Chagigah 23bחגיגה כ״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chagigah 23b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
23bכ״ג ב

עשאוה כטמא שרץ

as they treated the tube with severity as though it had been rendered impure by contact with a dead creeping animal. Therefore, in not requiring the setting of the sun they made it noticeable that they were opposed to the Sadducees.

אלא מעתה לא תטמא אדם אלמה תניא חותכה ומטבילה טעון טבילה ואלא עשאוה כטמא מת אי הכי תיבעי הזאת שלישי ושביעי

The Gemara raises a difficulty. However, if that is so, that the tube is treated as if defiled by a creeping animal, it should not render a person impure, as something defiled by a creeping animal is impure to the first degree of ritual impurity, which cannot impart ritual impurity to people. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses the tube for the red heifer ashes requires immersion himself, which shows that the tube does defile people? But rather, say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse, for such objects do defile people as well. The Gemara asks: If that is so, the tube should also require the sprinkling of the water of purification on the third and seventh days of its purification, like all things defiled by a corpse.

אלמה תניא חותכה ומטבילה טעון טבילה טבילה אין הזאת שלישי ושביעי לא אלא עשאוה כטמא מת בשביעי שלו

Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses it requires immersion, which indicates that immersion for the tube, yes, this is required, but sprinkling of the third and the seventh day, no. Rather, you must say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse that is already in its seventh day, after its sprinklings, when it is still impure and imparts impurity to those who touch it, but requires only immersion and no further sprinkling.

והתניא מעולם לא חידשו דבר בפרה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Sages never made any innovations in the halakhot of impurity with regard to the red heifer procedure. In other words, although the Sages added stringencies to the red heifer procedure, they never created new halakhot for it that do not exist elsewhere in other areas of halakha. We have said that the tube is treated as if it had had contact with a corpse even though it did not; this is an innovation that is not found anywhere else.

אמר אביי שלא אמרו קורדום מטמא מושב כדתניא (ויקרא טו, ו) והיושב על הכלי יכול כפה סאה וישב עליה תרקב וישב עליה יהא טמא

The Gemara answers: Abaye said: When they said that the Sages did not make innovations, they were not referring to something of this nature, but meant that they did not say that a spade upon which a zav sits can become impure as a seat. They thereby preserved the basic halakhot of impurity, as it is taught in a baraita: It states with regard to a zav: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6). One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se’a and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a tarkav, i.e., a half-se’a, and sat on it, that the vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.

ת"ל והיושב על הכלי אשר ישב עליו יטמא מי שמיוחד לישיבה יצא זה שאומרים לו עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו:

The baraita concludes: Therefore, the verse states: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits…and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel for which we would say to someone sitting on it: Stand up, so we can do our work. A spade and a measuring bowl, then, are not subject to the impurity of the seat of a zav, even if a zav sat on them. Rather, they are considered to be on the lower level of impurity transmitted through simple contact with a zav. The same halakha was applied to the vessels used in preparation of the red heifer; the Sages did not add stringency and decree that a vessel not generally used for sitting should be considered as the seat of a zav.

הכלי מצרף מה שבתוכו לקדש אבל לא לתרומה: מנה"מ א"ר חנין דאמר קרא (במדבר ז, יד) כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטרת הכתוב עשאו לכל מה שבכף אחת

§ The mishna states: A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source for this stringency? Rabbi Ḥanin said: The verse states with regard to the sacrificial donations of the tribal princes: “One golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), which teaches us that the verse treats everything inside the pan as one unit, even if the items are not attached to each other.

מתיב רב כהנא הוסיף ר"ע הסלת והקטרת והלבונה והגחלים שאם נגע טבול יום במקצתו פסל את כולו

Rav Kahana raised an objection against this based on the mishna that teaches (Eduyyot 8:1): Rabbi Akiva added to the list of it items that are considered combined when in the same vessel fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals, saying that if one who immersed himself that day but has not waited until sunset touched a part of the contents of a vessel containing these substances, all of the vessel’s contents are disqualified, as the vessel combines them.

והא דרבנן היא ממאי מדקתני רישא העיד רבי שמעון בן בתירא על אפר חטאת שנגע הטמא במקצתו שטימא את כולו וקתני הוסיף ר"ע

Isn’t this halakha that these substances are considered combined by rabbinic law? From where do we know that this is so? From the fact that it teaches in the first clause of that mishna: Rabbi Shimon ben Beteira testified with regard to ashes of purification in a vessel that if an impure person or object touched part of it, it renders all of it impure. The purification ashes of the red heifer are neither food nor a sacrificial item, so Rabbi Ḥanin’s verse does not apply to the ashes, and the vessel certainly does not combine the ashes together by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. And it is taught immediately following this: Rabbi Akiva added, which shows that Rabbi Akiva’s halakha, like the previous halakha, deals with an additional level of impurity instituted by the Sages rather than a Torah law.

אמר ר"ל משום בר קפרא

Reish Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara: