Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chagigah 26-27
אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן יוֹצְאִין — כְּלַחוּץ.
or both are leaving it, it is considered like outside the perimeter and the ḥaver may not acquire vessels from him. The reason is that if they are both entering the perimeter they can easily wait until they are inside and then conduct the transaction, and if they are both leaving they should have completed the deal beforehand, and the ḥaver may not make up for this lapse by doing so now.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַקַּדָּר שֶׁמָּכַר אֶת הַקְּדֵירוֹת וְנִכְנַס לִפְנִים מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִים. טַעְמָא דְּלִפְנִים מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִים, הָא מוֹדִיעִים גּוּפַהּ — לָא מְהֵימַן. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: יָצָא — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. הָא מוֹדִיעִים גּוּפָהּ — נֶאֱמָן. אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן בְּקַדָּר יוֹצֵא וְחָבֵר נִכְנָס, כָּאן בְּשֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן יוֹצְאִין אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן נִכְנָסִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye said: We, too, learn this in the mishna. For it is taught there: A potter who was selling pots and entered within the Modi’im area is deemed credible, which indicates that the only reason he is deemed credible is that he is inside the Modi’im area, thus implying that in Modi’im itself he is not deemed credible. But now say the latter clause of the mishna: If he left he is not deemed credible, thus implying that in Modi’im itself he is deemed credible, which contradicts the previous inference. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna the following distinction: Here, in the latter clause, it is referring to a potter who is leaving and a ḥaver who is entering, in which case he is deemed credible; and there, in the first clause, it is referring to a situation where they are both leaving or both entering, in which case he is not deemed credible. Consequently, both inferences from the mishna are upheld. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.
תָּנָא: נֶאֱמָנִין בִּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הַדַּקִּין לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּיטָּלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁאֵין נִיטָּלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת.
§ A tanna taught in the Tosefta (3:33): All people, including amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to purity from Modi’im and inward only with regard to small earthenware vessels, and they may be used for sacrificial food. Since these small vessels were needed by all, the Sages deemed the amei ha’aretz credible concerning them. The amora’im discussed the meaning of the term small vessels. Reish Lakish said: It is speaking of those vessels that can be picked up in one hand, but no larger. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if they cannot be picked up in one hand, they can still be called small vessels.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא רֵיקָנִין, אֲבָל מְלֵאִין — לֹא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מְלֵאִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַפִּיקָרְסוּתוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ. וְאָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמַשְׁקִין עַצְמָן, שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאִין. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי לָגִין מָלֵא מַשְׁקִין — לָגִין טְמֵאִין טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וּמַשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין.
Reish Lakish said further: They taught in the baraita only that amei ha’aretz are deemed credible with regard to empty vessels, but if they are full of liquid they are not deemed credible. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the jugs are full, and even if his garment [apikarsuto] is inside the vessel, the Sages were not concerned about impurity, as they did not apply their decree to such vessels at all. And Rava said: And Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes with regard to the liquids themselves in the vessel that they are impure, for although the Sages declared the vessels to be pure they did not waive the decree that liquids touched by amei ha’aretz are impure. And do not be perplexed by this apparent contradiction, for there is a similar halakha in a case of an earthenware pitcher full of liquid in a room with a corpse and the pitcher is tightly sealed with another earthenware vessel of an am ha’aretz, where the halakha is that the pitcher is impure with a seven-day impurity, while the liquids remain pure.
מַתְנִי׳ הַגַּבָּאִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְכֵן הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים — נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר: לֹא נָגַעְנוּ. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה.
MISHNA: In the case of amei ha’aretz tax collectors who entered a house to collect items for a tax, and similarly thieves who returned the vessels they had stolen, they are deemed credible when they say: We did not touch the rest of the objects in the house, and those items remain pure. And in Jerusalem all people, even amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, and during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי: הַגַּבָּאִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיכָּא גּוֹי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא גּוֹי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. דִּתְנַן: אִם יֶשׁ גּוֹי עִמָּהֶן — נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר ״לֹא נִכְנַסְנוּ״, אֲבָל אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר ״נִכְנַסְנוּ אֲבָל לֹא נָגַעְנוּ״.
GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Teharot 7:6): If amei ha’aretz tax collectors entered a house, the entire house is impure. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as that mishna is referring to a situation where there is a gentile with them, in which case they conduct a thorough search in the whole house, and certainly will have touched everything; whereas this mishna deals with a case when there is no gentile with them, and their claim not to have touched anything is therefore accepted. As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 7:6): If there is a gentile with the tax collectors, they are deemed credible if they were to say: We did not enter the house at all; but they are not deemed credible if they were to say: We entered the house but did not touch its vessels.
וְכִי אִיכָּא גּוֹי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ מַאי הָוֵי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: אֵימַת גּוֹי עֲלֵיהֶן. וְחַד אָמַר: אֵימַת מַלְכוּת עֲלֵיהֶן. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ גּוֹי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּב.
The Gemara raises a question: And when there is a gentile with them, what of it? Why does this affect the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disputed this issue. One said: The fear of the gentile, who is their senior, is upon them, for they are afraid he might punish them. And one said: The fear of the kingdom, i.e., the government, is upon them, as the gentile might report them to the authorities if they do not carry out a thorough search. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is the case of a gentile who is not important, i.e., he does not have senior authority. In that case they are not afraid of him personally, but there is still concern that he might report them to the government authorities.
וְכֵן הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת — אֵינוֹ טָמֵא אֶלָּא מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי הַגַּנָּבִים. אָמַר רַב פִּנְחָס מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: כְּשֶׁעָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
§ It is taught in the mishna: And similarly thieves who returned vessels are deemed credible. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Teharot 7:6): Concerning the thieves who entered a house, only the place where the feet of the thieves had trodden is impure. The implication is that all the vessels of the section of the house where they had entered are impure, and they are not deemed credible if they say that they did not touch a particular item. Rav Pinḥas said in the name of Rav: The mishna here is referring to a case where the thieves repented, which is why they are deemed credible, whereas the mishna in Teharot is referring to a case in which the thieves did not repent. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Thieves who returned vessels, which indicates that they repented and made restoration willingly. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.
וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. תָּנָא: נֶאֱמָנִין עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס גַּסִּין לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה — שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כִּבְשׁוֹנוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
§ The mishna teaches: And in Jerusalem all people are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food. A tanna taught in a baraita: They are deemed credible even with regard to large earthenware vessels for sacrificial food, and not only small ones. And why did the Sages exhibit so much leniency, waiving their regular decrees of impurity within Jerusalem for large vessels and all the way to Modi’im for small vessels? Because there is a principle that potters’ kilns may not be made in Jerusalem, in order to preserve the quality of the air in the city. It is therefore necessary to bring in earthenware vessels from outside the city, and consequently the Sages were lenient concerning such utensils.
וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיֵּאָסֵף כׇּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל הָעִיר כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד חֲבֵרִים״, הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּן חֲבֵרִים.
§ It was taught in the mishna: And during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma. The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived, i.e., that there is a difference between Festival days and other periods? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse states concerning the incident of the concubine in Gibeah: “And all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [ḥaverim]” (Judges 20:11). This verse is interpreted to teach that whenever the entire people of Israel gathers together in a single place, the Torah makes, i.e., considers, all of them ḥaverim. The final word of the phrase, ḥaverim, is a reference to the members of a group dedicated to scrupulous observance of mitzvot, as the term is used by the Sages.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת חָבִיתוֹ, וְהַמַּתְחִיל בְּעִיסָּתוֹ עַל גַּב הָרֶגֶל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יִגְמוֹר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִגְמוֹר.
MISHNA: In the case of one who opens his barrel of wine for public sale, and similarly one who starts selling his dough during the time of the pilgrimage Festival, and these items perforce come into contact with amei ha’aretz, Rabbi Yehuda says: Since the food was pure, despite its contact with amei ha’aretz, when he began selling it, he may finish selling it in a state of purity even after the Festival, and there is no concern about the contact that has been made by amei ha’aretz during the Festival. But the Rabbis say: He may not finish selling it.
גְּמָ׳ יָתֵיב רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, פְּתַח חַד וַאֲמַר: מַהוּ שֶׁיַּנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר?
GEMARA: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa were once sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. One of them opened the discussion and said: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility of him leaving his wine for another, subsequent pilgrimage Festival and continuing to sell it at that point? Although according to the Rabbis one may not continue selling it once the Festival has concluded, may he leave the barrel aside until the next Festival, at which point it would once again be able to be sold in purity?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: יַד הַכֹּל מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ עַד הָאִידָּנָא לָאו יַד הַכֹּל מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בָּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא עַד הָאִידָּנָא, טוּמְאַת עַם הָאָרֶץ בָּרֶגֶל רַחֲמָנָא טַהֲרַהּ, אֶלָּא הַשְׁתָּא טְמֵאָה הִיא.
The other Sage said to him: Everyone’s hand has touched it, and yet you are saying that perhaps he may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then sell it in purity? How could such a possibility even be considered? He said back to him: Is that to say that until now, throughout the Festival, everyone’s hand was not touching it? It was permitted during the Festival despite the fact that everyone was touching it; apparently, their touching did not render it impure at all. He said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, until now, the Merciful One declares pure the impurity of the am ha’aretz during the Festival, and consequently his impurity is disregarded, but now that the Festival has passed, the touch of an am ha’aretz is once again considered impure.
נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר. מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?
The Gemara suggests: Let us say this dispute between amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. For it is taught in one baraita: He may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then continue to sell it. And it was taught in a different baraita: He may not leave it for another Festival. What, is it not so that this very issue is a dispute between these two tanna’im, the authors of these two baraitot?
לָא, הָא דְּקָתָנֵי יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבָּנַן. וְתִסְבְּרָא? הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, יִגְמוֹר קָאָמַר?! אֶלָּא: הָא דְּקָתָנֵי לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבָּנַן. וּמַאי לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה — שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַנִּיחָהּ.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible that this baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, follows the opinion, cited in the mishna, of Rabbi Yehuda, who allows the wine seller to finish selling his wine after the Festival, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit him to finish it. The Gemara questions this conclusion: And how can you understand it that way? Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say he may finish it after the Festival? Consequently, there would be no need for him to leave it for another Festival. Rather, say as follows: This baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what is the meaning of the statement: He may not leave it for another Festival? It means that he has no need to leave it for another Festival, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains he can finish selling it in purity immediately.
מַתְנִי׳ מִשֶּׁעָבַר הָרֶגֶל — מַעֲבִירִין עַל טׇהֳרַת הָעֲזָרָה. עָבַר הָרֶגֶל לְיוֹם שִׁשִּׁי — לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲבִירִין, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא בְּיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי, שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּנוּיִין.
MISHNA: Once the pilgrimage Festival has passed by, the priests pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification, since they were touched by am ha’aretz priests during the Festival. If the Festival passed by into a Friday, i.e., if the Festival ended on Thursday night, they would not pass the vessels through the purification process on that day, due to the honor of Shabbat, in order to give the priests time to prepare the requirements of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: They do not even purify them on Thursday, in the event that the Festival ended on Wednesday night, because the priests are not free to do so.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּנוּיִין מִלְּהוֹצִיא בַּדֶּשֶׁן.
GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita, in explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s words: The priests do not purify the vessels of the Temple courtyard on Thursday, as the priests are not free from removing the ashes. During the Festival days a large quantity of ash would accumulate on the altar, due to the large number of offerings brought at that time. Because they would not remove the ashes on the Festival itself, they would have to remove a very large amount afterward. Consequently, all the priests were kept busy with this task upon the conclusion of the Festival, which did not leave them with enough time to deal with other matters.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מַעֲבִירִין עַל טׇהֳרַת עֲזָרָה? מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם: הִזָּהֲרוּ
MISHNA: How do they pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification? They immerse the vessels that were in the Temple. And they say to the am ha’aretz priests who served in the Temple during the Festival: Be careful
שֶׁלֹּא תִּגְּעוּ בַּשֻּׁלְחָן.
that you not touch the table of the shewbread. If you defile it by touching it, it would need to be removed for immersion, and this would lead to the temporary suspension of the mitzva of the shewbread, which had to be on the table at all times.
כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ יֵשׁ לָהֶם שְׁנִיִּים וּשְׁלִישִׁים, שֶׁאִם נִטְמְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים — יָבִיאוּ שְׁנִיִּים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ טְעוּנִין טְבִילָה, חוּץ מִמִּזְבַּח הַזָּהָב וּמִזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין.
The mishna continues: All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third substitute vessels, so that if the first ones became impure they could bring the second ones in their place. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion after the Festival, apart from the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they are considered like the ground and therefore, like land itself, not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: It is because they are coated.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: הִזָּהֲרוּ שֶׁמָּא תִּגְּעוּ בַּשּׁוּלְחָן וּבַמְּנוֹרָה. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי מְנוֹרָה? שֻׁלְחָן כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״תָּמִיד״, מְנוֹרָה לָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״תָּמִיד״.
GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am ha’aretz priests: Be careful lest you touch the table, as explained above, or the candelabrum, as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: And regarding the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he did not teach that they were instructed not to touch the candelabrum as well? The Gemara answers: With regard to the table it is written: “Shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30), indicating that the table holding the shewbread must always be in its place, whereas with regard to the candelabrum it is not written “always,” and therefore it can be removed for immersing.
וְאִידָּךְ: כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״תָּמִיד״ דָּמֵי. וְאִידָּךְ: הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara asks: And regarding the other tanna, in the baraita, why does he include the candelabrum? The Gemara answers: Since it is written: “And you shall set the table without the veil and the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35), indicating that the candelabrum must always be placed opposite the table; it is as though it is written “always” with regard to the candelabrum as well. And the other tanna, in the mishna, who does not object to removing the candelabrum for immersion, would reply: That verse comes only to establish a place for the candelabrum, to describe where it must be positioned, but it does not mean to say that it must be opposite the table at all times.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי דִּכְלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת הוּא, וְכׇל כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת לָא מְטַמֵּא. מַאי טַעְמָא — דּוּמְיָא דְשַׂק בָּעֵינַן: מָה שַׂק מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָם — אַף כֹּל מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָם!
The Gemara poses a question concerning the requirement to keep amei ha’aretz away from the table: And let us derive it, i.e., let it be established, that it is not necessary to take care against contact with the table, as it is incapable of contracting ritual impurity. This is because it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and the halakha is that any large, wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place cannot become impure. What is the reason for this halakha? Since wooden vessels and sacks are juxtaposed in the verse describing their impurity (Leviticus 11:32), we require a wooden vessel to be similar to a sack in order to be capable of contracting impurity, in the following manner: Just as a sack is carried when it is both full and empty, so too any wooden vessel that is carried full and empty can contract impurity, as opposed to vessels, such as the table, that are designated to rest in a fixed place. The table should therefore not be susceptible to impurity at all.
הַאי נָמֵי מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָם הוּא, כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן הַטָּהוֹר״, מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.
The Gemara answers: The table too is in fact carried full and empty, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish. For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table” (Leviticus 24:6)? The words “pure table” teach by inference that it is capable of becoming impure, and therefore the Torah warns us to make sure it is pure when the twelve loaves of bread are placed there.
וְאַמַּאי? כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת הוּא, וְאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּגְבִּיהִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַרְאִין בּוֹ לְעוֹלֵי רְגָלִים לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְאוֹמְרִים לָהֶם: רְאוּ חִיבַּתְכֶם לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, סִילּוּקוֹ כְּסִידּוּרוֹ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נֵס גָּדוֹל נַעֲשָׂה בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, כְּסִידּוּרוֹ כָּךְ סִילּוּקוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָשׂוּם לֶחֶם חוֹם בְּיוֹם הִלָּקְחוֹ״.
And why indeed is the table susceptible to ritual impurity, being that it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place and should therefore not be susceptible to impurity? Rather, this verse teaches that they would lift the table with the shewbread on it to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, as it was prohibited for Israelites to enter the Sanctuary, where the table stood, and they would say to them: Behold your affection before God, Who performs a perpetual miracle with the bread, for when it is removed from the table on Shabbat it is just as fresh as when it was arranged on the previous Shabbat. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: As its condition during its arrangement, so was its condition during its removal, as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away” (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי מִשּׁוּם צִיפּוּי. דְּהָתְנַן: הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְהַדּוּלְפְּקֵי שֶׁנִּפְחֲתוּ, אוֹ שֶׁחִיפָּן בְּשַׁיִישׁ, וְשִׁיֵּיר בָּהֶם מְקוֹם הַנָּחַת כּוֹסוֹת — טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מָקוֹם הַנָּחַת הַחֲתִיכוֹת.
The Gemara asks another question: Let us derive this fact, i.e., that the table can contract ritual impurity, not because it is portable but due to its golden coating. For didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 22:1): Concerning a table and a dulpaki that some of its surface became broken off, or that one coated with marble, i.e., stone not being susceptible to impurity: If he left on them a place on the surface that remained unbroken or uncoated, big enough for placing cups, it remains susceptible to impurity as a wooden vessel. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have an unbroken and uncoated place big enough for placing pieces of meat and bread as well in order to maintain susceptibility to impurity as a wooden vessel. It is clear from this mishna that if a table is completely coated with stone it is not susceptible to impurity, showing that the status of a vessel follows its external coating, not its main material. The Temple table, which was coated with gold, should have the status of a metal vessel.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: שָׁאנֵי עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים דַּחֲשִׁיבִי וְלָא בָּטְלִי, הָנִיחָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּכְלֵי אֶכְּסְלָגֵים הַבָּאִין מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, אֲבָל בִּכְלֵי מְסִמֵים — לָא בָּטְלִי, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלֵי מְסִמֵים נָמֵי בָּטְלִי, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara proposes a possible answer: And if you would say that acacia wood, from which the Temple table was made, is different, as it is an important, valuable kind of wood and is therefore not nullified by a coating, this works out well according to Reish Lakish, who said: They taught that a wooden vessel is nullified by its coating only with regard to vessels made of cheap akhselag wood which comes from overseas, but vessels made of expensive masmi wood are not nullified by a coating. According to this opinion it is fine, for we can say that the acacia wood of the table is also not nullified by its golden coating. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: Even expensive masmi vessels are also nullified by a coating, what is there to say?
וְכִי תֵּימָא: כָּאן בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד, כָּאן בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד — הָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד, אוֹ בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד? בְּחוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו, אוֹ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו?
