Yerushalmi Chagigah 3:1 ירושלמי חגיגה ג׳:א׳

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..

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant⁷Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta⁸If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it⁹The permission for eaters of heave to immerse a smaller vessel inside a larger one holds only if the smaller vessel weighs less than one Roman pound. Cf. Babli 21a.. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket¹⁰Greek γύργαθος.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there¹¹Mishnah Miqwaot 8:5., “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure¹²If his hands block the access of the water in the miqweh to even the smallest part of the surface area, the immersion is ineffective. According to R. Simeon it is possible to hold something in the miqweh without obstructing the access of the water.. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon¹³Abba Shaul holds that joint immersion is possible only if the outer vessel is permeable; hands are not permeable.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior¹⁴Finger-holes while cavities cannot be used to store anything since they have no bottom; they are irrelevant by biblical standards. But it is agreed in the Mishnah that for vessels used for sancta, rabbinic impurity is treated as biblical..

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon¹⁵In the South of Judea at a time when the main Jewish settlement was in the Galilee.. Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave¹⁶In all Mishnaiot together. The main difference seems to be whether back and finger-holes are one or two subjects.? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting¹⁷He served standing as a member of his household whereas R. Meïr was a student in R. Aqiba’s classes. Therefore his contact was more intensive and extensive.. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard¹⁸Is. 5:1.. They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter¹⁹Convening a meeting at a far-out place in order to proclaim an intercalary month.? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe²⁰Ex. 34:17–18.. They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it²¹Cleanly people hold the cup on the outside, so that their fingers do not touch the drink. The problem with finger-holes is that they are cavities, and as such potential subjects of biblical impurity, but since the cavities are horizontal, not vertical, they are not containers and therefore impervious to biblical impurity. Babli 22b.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry²²Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra 3:9. Since unwashed hands rabbinically are impure in the second degree, when dry they have no influence on the status of vessels. (By touching they still disqualify heave and make sacrificial food impure.). In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure²³In this case it is certain that the fluid touched the hand. By rabbinic tradition any such fluid is impure in the first degree and so is the vessel containing it.. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid²⁴In the case of isolated spots of fluids one cannot say that the fluids merge; the rules of the Mishnah are reasonable if applied to this situation..” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place²⁵Mishnah Idiut 8:4; Kelim 15:6. Even though water and blood are the essential agents of biblical impurity, water used at the slaughtering place in the Temple and blood spilled there are pure, i. e., impervious to impurity and do not act to prepare food to possible impurity.. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place²⁶Outside of the Temple they just are regular fluids subject to all their rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17a., [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned²⁷If they somehow re-entered the Temple domain while pure by outside standards, they regain their immunity from the rules of impurity.. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure²⁸The slaughtering place is in the place of the Cohanim, the highest in the Temple domain. The question is the definition of the domain in which the fluids are exempt from the rules of impurity. In one opinion it only is the Cohanim’s courtyard, in the other it is the entire space inside the enclosure of the Temple, including the courtyards accessible to Israel men and women..

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: About fluids which became impure from solid food. But fluids impure from crawling things are impure²⁹This is a new remark, about the Mishnah. The impurity discussed is of rabbinic nature, such as derivative impurity of foodstuffs; but biblical impurity, such as caused by the carcasses of crawling animals, is transmitted to vessels by biblical rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17b..

There, we have stated³⁰Mishnah Kelim25:7.: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough³¹All vessels become impure, possibly by different rules, inside and out. But finger-holes apply only to heavy wooden troughs used to prepare dough.. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups³²The rules of finger-holes also apply to earthenware cups. The rules essentially state that finger-holes, being horizontal cavities, are rabbinic transmitters of impurity and therefore subject to rabbinic disregards of rabbinic rules.. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands³³Following R. Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the back of the cup pure. If his hands were pure and the back of the cup impure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the hands pure. Following R. Yose only the second case holds..” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure³⁴Since the finger-hole is a separate entity, for R. Meïr impurity of the back of the vessel is a separate affair not influenced by anything in the finger-hole, even if some of the fluid is in the finger-hole.. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place³⁵Since it was stated that the fluid does not become impure in the finger-hole, is this a statement about the fluid or about the finger-hole? In the second case the fluid will be impure in the moment it flows out of the finger-hole.? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure³⁶Since any impure fluid is impure in the first degree, even if made impure by secondary impurity.. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup³⁷The formulation excludes finger-holes; the statement was about the fluid.. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure³⁸If the fluid is on the hand outside the finger-hole, if the back of the cup is impure and it touches at the outside of the finger-hole, will the hand become impure?? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand³⁹According to R. Meïr there cannot be connection for impurity between fingers in finger-holes and any other part of the cup.. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure⁴⁰For R. Yose, the exemption of finger-holes only works to protect the fingers from impurity on the back of the cup.. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place⁴¹Same question as Note 35.? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand⁴²Same answer, in cases relevant for R. Yose, as Note 39.. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure⁴³Contrary to the opinion of R. Meïr, R. Yose holds that impurity can be transmitted through finger-holes..

“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.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, because of a happening. It happened to a person that his amphora sprung a leak and he plugged it with his sandal⁴⁴Which was impure by “load” and made the contents of the amphora biblically impure. Babli 22b (end).. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he transgressed and carried it, it is pure. This follows what Rebbi Eleazar said: some say, he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is impure. [But some say,] he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is pure<sup>45</sup>Since these statements refer to Temple practice, not to biblical laws, they are not subject to discussion. Babli 23a.. Rebbi Ze`ira said in front of Rebbi Mana⁴⁶R. Mana I. does this not imply that they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea⁴⁷Therefore one may answer a question raised earlier.? [If you would say, they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea,] then if he transgressed and carried he would be impure. He answered him, explain it if it is connected to sancta^8,If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.⁴⁸This implies nothing in the general case..

“The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties the strings and wipes the holes and then ties whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse.⁴⁹Tosephta 3:6.” Eaters of heave are vigilant and they hollow⁵⁰Before any use they meticulously clean the interior of any vessel used for heave. it but eaters of sancta are not vigilant⁷Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times. and do not hollow.