Yerushalmi Chagigah 2:7 ירושלמי חגיגה ב׳:ז׳

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)..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated it for touchings²¹⁶The garments of a vulgar make a Pharisee impure by touch but not by load nor by “support”.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, from where did this garment become impure by support? He told him, explain it that the vulgar’s wife sat on it naked<sup>217</sup>If 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.. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, there is no “support” for profane food but there is “support” for profane food by touching²¹⁸Only humans and implements can become impure by load or “support” but foodstuffs become impure only by touch., similarly there is no load for profane food but there is load for profane food by touching. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if she sat on a chair and touched it²¹⁹What is the status of the chair?? As you look at it, if load, there is load; it touching there is touching²²⁰In both cases the status of the impurity is the same.. As you are saying about load, on condition that most of it be carried, similarly if most of it be touched²²¹R. Jeremiah has a point; the two sources of impurity are not equivalent. For impurity by load or “support”, most of the weight of the cause of impurity must be carried or must be loaded on, but the smallest amount of touching has the same consequence as touching most of the impure surface area.?

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave²²²If the garments of a Pharisee are impure like those of a sufferer from gonorrhea, is it not reasonable to expect the same from the Pharisee’s body?? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state²²³Mishnah Taharot 7:5., “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure²²⁴As long as the Pharisee has control over the stream of visitors, only things impure by touch are considered impure; the vulgar is not supposed to cause impurity by sitting on something even though this would be the cause of biblical original impurity (not only derivative impurity as in the case of touch) if the vulgar actually were a sufferer from gonorrhea.”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure²²⁵Since the exception for tightly closed vessels applies only to tent impurity.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything²²⁶The entire Mishnah refers to ordinary impurity on the level of profane food and is irrelevant for the question raised here.. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here²²⁷The Mishnah in Taharot. refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving²²⁸The part of the Mishnah quoted here refers to the situation that the Pharisee has no control over the stream of visitors which therefore may include menstruating women which may make seats and couches impure by biblical standards. This proves that these arguments do not apply to the vulgar himself and that therefore also the Mishnah here has to be read to apply to garments only and to nothing else.? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar²²⁹Rabbinic extensions of impurity do not apply except in cases where they are mentioned explicitly. The corrector’s addition has to be deleted since it refers to a rule, that questionable cases in private domains have to be judged restrictively, which by general consensus is of biblical status.. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta²³⁰Same question as that referred to in Note 222.? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses²³¹If he prepares vessels for use with sancta but he himself is not pure for the consumption of sancta, it is clear that the vessels must be immersed since by necessity he touched them. But immersion may be done indirectly as described.? Could he not bind it with a (sit)²³²Here the corrector’s text has to be accepted since the scribe’s sit is a measure, half a hand-breadth. [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it²³¹If he prepares vessels for use with sancta but he himself is not pure for the consumption of sancta, it is clear that the vessels must be immersed since by necessity he touched them. But immersion may be done indirectly as described.. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure²³³Mishnah 7 applies only to humans, not to vessels.. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure²³⁴Spittle is biblically original impurity for the sufferer from gonorrhea; it is pure for the person pure for heave. But semen is biblically impure from everybody. Therefore for the rabbinic extensions described in Mishnah 7 there is no difference in the rules according to levels of impurity.. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.