meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Chagigah/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.txt"}
text: Mishnah Chagigah
  משנה חגיגה
  The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein
  
  
  Mishnah Chagigah
  
  
  
  
  
  	All are obligated in re'iah [i.e., in the mitzvah of (Deuteronomy 16:16): "Three times a year shall appear (yeraeh) all of your males," all having to appear in the azarah (the Temple court) on the festival. "All," to include one who is half bondsman-half free. But this is not the halachah. For such a one is exempt from re'iah because of the "bondsman" element in him.] (All are obligated) except one who is deaf [even if he speaks, and even if he is deaf in only one ear, it being written (Ibid. 31:11): "When all of Israel come to appear before the L rd," followed by (12): "so that they hear" — to exclude one who does not have sound hearing. And one who hears but does not speak is excluded by (Ibid.): "ulema'an yilmedu" (also to be understood as "ulema'an yelamdu" - "so that they teach")], an imbecile and a minor, [no mitzvoth being binding upon them. And if a child can hold onto his father's hand and be taken up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, his father is obligated to take him, as Beth Hillel say below in our Mishnah.], and a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt), and a hermaphrodite, and women, and unfreed bondsmen [All of these are excluded by "your males" — to exclude tumtum, hermaphrodite, and women. And bondsmen are not obligated in any mitzvah from which women are exempt. In addition, it is written: "When all of Israel come to appear, etc.", and bondsmen are not included in "Israel."], one who is lame, one who is blind, one who is sick, one who is old, and one whose legs do not carry him [from Jerusalem to the azarah, as when he is very delicate. All of these (with the exception of one who is blind) are derived from: "Three times (regalim)" — to exclude those who cannot go up with their feet (ragleihem). And a blind man is excluded from: "When all of Israel come to appear (leraoth)." Just as they come to appear, so they come to see (lir'oth) His holy mountain and the house of His shechinah — to exclude one who is blind, even if he is blind in one eye, his vision not being complete.] Which is a minor? One who cannot ride on his father's shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount. These are the words of Beth Shammai. Beth Hillel say: One who cannot hold onto his father's hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, it being written: "Three regalim" (see above) [one who is able to go up with his feet. And since an adult (who cannot do so) is exempt by Scripture, a child (in that condition), too, is not subject to chinuch (mitzvah-training) in that regard.]
  	Beth Shammai say: The (offering) of "seeing" (re'iah) is two silver (coins). [An adult who comes to "see" must bring a burnt-offering, viz. (Exodus 23:15): "My face shall not be seen empty-handed." The offering may cost no less than two ma'ah of silver, which is the weight of thirty-two barley grains of refined silver], and the festival offering (chagigah) [festival peace-offerings, viz. (Exodus 12:14): "And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the L rd"; that is, bring festival peace-offerings. They may cost no less than] one ma'ah of silver. And even though there is no fixed amount for the offering of "seeing" and the festival offering, it being written (Deuteronomy 16:17): "Each man, according to the gift of his hand," the sages set a bottom limit beneath which it may not go.] Beth Hillel say: The offering of "seeing," one ma'ah of silver; the festival offering, two. [For (parts of) the peace-offerings go on High, to the priests, and to the owners, respectively, for which reason they are more expensive than the burnt-offerings, which are entirely (burnt) on High. And aside from the burnt-offering of "seeing" and the festival peace-offerings mentioned in our Mishnah, they also had to bring a different type of peace-offering called "peace-offerings of joy" (shalmei simchah), viz. (Ibid. 27:7): "And you shall slaughter peace-offerings and you shall eat them there, and you shall rejoice, etc." These peace-offerings of joy are not mentioned here and the sages did not assign a fixed amount to them. And women are obligated in them as men are, women being obligated in rejoicing (on the festival), viz. (Ibid. 14:26): "And you shall rejoice, you and your household."]
  	Burnt-offerings on Chol Hamoed are brought from chullin (non-consecrated monies); and peace-offerings, from the tithe. [Our Mishnah is defective. This is what was taught: Vow and gift burnt-offerings are brought on Chol Hamoed and not on yom tov; and the burnt-offering of "seeing" is brought even on yom tov. Even though it can be "paid" all seven days, its essential mitzvah is on the first day of the festival. And when it is brought, it is brought only from chullin. And peace-offerings of joy come from the tithe. That is, they may be brought from second-tithe monies. For peace-offerings of joy are not mandatory where there is (other) meat, and he has second-tithe money (to spend for them) in Jerusalem, so that with it he buys peace-offerings and eats them. But the first-day festival offering is mandatory, even if he has meat in abundance. And anything which is mandatory is brought from chullin and not from the tithe.] The (offering of) the first day of the festival of Pesach — Beth Shammai say: (It is brought) from chullin. Beth Hillel say: From the tithe. [("the first day of the festival of Pesach":) The same applies to the first days of the other festivals. Pesach is taught because on Pesach eve there is a different festival offering. When the company for (the eating) of the Pesach was large, they would bring a festival offering along with it, so that the Pesach offering would be eaten in satiety. Our Mishnah apprises us that it is the yom tov festival offering itself which is brought only from chullin, but the festival offering of the fourteenth (of Nissan) may be brought from the tithe. ("Beth Hillel say: From the tithe":) The gemara asks how this can be if it is mandatory and all mandatory things are brought only from chullin. And it answers: When he joins second-tithe money with chullin, i.e., If he has many "eaters," for which one animal will not suffice, he may bring one animal as a festival offering from chullin and others from second-tithe money. And even though the name "festival offering" attaches to all that are brought on the first day of the festival, Beth Hillel hold that it is permitted to bring the others from the tithe once he has already fulfilled his obligation with the first from chullin.]
  	Israelites (i.e., non-Cohanim) fulfill their obligation [of peace-offerings of joy] with vows, and gifts, and the beast-tithe, [it being written (Deuteronomy 16:14): "And you shall rejoice in your festival" — to include all varieties of joy (i.e., of meat), the verse requiring only joy. And the master said: "There is joy only in meat," and these are meat.] And the Cohanim (fulfill their obligation) with sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, the bechor (the firstling), the breast and the shoulder; but not with birds and meal-offerings, [it being written: "And you shall rejoice in your festival (chagecha)," Scripture hereby stating: Rejoice in that from which the festival offering (chagigah) is brought — to exclude birds and the meal-offering, the chagigah not being brought therefrom.]
  	If one has many eaters [i.e., a large household] and little money, he brings many [festival] peace-offerings [according to the number of eaters], and few burnt-offerings. If he has much money and few eaters, he brings many burnt-offerings and few peace-offerings. If he has little of both, of this it is stated (1:2): "a ma'ah of silver, and two ma'ah of silver." If he has much of both, of this it is written (Deuteronomy 16:17): "…according to the blessing of the L rd your G d that He has given to you."
  	If one did not bring the offerings [his festival peace-offerings and his burnt-offering of "seeing"], he may bring them the entire festival and the last yom tov of Succoth [Shemini Atzereth. Even though it is a festival in itself, it satisfies payment for the first day. And Shavuoth, too, even though it is only one day, payment can be made all seven, Scripture likening all festivals to each other, viz. (Deuteronomy 16:16): "on the festival of matzoth, and on the festival of Shavuoth, and on the festival of Succoth." Just as with the festival of matzoth payment can be satisfied all seven days, so with the festival of Shavuoth.] If the festival passed and he did not bring the offering, he need not make restitution. Of this it is written (Koheleth 1:15): "The crooked cannot be straightened and the lacking cannot be numbered."
