes of the red cow over Jordan in a ship, and a piece of a dead body as large as an olive was found fixed in the bottom of the ship ; thereupon it was ordained that such a thing should not happen again. " Vessels finished in purity,'' etc. Finished by whom? If a learned man has finished them, why should they be dipped? If a learned man has finished lliem, how is it that the Mishna calls them " finished in purity " ? Said Rabba bar Shila in the name of R. Mothnah quoting Samuel : The case is, that a learned man has finished, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common man which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. " May TRACT HAGIGA (HOLOCAUST). 47