The Gemara proposes another possible answer: And if you would say that the mishna is not applicable because here in the mishna the wood is nullified by its coating because it is speaking of a fixed coating, whereas there in the case of the Temple table the golden coating is not fixed onto the wood, this is impossible. For didn’t Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Does this law that vessels follow their coating deal only with a fixed coating or even with a coating that is not fixed? And he asked him further: Does it deal only with a coating that covers the table’s rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁנָא בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד, לָא שְׁנָא בְּחוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו. אֶלָּא: שָׁאנֵי שֻׁלְחָן —
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in response: It is not different if it is a fixed coating and it is not different if it is a coating that is not fixed; and it is not different if the coating covers the table’s rim and it is not different if it does not cover its rim. Therefore, since the coating always determines the status of the vessel, the Temple table, with its gold coating, should be susceptible to impurity. Rather, we must say a different explanation as to why the coating does not make the table susceptible to impurity: The table is different
דְּרַחֲמָנָא קַרְיֵיהּ ״עֵץ״, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עֵץ שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת גָּבוֹהַּ וְאׇרְכּוֹ שְׁתַּיִם אַמּוֹת וּמִקְצֹעוֹתָיו לוֹ וְאׇרְכּוֹ וְקִירוֹתָיו עֵץ וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלַי זֶה הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
because the Merciful One called it: “Wood,” as it is written with regard to the table of the shewbread: “The altar, three cubits high, and its length two cubits, was of wood, and so its corners, its length, and its walls were also of wood, and he said to me: This is the table that is before the Lord” (Ezekiel 41:22). This verse indicates that even though the table was coated, its identity as a wooden vessel was preserved, which means that, like all wooden vessels, it would not be susceptible to impurity were it not for the fact that they took it out to show to the pilgrims.
פָּתַח בְּמִזְבֵּחַ וְסִיֵּים בְּשֻׁלְחָן! רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — מִזְבֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל אָדָם, עַכְשָׁיו — שֻׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְכַפֵּר עָלָיו.
As the Gemara has cited the above verse, it clarifies a puzzling aspect of it: The verse began with the word “altar” and ended with the word “table,” both words describing the same item. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say the following exposition: When the Temple is standing the altar atones for a person; now that the Temple has been destroyed, it is a person’s table that atones for him, for his feeding of needy guests atones for his sins.
כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ יֵשׁ לָהֶם שְׁנִיִּים כּוּ׳. מִזְבַּח הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי״. מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַמְּנוֹרָה וְהַמִּזְבְּחוֹת״ — אִיתַּקּוּשׁ מִזְבְּחוֹת זֶה לָזֶה.
§ The mishna taught: All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third substitute vessels, etc. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion, apart from the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they are considered like the ground. The Gemara cites the relevant sources: The bronze altar is considered like the ground, as it written concerning this altar: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21). The golden altar is considered like the ground, as it is written: “The candelabrum and the altars” (Numbers 3:31). The plural word “altars” indicates that the two altars of the Temple, the bronze one and the golden one, are compared to each other, teaching that just as the bronze altar is like the ground in that it cannot contract impurity, the same applies to the golden altar.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין. אַדְּרַבָּה: כֵּיוָן דִּמְצוּפִּין נִינְהוּ — מִיטַּמְּאוּ! אֵימָא, וַחֲכָמִים: מְטַמְּאִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין.
§ According to the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the altars are pure because they are like the ground, and the Rabbis say: It is because they are coated. The mishna seems to be saying that the Rabbis are offering a different reason for the altars not being susceptible to impurity, namely, that they are coated. The Gemara is puzzled by this: On the contrary, since they are coated with gold or bronze that is a reason that they should contract impurity, as the metal coating makes the entire altar considered as a metal vessel, as stated above, and metal is susceptible to impurity. The Gemara answers: Say and emend the mishna text as follows: And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer altogether, and declare the altars to be susceptible to impurity, because they are coated.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָאָמְרִי: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ, מִשּׁוּם דִּמְצוּפִּין —
And if you wish, say that our text of the mishna is correct, and we should understand that the Rabbis were saying their statement in response to Rabbi Eliezer: What is your reasoning for stating that the altars are not susceptible to impurity because they are like the ground? Why didn’t you say simply that they are wooden vessels fixed in one place? For that is sufficient reason for them not to be susceptible to impurity. Is it because they are coated with metal, and therefore they would be considered metal vessels rather than wooden ones, and susceptible to impurity, were it not for the fact that they are considered like the ground?
מִיבְטָל בָּטֵיל צִפּוּיָין גַּבַּיְיהוּ.
This is a mistake, for the coating is not important, and their coating is nullified and considered subordinate to them, so that they are indeed considered wooden vessels in a fixed place and therefore not susceptible to impurity. Although generally the status of a vessel does follow its coating, the Temple table and its altars are exceptions, as derived from the verse in Ezekiel cited above (41:22). There is therefore no need to mention that they are compared to the ground. Since these altars are made of wood they do not contract impurity, irrespective of whether or not they are attached to the ground.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין אוּר שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶן, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִסָּלָמַנְדְּרָא: וּמָה סָלָמַנְדְּרָא שֶׁתּוֹלֶדֶת אֵשׁ הִיא — הַסָּךְ מִדָּמָהּ אֵין אוּר שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ, תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁכׇּל גּוּפָן אֵשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם ה׳״ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
§ Apropos the coating of the altar, the Gemara cites an Aggadic teaching: Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: The fire of Gehenna has no power over Torah scholars. This can be derived by an a fortiori inference from the salamander [salamandra], a creature created out of fire and immune to its effects, and whose blood is fireproof: If a salamander, which is merely a product of fire, and nevertheless when one anoints his body with its blood, fire has no power over him, all the more so should fire not have any power over Torah scholars, whose entire bodies are fire, as it is written: “Surely My words are as fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29), and the words of Torah become part of the Torah scholars’ very bodies.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין אוּר שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם שׁוֹלֶטֶת בְּפוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמִּזְבַּח הַזָּהָב: מָה מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו אֶלָּא כְּעוֹבִי דִּינַר זָהָב — כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אֵין הָאוּר שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ, פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמְּלֵאִין מִצְוֹת כְּרִמּוֹן, דִּכְתִיב: ״כְּפֶלַח הָרִמּוֹן רַקָּתֵךְ״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״רַקָּתֵךְ״, אֶלָּא: רֵקָנִין שֶׁבָּךְ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
Reish Lakish said: The fire of Gehenna has no power over the sinners of Israel either. This can be derived by an a fortiori inference from the golden altar: If the golden altar, which has on it a coating that is no more than the thickness of a gold dinar, and which has incense burning on it for many years and yet fire has no power over it, as the gold miraculously remained undamaged, all the more so should immunity from fire be granted to the sinners of Israel, who are filled with good deeds as a pomegranate is full of seeds, as it is written: “Your temples [rakatekh] are like a pomegranate split open” (Song of Songs 4:3), which is to be expounded as follows: Do not read this word as rakatekh, rather read it as reikanin shebakh, meaning the empty, worthless people among you; even these people are as full of good deeds as a pomegranate is full of seeds.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ חוֹמֶר בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת חֲגִיגָה
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Chagigah 26-27
אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן יוֹצְאִין — כְּלַחוּץ.
or both are leaving it, it is considered like outside the perimeter and the ḥaver may not acquire vessels from him. The reason is that if they are both entering the perimeter they can easily wait until they are inside and then conduct the transaction, and if they are both leaving they should have completed the deal beforehand, and the ḥaver may not make up for this lapse by doing so now.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַקַּדָּר שֶׁמָּכַר אֶת הַקְּדֵירוֹת וְנִכְנַס לִפְנִים מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִים. טַעְמָא דְּלִפְנִים מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִים, הָא מוֹדִיעִים גּוּפַהּ — לָא מְהֵימַן. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: יָצָא — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. הָא מוֹדִיעִים גּוּפָהּ — נֶאֱמָן. אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן בְּקַדָּר יוֹצֵא וְחָבֵר נִכְנָס, כָּאן בְּשֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן יוֹצְאִין אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן נִכְנָסִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye said: We, too, learn this in the mishna. For it is taught there: A potter who was selling pots and entered within the Modi’im area is deemed credible, which indicates that the only reason he is deemed credible is that he is inside the Modi’im area, thus implying that in Modi’im itself he is not deemed credible. But now say the latter clause of the mishna: If he left he is not deemed credible, thus implying that in Modi’im itself he is deemed credible, which contradicts the previous inference. Rather, must one not conclude from the mishna the following distinction: Here, in the latter clause, it is referring to a potter who is leaving and a ḥaver who is entering, in which case he is deemed credible; and there, in the first clause, it is referring to a situation where they are both leaving or both entering, in which case he is not deemed credible. Consequently, both inferences from the mishna are upheld. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.
תָּנָא: נֶאֱמָנִין בִּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הַדַּקִּין לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּיטָּלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁאֵין נִיטָּלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת.
§ A tanna taught in the Tosefta (3:33): All people, including amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to purity from Modi’im and inward only with regard to small earthenware vessels, and they may be used for sacrificial food. Since these small vessels were needed by all, the Sages deemed the amei ha’aretz credible concerning them. The amora’im discussed the meaning of the term small vessels. Reish Lakish said: It is speaking of those vessels that can be picked up in one hand, but no larger. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if they cannot be picked up in one hand, they can still be called small vessels.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא רֵיקָנִין, אֲבָל מְלֵאִין — לֹא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מְלֵאִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַפִּיקָרְסוּתוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ. וְאָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמַשְׁקִין עַצְמָן, שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאִין. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי לָגִין מָלֵא מַשְׁקִין — לָגִין טְמֵאִין טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וּמַשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין.
Reish Lakish said further: They taught in the baraita only that amei ha’aretz are deemed credible with regard to empty vessels, but if they are full of liquid they are not deemed credible. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the jugs are full, and even if his garment [apikarsuto] is inside the vessel, the Sages were not concerned about impurity, as they did not apply their decree to such vessels at all. And Rava said: And Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes with regard to the liquids themselves in the vessel that they are impure, for although the Sages declared the vessels to be pure they did not waive the decree that liquids touched by amei ha’aretz are impure. And do not be perplexed by this apparent contradiction, for there is a similar halakha in a case of an earthenware pitcher full of liquid in a room with a corpse and the pitcher is tightly sealed with another earthenware vessel of an am ha’aretz, where the halakha is that the pitcher is impure with a seven-day impurity, while the liquids remain pure.
מַתְנִי׳ הַגַּבָּאִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְכֵן הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים — נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר: לֹא נָגַעְנוּ. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה.
MISHNA: In the case of amei ha’aretz tax collectors who entered a house to collect items for a tax, and similarly thieves who returned the vessels they had stolen, they are deemed credible when they say: We did not touch the rest of the objects in the house, and those items remain pure. And in Jerusalem all people, even amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, and during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי: הַגַּבָּאִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיכָּא גּוֹי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא גּוֹי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. דִּתְנַן: אִם יֶשׁ גּוֹי עִמָּהֶן — נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר ״לֹא נִכְנַסְנוּ״, אֲבָל אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר ״נִכְנַסְנוּ אֲבָל לֹא נָגַעְנוּ״.
GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Teharot 7:6): If amei ha’aretz tax collectors entered a house, the entire house is impure. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as that mishna is referring to a situation where there is a gentile with them, in which case they conduct a thorough search in the whole house, and certainly will have touched everything; whereas this mishna deals with a case when there is no gentile with them, and their claim not to have touched anything is therefore accepted. As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 7:6): If there is a gentile with the tax collectors, they are deemed credible if they were to say: We did not enter the house at all; but they are not deemed credible if they were to say: We entered the house but did not touch its vessels.
וְכִי אִיכָּא גּוֹי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ מַאי הָוֵי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: אֵימַת גּוֹי עֲלֵיהֶן. וְחַד אָמַר: אֵימַת מַלְכוּת עֲלֵיהֶן. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ גּוֹי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּב.
The Gemara raises a question: And when there is a gentile with them, what of it? Why does this affect the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disputed this issue. One said: The fear of the gentile, who is their senior, is upon them, for they are afraid he might punish them. And one said: The fear of the kingdom, i.e., the government, is upon them, as the gentile might report them to the authorities if they do not carry out a thorough search. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is the case of a gentile who is not important, i.e., he does not have senior authority. In that case they are not afraid of him personally, but there is still concern that he might report them to the government authorities.
וְכֵן הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת — אֵינוֹ טָמֵא אֶלָּא מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי הַגַּנָּבִים. אָמַר רַב פִּנְחָס מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: כְּשֶׁעָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
§ It is taught in the mishna: And similarly thieves who returned vessels are deemed credible. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Teharot 7:6): Concerning the thieves who entered a house, only the place where the feet of the thieves had trodden is impure. The implication is that all the vessels of the section of the house where they had entered are impure, and they are not deemed credible if they say that they did not touch a particular item. Rav Pinḥas said in the name of Rav: The mishna here is referring to a case where the thieves repented, which is why they are deemed credible, whereas the mishna in Teharot is referring to a case in which the thieves did not repent. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Thieves who returned vessels, which indicates that they repented and made restoration willingly. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.
וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. תָּנָא: נֶאֱמָנִין עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס גַּסִּין לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה — שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כִּבְשׁוֹנוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
§ The mishna teaches: And in Jerusalem all people are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food. A tanna taught in a baraita: They are deemed credible even with regard to large earthenware vessels for sacrificial food, and not only small ones. And why did the Sages exhibit so much leniency, waiving their regular decrees of impurity within Jerusalem for large vessels and all the way to Modi’im for small vessels? Because there is a principle that potters’ kilns may not be made in Jerusalem, in order to preserve the quality of the air in the city. It is therefore necessary to bring in earthenware vessels from outside the city, and consequently the Sages were lenient concerning such utensils.
וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיֵּאָסֵף כׇּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל הָעִיר כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד חֲבֵרִים״, הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּן חֲבֵרִים.
§ It was taught in the mishna: And during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma. The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived, i.e., that there is a difference between Festival days and other periods? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse states concerning the incident of the concubine in Gibeah: “And all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [ḥaverim]” (Judges 20:11). This verse is interpreted to teach that whenever the entire people of Israel gathers together in a single place, the Torah makes, i.e., considers, all of them ḥaverim. The final word of the phrase, ḥaverim, is a reference to the members of a group dedicated to scrupulous observance of mitzvot, as the term is used by the Sages.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת חָבִיתוֹ, וְהַמַּתְחִיל בְּעִיסָּתוֹ עַל גַּב הָרֶגֶל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יִגְמוֹר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִגְמוֹר.
MISHNA: In the case of one who opens his barrel of wine for public sale, and similarly one who starts selling his dough during the time of the pilgrimage Festival, and these items perforce come into contact with amei ha’aretz, Rabbi Yehuda says: Since the food was pure, despite its contact with amei ha’aretz, when he began selling it, he may finish selling it in a state of purity even after the Festival, and there is no concern about the contact that has been made by amei ha’aretz during the Festival. But the Rabbis say: He may not finish selling it.
גְּמָ׳ יָתֵיב רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, פְּתַח חַד וַאֲמַר: מַהוּ שֶׁיַּנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר?
GEMARA: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa were once sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. One of them opened the discussion and said: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility of him leaving his wine for another, subsequent pilgrimage Festival and continuing to sell it at that point? Although according to the Rabbis one may not continue selling it once the Festival has concluded, may he leave the barrel aside until the next Festival, at which point it would once again be able to be sold in purity?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: יַד הַכֹּל מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ עַד הָאִידָּנָא לָאו יַד הַכֹּל מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בָּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא עַד הָאִידָּנָא, טוּמְאַת עַם הָאָרֶץ בָּרֶגֶל רַחֲמָנָא טַהֲרַהּ, אֶלָּא הַשְׁתָּא טְמֵאָה הִיא.
The other Sage said to him: Everyone’s hand has touched it, and yet you are saying that perhaps he may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then sell it in purity? How could such a possibility even be considered? He said back to him: Is that to say that until now, throughout the Festival, everyone’s hand was not touching it? It was permitted during the Festival despite the fact that everyone was touching it; apparently, their touching did not render it impure at all. He said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, until now, the Merciful One declares pure the impurity of the am ha’aretz during the Festival, and consequently his impurity is disregarded, but now that the Festival has passed, the touch of an am ha’aretz is once again considered impure.
נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר. מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?
The Gemara suggests: Let us say this dispute between amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. For it is taught in one baraita: He may leave it for another pilgrimage Festival and then continue to sell it. And it was taught in a different baraita: He may not leave it for another Festival. What, is it not so that this very issue is a dispute between these two tanna’im, the authors of these two baraitot?
לָא, הָא דְּקָתָנֵי יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבָּנַן. וְתִסְבְּרָא? הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, יִגְמוֹר קָאָמַר?! אֶלָּא: הָא דְּקָתָנֵי לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי יַנִּיחֶנָּה — רַבָּנַן. וּמַאי לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה — שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַנִּיחָהּ.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible that this baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, follows the opinion, cited in the mishna, of Rabbi Yehuda, who allows the wine seller to finish selling his wine after the Festival, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit him to finish it. The Gemara questions this conclusion: And how can you understand it that way? Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say he may finish it after the Festival? Consequently, there would be no need for him to leave it for another Festival. Rather, say as follows: This baraita, which teaches that he may not leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that baraita, which teaches that he may leave it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what is the meaning of the statement: He may not leave it for another Festival? It means that he has no need to leave it for another Festival, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains he can finish selling it in purity immediately.
מַתְנִי׳ מִשֶּׁעָבַר הָרֶגֶל — מַעֲבִירִין עַל טׇהֳרַת הָעֲזָרָה. עָבַר הָרֶגֶל לְיוֹם שִׁשִּׁי — לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲבִירִין, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא בְּיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי, שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּנוּיִין.
MISHNA: Once the pilgrimage Festival has passed by, the priests pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification, since they were touched by am ha’aretz priests during the Festival. If the Festival passed by into a Friday, i.e., if the Festival ended on Thursday night, they would not pass the vessels through the purification process on that day, due to the honor of Shabbat, in order to give the priests time to prepare the requirements of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: They do not even purify them on Thursday, in the event that the Festival ended on Wednesday night, because the priests are not free to do so.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּנוּיִין מִלְּהוֹצִיא בַּדֶּשֶׁן.
GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita, in explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s words: The priests do not purify the vessels of the Temple courtyard on Thursday, as the priests are not free from removing the ashes. During the Festival days a large quantity of ash would accumulate on the altar, due to the large number of offerings brought at that time. Because they would not remove the ashes on the Festival itself, they would have to remove a very large amount afterward. Consequently, all the priests were kept busy with this task upon the conclusion of the Festival, which did not leave them with enough time to deal with other matters.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מַעֲבִירִין עַל טׇהֳרַת עֲזָרָה? מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם: הִזָּהֲרוּ
MISHNA: How do they pass all the vessels of the Temple courtyard through a process of purification? They immerse the vessels that were in the Temple. And they say to the am ha’aretz priests who served in the Temple during the Festival: Be careful
שֶׁלֹּא תִּגְּעוּ בַּשֻּׁלְחָן.
that you not touch the table of the shewbread. If you defile it by touching it, it would need to be removed for immersion, and this would lead to the temporary suspension of the mitzva of the shewbread, which had to be on the table at all times.
כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ יֵשׁ לָהֶם שְׁנִיִּים וּשְׁלִישִׁים, שֶׁאִם נִטְמְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים — יָבִיאוּ שְׁנִיִּים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ טְעוּנִין טְבִילָה, חוּץ מִמִּזְבַּח הַזָּהָב וּמִזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין.
The mishna continues: All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third substitute vessels, so that if the first ones became impure they could bring the second ones in their place. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion after the Festival, apart from the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they are considered like the ground and therefore, like land itself, not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: It is because they are coated.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: הִזָּהֲרוּ שֶׁמָּא תִּגְּעוּ בַּשּׁוּלְחָן וּבַמְּנוֹרָה. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי מְנוֹרָה? שֻׁלְחָן כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״תָּמִיד״, מְנוֹרָה לָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״תָּמִיד״.
GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am ha’aretz priests: Be careful lest you touch the table, as explained above, or the candelabrum, as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: And regarding the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he did not teach that they were instructed not to touch the candelabrum as well? The Gemara answers: With regard to the table it is written: “Shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30), indicating that the table holding the shewbread must always be in its place, whereas with regard to the candelabrum it is not written “always,” and therefore it can be removed for immersing.
וְאִידָּךְ: כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״תָּמִיד״ דָּמֵי. וְאִידָּךְ: הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara asks: And regarding the other tanna, in the baraita, why does he include the candelabrum? The Gemara answers: Since it is written: “And you shall set the table without the veil and the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35), indicating that the candelabrum must always be placed opposite the table; it is as though it is written “always” with regard to the candelabrum as well. And the other tanna, in the mishna, who does not object to removing the candelabrum for immersion, would reply: That verse comes only to establish a place for the candelabrum, to describe where it must be positioned, but it does not mean to say that it must be opposite the table at all times.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי דִּכְלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת הוּא, וְכׇל כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת לָא מְטַמֵּא. מַאי טַעְמָא — דּוּמְיָא דְשַׂק בָּעֵינַן: מָה שַׂק מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָם — אַף כֹּל מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָם!
The Gemara poses a question concerning the requirement to keep amei ha’aretz away from the table: And let us derive it, i.e., let it be established, that it is not necessary to take care against contact with the table, as it is incapable of contracting ritual impurity. This is because it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and the halakha is that any large, wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place cannot become impure. What is the reason for this halakha? Since wooden vessels and sacks are juxtaposed in the verse describing their impurity (Leviticus 11:32), we require a wooden vessel to be similar to a sack in order to be capable of contracting impurity, in the following manner: Just as a sack is carried when it is both full and empty, so too any wooden vessel that is carried full and empty can contract impurity, as opposed to vessels, such as the table, that are designated to rest in a fixed place. The table should therefore not be susceptible to impurity at all.
הַאי נָמֵי מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָם הוּא, כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן הַטָּהוֹר״, מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.
The Gemara answers: The table too is in fact carried full and empty, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish. For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table” (Leviticus 24:6)? The words “pure table” teach by inference that it is capable of becoming impure, and therefore the Torah warns us to make sure it is pure when the twelve loaves of bread are placed there.
וְאַמַּאי? כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת הוּא, וְאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּגְבִּיהִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַרְאִין בּוֹ לְעוֹלֵי רְגָלִים לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְאוֹמְרִים לָהֶם: רְאוּ חִיבַּתְכֶם לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, סִילּוּקוֹ כְּסִידּוּרוֹ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נֵס גָּדוֹל נַעֲשָׂה בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, כְּסִידּוּרוֹ כָּךְ סִילּוּקוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָשׂוּם לֶחֶם חוֹם בְּיוֹם הִלָּקְחוֹ״.
And why indeed is the table susceptible to ritual impurity, being that it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place and should therefore not be susceptible to impurity? Rather, this verse teaches that they would lift the table with the shewbread on it to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, as it was prohibited for Israelites to enter the Sanctuary, where the table stood, and they would say to them: Behold your affection before God, Who performs a perpetual miracle with the bread, for when it is removed from the table on Shabbat it is just as fresh as when it was arranged on the previous Shabbat. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: As its condition during its arrangement, so was its condition during its removal, as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away” (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי מִשּׁוּם צִיפּוּי. דְּהָתְנַן: הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְהַדּוּלְפְּקֵי שֶׁנִּפְחֲתוּ, אוֹ שֶׁחִיפָּן בְּשַׁיִישׁ, וְשִׁיֵּיר בָּהֶם מְקוֹם הַנָּחַת כּוֹסוֹת — טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מָקוֹם הַנָּחַת הַחֲתִיכוֹת.
The Gemara asks another question: Let us derive this fact, i.e., that the table can contract ritual impurity, not because it is portable but due to its golden coating. For didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 22:1): Concerning a table and a dulpaki that some of its surface became broken off, or that one coated with marble, i.e., stone not being susceptible to impurity: If he left on them a place on the surface that remained unbroken or uncoated, big enough for placing cups, it remains susceptible to impurity as a wooden vessel. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have an unbroken and uncoated place big enough for placing pieces of meat and bread as well in order to maintain susceptibility to impurity as a wooden vessel. It is clear from this mishna that if a table is completely coated with stone it is not susceptible to impurity, showing that the status of a vessel follows its external coating, not its main material. The Temple table, which was coated with gold, should have the status of a metal vessel.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: שָׁאנֵי עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים דַּחֲשִׁיבִי וְלָא בָּטְלִי, הָנִיחָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּכְלֵי אֶכְּסְלָגֵים הַבָּאִין מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, אֲבָל בִּכְלֵי מְסִמֵים — לָא בָּטְלִי, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלֵי מְסִמֵים נָמֵי בָּטְלִי, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara proposes a possible answer: And if you would say that acacia wood, from which the Temple table was made, is different, as it is an important, valuable kind of wood and is therefore not nullified by a coating, this works out well according to Reish Lakish, who said: They taught that a wooden vessel is nullified by its coating only with regard to vessels made of cheap akhselag wood which comes from overseas, but vessels made of expensive masmi wood are not nullified by a coating. According to this opinion it is fine, for we can say that the acacia wood of the table is also not nullified by its golden coating. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: Even expensive masmi vessels are also nullified by a coating, what is there to say?
וְכִי תֵּימָא: כָּאן בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד, כָּאן בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד — הָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד, אוֹ בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד? בְּחוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו, אוֹ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו?