  	R. Shimon b. Menassia says: What is (an instance of) "The crooked cannot be straightened"? Living with one of the illicit relations and begetting a mamzer through her, [bringing p'sulin (unfit ones) into Israel, who are a "remembrance" unto him] — as opposed to robbery and theft, where restitution can be made [i.e., He can return what was stolen to the owners and be "corrected" of his sin.] R. Shimon b. Yochai says: One is called "crooked" only if he were straight before and became crooked. Such as? A Torah scholar who separated from the Torah.
  	The absolution of vows "flies in the air," there being no (Scriptural) support for it. [i.e., There is only a slight allusion in Scripture to a sage's being able to absolve one of his vow, and it (in itself) is not to be relied upon. But thus was it handed down to the sages through the oral tradition (i.e., that they are thus empowered)]. The laws of Shabbath, of the festival offerings, and of me'iloth (abuse of consecrated objects) are like "mountains hanging by a hair" [There are halachoth among them which hang on only a slight Scriptural allusion, like a mountain hanging by a hair of one's head], having few Scriptural referents, yet embracing a great body of halachoth. Laws (monetary laws), the sacrificial service, (the laws of) purity and impurity, and (the laws of) illicit relations have what to rely on (in Scripture). Both are essentials of Torah. [The gemara explains: "Both these and these are essentials of Torah." That is: Both those which have no (Scriptural) support and those which do. Both those which are like "mountains hanging by a hair, etc." — all are essentials of Torah.]
  
  
  
  	Illicit relations are not expounded to three [men at the same time. Recondite matters of Torah are not expounded to them, e.g., the interdict against living with one's daughter from a woman he had ravished, which is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but is derived exegetically. For while the teacher is addressing one of them the other two might be conversing and not give heart to the teacher's expounding of the interdict, so that they might come to be remiss in the area of illicit relations. For these things are more lusted after and desired than the other things forbidden by the Torah.] And the [six days of] creation (are not expounded) [even] to two [and, it goes without saying, to three or more, it being written (Deuteronomy 4:32): "For ask (singular), now, of the first days" (of creation) — One may inquire, but not two.] And the episode of the Divine Chariot [beheld by Ezekiel and by Isaiah] (may not be expounded) [even] to one, unless he be a sage, "understanding by himself" [i.e., unless the teacher recognizes that he is a sage, who, if given the "outlines" of things, will understand the rest by himself. [Rambam explains "the creation" as natural wisdom, and "the episode of the Divine Chariot" as the existence of G d, His attributes, the angels, the soul, the intellect, and what transpires after death. It does not seem to me that all of this is subsumed in the "episode of the Divine Chariot." The "wisdom of the Divine Chariot" would be more apt. It is called, rather, the "episode of the Divine Chariot" because by invoking certain holy names one has recourse to the Crown, by whose agency he beholds the angelic watches in their stations and "sanctuary within sanctuary," as those who see (such things) through the agency of the holy spirit.] All who reflect upon four things [those that follow] — it would have been better had they not been born: what is above [the heads of the heavenly creatures], what is below, what is before, and what is behind [to the west. Another interpretation: "what is before" the creation; "what is behind" the creation, at the end of days.] And all who are not solicitous of the honor of their Creator [such as those who transgress in secret, saying: "The Shechinah is not found here. Who sees me? Who knows me?"] — it would have been better had they not been born.
  	Yossi b. Yoezer says that one should not place his hands (on the animal's head before slaughtering it] on yom tov. For he does so with all his strength and thus makes use of the animal (which is forbidden on yom tov).] Yossi b. Yochanan says he should. [This argument persisted between the Nesi'im and the avoth beth-din in all generations.] Yehoshua b. Perachyah says he should not place the hands; Nitai Ha'arbeli says he should. Yehudah b. Tabbi says he should not place the hands; Shimon b. Shetach says he should. Shemayah says he should place the hands; Avtalyon says he should not. Hillel and Menachem did not argue. Menachem left [for the king's service and stopped being Hillel's colleague, for which reason we do not know whether or not he argued with him on this.] Shammai entered [to be av beth-din in place of Menachem and he argued with Hillel.] Shammai said he should not place the hands; Hillel said he should. The first [in each pair above] were Nesi'im; the second, av beth-din.
  	Beth Shammai say: [festival] peace-offerings may be brought (on yom tov) for they are for human consumption; but s'michah (the placing of the hands on the head of the offering) may not be performed. [But s'michah is performed on the eve of the festival, Beth Shammai not requiring: "And he shall place … and he shall slaughter" (Leviticus 1:4-5), that slaughtering immediately follow placing.] [Individual] burnt-offerings, however, are not (to be brought on yom tov), [even the burnt-offering of "seeing"; for it can be offered on the other days of the festival, it being written (Numbers 29:39): "A solemn assembly shall there be for you" — for you, but not for the Most High.] And Beth Hillel say: It is permitted to bring peace-offerings and burnt-offerings [of "seeing"] and to perform s'michah upon them, [it being written (Deuteronomy 16:8): "a solemn assembly for the L rd" — everything which is for the L rd. But all agree that vow-offerings and gift-offerings, whether burnt-offerings or peace-offerings, are not sacrificed on yom tov.]
  	Atzereth (i.e., Shavuoth) which falls out on Sabbath eve — the day of its slaughtering is after Shabbath [i.e., The day of the slaughtering of the burnt-offering of "seeing" of yom tov is after Shabbath. For it is slaughtered neither on yom tov nor on Shabbath. And "payment" (of the offering) obtains with Shavuoth all seven days, as it does with Pesach and with Succoth.] And Beth Hillel say: There is no day of slaughtering after Shabbath [i.e., It does not require a "day of slaughtering," for it is permitted to slaughter it on yom tov. Beth Hillel are consistent with their ruling that it is permitted to bring peace-offerings and burnt-offerings on yom tov. The tanna apprises us here that even if it is impossible to do so the next day, as when Shavuoth falls out on Sabbath eve — even in such an instance Beth Shammai hold that a burnt-offering of "seeing" is not sacrificed on yom tov, and it is pushed off until after Shabbath.] And both agree that if Shavuoth falls out on Shabbath, the day of slaughtering is after Shabbath. And the high-priest does not clothe himself in [his festive] garments [on the "day of slaughtering" of Shavuoth after Shabbath, not adorning himself on that day so that all realize it is not yom tov. And eulogy and fasting are permitted on that day, so as not to substantiate the words of those who say that Shavuoth comes after Shabbath. [For the Sadducees said that Shavuoth is always after Shabbath, it being written (Leviticus 23:15): "And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Sabbath," which they interpreted as the Sabbath of creation, so that Shavuoth would always fall out on a Sunday.]
  	One washes his hands for chullin, tithe (ma'aser), and terumah. [Washing them from a vessel which contains only a revi'ith of water is sufficient.] And for kodesh (consecrated food), he immerses them [i.e., To eat peace-offerings, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings, he requires a higher purification. He must immerse his hands in (a mikveh of) forty sa'ah — even if they are only stam yadayim ("plain hands"), not having touched an unclean object which makes the entire body unclean by Torah ordinance.] And for chatath — if his hands become unclean, his body becomes unclean. [In order to touch the waters of chatath (purification), the water sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer, to sprinkle therefrom upon those who have become unclean by (contact with) a dead body, he requires a higher (level of) purification, viz.: If his hands became unclean through one of those things which impart uncleanliness to the hands but not to the body — such as a scroll, unclean foods, unclean liquids, or anything else declared unclean by rabbinic ordinance — his body, too, becomes unclean, and his entire body requires immersion. All of these levels (of purification), one higher than the other, are rabbinically ordained. They are mentioned here together with the laws of the festival offering by virtue of their concluding (in the next chapter) with the laws of the festival, i.e., that the unlearned are regarded as clean on a festival, but not on the other days of the year.]