The Gemara proposes another possible answer: And if you would say that the mishna is not applicable because here in the mishna the wood is nullified by its coating because it is speaking of a fixed coating, whereas there in the case of the Temple table the golden coating is not fixed onto the wood, this is impossible. For didn’t Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Does this law that vessels follow their coating deal only with a fixed coating or even with a coating that is not fixed? And he asked him further: Does it deal only with a coating that covers the table’s rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁנָא בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד, לָא שְׁנָא בְּחוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה אֶת לְבִזְבְּזָיו. אֶלָּא: שָׁאנֵי שֻׁלְחָן —
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in response: It is not different if it is a fixed coating and it is not different if it is a coating that is not fixed; and it is not different if the coating covers the table’s rim and it is not different if it does not cover its rim. Therefore, since the coating always determines the status of the vessel, the Temple table, with its gold coating, should be susceptible to impurity. Rather, we must say a different explanation as to why the coating does not make the table susceptible to impurity: The table is different
דְּרַחֲמָנָא קַרְיֵיהּ ״עֵץ״, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עֵץ שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת גָּבוֹהַּ וְאׇרְכּוֹ שְׁתַּיִם אַמּוֹת וּמִקְצֹעוֹתָיו לוֹ וְאׇרְכּוֹ וְקִירוֹתָיו עֵץ וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלַי זֶה הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
because the Merciful One called it: “Wood,” as it is written with regard to the table of the shewbread: “The altar, three cubits high, and its length two cubits, was of wood, and so its corners, its length, and its walls were also of wood, and he said to me: This is the table that is before the Lord” (Ezekiel 41:22). This verse indicates that even though the table was coated, its identity as a wooden vessel was preserved, which means that, like all wooden vessels, it would not be susceptible to impurity were it not for the fact that they took it out to show to the pilgrims.
פָּתַח בְּמִזְבֵּחַ וְסִיֵּים בְּשֻׁלְחָן! רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — מִזְבֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל אָדָם, עַכְשָׁיו — שֻׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְכַפֵּר עָלָיו.
As the Gemara has cited the above verse, it clarifies a puzzling aspect of it: The verse began with the word “altar” and ended with the word “table,” both words describing the same item. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say the following exposition: When the Temple is standing the altar atones for a person; now that the Temple has been destroyed, it is a person’s table that atones for him, for his feeding of needy guests atones for his sins.
כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ יֵשׁ לָהֶם שְׁנִיִּים כּוּ׳. מִזְבַּח הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי״. מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַמְּנוֹרָה וְהַמִּזְבְּחוֹת״ — אִיתַּקּוּשׁ מִזְבְּחוֹת זֶה לָזֶה.
§ The mishna taught: All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third substitute vessels, etc. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion, apart from the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they are considered like the ground. The Gemara cites the relevant sources: The bronze altar is considered like the ground, as it written concerning this altar: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21). The golden altar is considered like the ground, as it is written: “The candelabrum and the altars” (Numbers 3:31). The plural word “altars” indicates that the two altars of the Temple, the bronze one and the golden one, are compared to each other, teaching that just as the bronze altar is like the ground in that it cannot contract impurity, the same applies to the golden altar.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין. אַדְּרַבָּה: כֵּיוָן דִּמְצוּפִּין נִינְהוּ — מִיטַּמְּאוּ! אֵימָא, וַחֲכָמִים: מְטַמְּאִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין.
§ According to the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the altars are pure because they are like the ground, and the Rabbis say: It is because they are coated. The mishna seems to be saying that the Rabbis are offering a different reason for the altars not being susceptible to impurity, namely, that they are coated. The Gemara is puzzled by this: On the contrary, since they are coated with gold or bronze that is a reason that they should contract impurity, as the metal coating makes the entire altar considered as a metal vessel, as stated above, and metal is susceptible to impurity. The Gemara answers: Say and emend the mishna text as follows: And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer altogether, and declare the altars to be susceptible to impurity, because they are coated.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָאָמְרִי: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ, מִשּׁוּם דִּמְצוּפִּין —
And if you wish, say that our text of the mishna is correct, and we should understand that the Rabbis were saying their statement in response to Rabbi Eliezer: What is your reasoning for stating that the altars are not susceptible to impurity because they are like the ground? Why didn’t you say simply that they are wooden vessels fixed in one place? For that is sufficient reason for them not to be susceptible to impurity. Is it because they are coated with metal, and therefore they would be considered metal vessels rather than wooden ones, and susceptible to impurity, were it not for the fact that they are considered like the ground?
מִיבְטָל בָּטֵיל צִפּוּיָין גַּבַּיְיהוּ.
This is a mistake, for the coating is not important, and their coating is nullified and considered subordinate to them, so that they are indeed considered wooden vessels in a fixed place and therefore not susceptible to impurity. Although generally the status of a vessel does follow its coating, the Temple table and its altars are exceptions, as derived from the verse in Ezekiel cited above (41:22). There is therefore no need to mention that they are compared to the ground. Since these altars are made of wood they do not contract impurity, irrespective of whether or not they are attached to the ground.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין אוּר שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶן, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִסָּלָמַנְדְּרָא: וּמָה סָלָמַנְדְּרָא שֶׁתּוֹלֶדֶת אֵשׁ הִיא — הַסָּךְ מִדָּמָהּ אֵין אוּר שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ, תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁכׇּל גּוּפָן אֵשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם ה׳״ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
§ Apropos the coating of the altar, the Gemara cites an Aggadic teaching: Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: The fire of Gehenna has no power over Torah scholars. This can be derived by an a fortiori inference from the salamander [salamandra], a creature created out of fire and immune to its effects, and whose blood is fireproof: If a salamander, which is merely a product of fire, and nevertheless when one anoints his body with its blood, fire has no power over him, all the more so should fire not have any power over Torah scholars, whose entire bodies are fire, as it is written: “Surely My words are as fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29), and the words of Torah become part of the Torah scholars’ very bodies.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין אוּר שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם שׁוֹלֶטֶת בְּפוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמִּזְבַּח הַזָּהָב: מָה מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו אֶלָּא כְּעוֹבִי דִּינַר זָהָב — כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אֵין הָאוּר שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ, פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמְּלֵאִין מִצְוֹת כְּרִמּוֹן, דִּכְתִיב: ״כְּפֶלַח הָרִמּוֹן רַקָּתֵךְ״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״רַקָּתֵךְ״, אֶלָּא: רֵקָנִין שֶׁבָּךְ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
Reish Lakish said: The fire of Gehenna has no power over the sinners of Israel either. This can be derived by an a fortiori inference from the golden altar: If the golden altar, which has on it a coating that is no more than the thickness of a gold dinar, and which has incense burning on it for many years and yet fire has no power over it, as the gold miraculously remained undamaged, all the more so should immunity from fire be granted to the sinners of Israel, who are filled with good deeds as a pomegranate is full of seeds, as it is written: “Your temples [rakatekh] are like a pomegranate split open” (Song of Songs 4:3), which is to be expounded as follows: Do not read this word as rakatekh, rather read it as reikanin shebakh, meaning the empty, worthless people among you; even these people are as full of good deeds as a pomegranate is full of seeds.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ חוֹמֶר בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת חֲגִיגָה