  	[This is another level (in purification):] If one immerses for chullin and intends [this immersion to cause him] to be eligible for chullin, he is forbidden to [eat second] tithe, [which is eaten in Jerusalem — until he immerses specifically for tithe — and so with all.] If he immersed for tithe and were eligible for tithe, he is forbidden to (eat) terumah. If he immersed for terumah and were eligible for terumah, he is forbidden to (eat) kodesh. If he immersed for kodesh and were eligible for kodesh, he is forbidden to (touch) chatath [the water sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer.] If he immersed for the more stringent, he is permitted to (eat) the less stringent. If he immersed and did not intend to be eligible (for anything), it is as if he did not immerse [for tithe, and, it goes without saying, for terumah and kodesh, but it is (valid) immersion for chullin, chullin not requiring intent.]
  	The garments of an unlearned person (am ha'aretz) are midras [av hatumah (proto-uncleanliness) to impart uncleanliness to men and vessels] to perushin (the "guarded"), [who eat their chullin in the cleanliness of chullin] [just as the midras (lit. "the seat") of the zav (one with a genital discharge), which imparts uncleanliness to men and vessels, viz. (Leviticus 15:21): "And whoever touches what she lies upon shall wash his clothes."] The garments of perushin are midras to eaters of terumah. [One level is missing here, viz.: "The garments of perushin are midras to the eaters of second-tithe. The garments of eaters of second-tithe are midras to eaters of terumah," i.e., Cohanim, who eat terumah.] The garments of eaters of terumah are midras to (those who touch) chatath. [All of these levels are ordinances of the scribes, who said that the guarding for cleanliness of one level is not considered guarding vis-à-vis the other. This being so, they decreed that the garments of those on one level be regarded by those on a higher level as if his wife (the wife of the one on the lower level) had sat on them in her niddah time, making them midras of a niddah.] Yosef b. Yoezer was a chasid in the priesthood, notwithstanding which his napkin was (regarded as) midras to (those who ate) kodesh. Yochanan b. Gudgeda ate [chullin] in the cleanliness of kodesh [i.e., as if he were eating kodesh, being heedful of any tumah which would render kodesh unclean], and his napkin was midras to chatath, [but not to kodesh, this tanna holding that chullin prepared in the cleanliness of kodesh is like kodesh. But this is not the halachah. For chullin prepared in the cleanliness of kodesh is not like kodesh in all respects, as stated in the end of Niddah.]
  
  
  
  	A stringency of kodesh over terumah: Vessels inside vessels may be immersed for terumah [when they are both unclean], but not for kodesh. [For we say that the weight of the inner vessel against the outer one acts as a partition against the water, and the immersion avails for neither. Outside, and inside, and handle (beth hatzvitah) (are considered distinct vessels) in respect to terumah, but not in respect to kodesh. [A vessel whose inside and outside and handle can be used — every function that it serves renders it a distinct vessel vis-à-vis terumah. So that if one (of the three) became unclean, the others do not become unclean. This, with rabbinical uncleanliness. So that if the outside became unclean through unclean liquids, the inside and the handle do not become unclean. And if the handle became unclean, the outside and the inside do not become unclean. "beth hatzvitah," "a place for holding," as in (Ruth 2:14): "Vayitzbat lah kali" ("And he held out parched corn for her." Some read it as "beth hatzviah" ("the place of the finger"), a place being made in the vessel to put his finger in when he drinks, so that he not put his hand into the vessel. ("but not in respect to kodesh":) If one of the three areas becomes unclean with rabbinical uncleanliness, the whole vessel is unclean for kodesh.] One who carries a midras [a shoe of a zav] may carry terumah [if he wishes in an earthen jar; for he does not touch the inside.], but not kodesh, [because of an actual occurrence. Once, a man was carrying a jug of libational wine and the strap of his sandal (the midras of a zav) tore. When he took it in his hand, it fell into the jug and rendered the kodesh in it unclean. At that time they said: If one carries a midras, he may not carry kodesh. And because the incident was with kodesh, they decreed only with kodesh, but not with terumah.] Not as the "measure" of kodesh [vis-à-vis a chatzitzah (partition) in immersion] is the "measure" of terumah. For with kodesh, [if he has an unclean garment and he comes to immerse it, if it is tied], he frees the tie, [for it is like a chatzitzah], dries it [If it is moist, he dries it, for the oiliness on it is like a chatzitzah], and he immerses it and then he re-ties it. But with terumah, [if he wishes], he ties it and then immerses it [tied, and there is no cause for concern.]
  	Vessels which were finished in cleanliness require immersion for kodesh, but not for terumah. [If a chaver (a Torah scholar) finishes them, and he took special care with them when they came close to being finished when they are susceptible of acquiring uncleanliness — in spite of this they require immersion for kodesh; for we fear that spittle from the mouth of an am ha'aretz may have fallen upon them when the chaver was holding them. And even though at that time the vessel had not yet been finished and did not acquire uncleanliness, perhaps after it was finished and was susceptible of acquiring uncleanliness, the spittle was still wet and imparted uncleanliness. For we learned in Niddah: (The issue of a) niddah, zov (the issue of a zav), and spittle impart uncleanliness when wet.] The vessel combines all that is in it in respect to kodesh, but not in respect to terumah. [If there were many pieces of food in one vessel and a t'vul yom (one who had immersed in the daytime), who invalidates terumah, touched one of them, the vessel combines all of them to be considered as one piece and all of them are unfit, viz. (Numbers 7:14): "One spoon of ten shekels of gold" — Scripture rendered all that is in the spoon one. ("but not for terumah":) Only the piece that he touched is unfit, but the others are clean.] Fourth-degree uncleanliness is unfit [but does not render (another object) unfit] in kodesh, but (only) third-degree uncleanliness in terumah. And with terumah, if one of his hands became unclean [with rabbinical uncleanliness, such as unclean foods and liquids and the like, which make only the hands unclean but not the body], the other hand is clean. But with kodesh, he must immerse both [This, when wetness remained on the hand that became unclean at the time it became unclean, but if not, the other hand does not become unclean until touched by it.], for one hand renders the other unclean with kodesh, but not with terumah.
  	It is permitted to eat dry foods with unclean hands, with terumah, but not with kodesh. [This is the intent: It is permitted to eat dry foods of chullin with unclean hands, with terumah but not with kodesh, i.e., If one stuck food of kodesh into his friend's mouth with clean hands, the hands of the eater being unclean; or if he himself stuck such food into his mouth with a reed or a rod, and he desired to eat radish or onion of chullin with it, in which instance his unclean hands, which are of second-degree uncleanliness, do not make the chullin unclean, still, the rabbis decreed that he not eat them with kodesh, lest he touch the kodesh food in his mouth with his unclean hands. But in respect to terumah, even though unclean hands render it unfit, they did not establish this higher level, but assumed that he could take care and not touch it. "Dry foods" is stated, for if liquid were now upon them the liquid would become first-decree uncleanliness because of his hands and would make the chullin second-degree uncleanliness, so that when it touched the terumah in his mouth, it would render it unfit.] A mourner [who did not become unclean through (contact with the body of) his dead one] and one lacking atonement [one who immersed and whose sun set, but who did not yet bring his offerings] require immersion for kodesh, but not for terumah. [After he brings his offerings, if he wishes to eat kodesh, he must immerse. For since until now they were forbidden to eat kodesh, the rabbis required immersion. One who lacks atonement renders kodesh unfit by touching it. And a mourner, even though he may not eat it, does not render it unfit by touching it. And even though a mourner may not eat second-tithe, he is permitted to eat terumah, this being derived from (Leviticus 22:10): "And every stranger (i.e., non-priest) shall not eat the holy thing (terumah)" — "Strangeness" (disqualifies), and not mourning.]
  	A stringency of terumah: In Yehudah they are believed in respect to the cleanliness of wine and of oil all the days of the year. ["In Yehudah" (specifically) because a strip of the land of the Cuthi'im divided the Galil from Yehudah. And Jerusalem is in the land of Yehudah. So that it was impossible to bring kodesh from the land of the Galil to Yehudah, uncleanliness having been decreed upon the land of the nations. And even (the kodesh) of chaverim in the Galil could not be brought as libations. ("they are believed, etc.":) If an am ha'aretz said: "This wine is clean, and it is for libations; this oil is clean, and it is for meal-offerings," he was always believed; for because of the stringency of kodesh, he would be heedful and would not lie. But if he said: "This wine and oil is clean and is for terumah," he is not believed. For the interdict against the uncleanliness of terumah is not so severe in the eyes of an am ha'aretz, and we fear that he might be lying.] And at the wine-press and the olive-press, (they are) also (believed) in respect to terumah. [At the time of the grape harvest and of the squeezing of the olives in the olive-press, they are believed for terumah, too; for all men cleanse their vessels when they make wine and oil in order to separate terumah in cleanliness.] If the [times of] the wine-press and of the olive-press have passed, and he [an am ha'aretz] brings him [a Cohein chaver] a jug of terumah wine [or terumah oil, saying it is clean], he should not accept it from him [as being clean. For after the (time of the) wine-press and the olive-press he is not believed.] But he leaves it for the next wine-press. [The am ha'aretz who knows that after the (time of the) wine-press and the olive-press he is not believed leaves this jug for the next wine-press, at which time he gives it to the Cohein; for at that time he is believed in respect to it.] And if he (the am ha'aretz) says to him: "I have separated into it a revi'ith [of a log of wine] kodesh [i.e., for libations], he is believed [in respect to the entire jug. For since he is believed in respect to kodesh, he is also believed in respect to terumah.] Pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil which are medumaoth (intermixed) — they are believed concerning them at the time of the wine-press and of the olive-press, and before the olive-press, seventy days. [If one (an am ha'aretz) cleanses his tevel (untithed produce) for libations, and now there are (intermixed) chullin, terumah, and kodesh, and he comes to say about the pitchers, too, that they are clean, even though an am ha'aretz is not believed concerning pitchers, even at the time of the wine-press, now he is believed concerning the pitchers even seventy days before the time of the wine-press. For since he is believed in respect to kodesh, he is also believed in respect to terumah and pitchers. For it is demeaning to kodesh that the pitchers from which it is poured have a status of uncleanliness, when it (the kodesh) is offered (upon the altar). "Seventy days" — it being the custom to order and cleanse the vessels seventy days before the (time of the) wine-press.]
  	From Modi'ith within, they (amei ha'aretz) are believed concerning earthen vessels. From Modi'ith outside, they are not believed. [Modi'ith was a city fifteen mil distant from Jerusalem. From Modi'ith within, towards Jerusalem, it is permitted to take light earthenware from potters who are amei ha'aretz, such a cups, pots, and ladles; for it is impossible (to secure them) otherwise. In Jerusalem they did not make (potters') ovens because of the smoke, neither for lime nor for pottery, for which reason they believed them and did not decree against them. For a decree is not imposed upon the congregation, which they are not able to abide by.] How so? A potter selling pottery — if he entered within Modi'ith, he is the potter [Only he who brought them from outside Modi'ith was believed, it being impossible not to believe him. But if he made a middleman of another potter, an am ha'aretz, living in Modi'ith or within, he (the second) was not believed.], and they are the pots [He is believed only concerning those pots that he bought; but he is not believed to add to them pots of another potter living in Modi'ith or within], and they are the buyers. [The potter has credibility only for those chaverim who saw him bring them, but not for others.] Once he leaves Modi'ith [to return], he is not believed.
  	Collectors [Jews, amei ha'aretz, who are deputed by the king to collect taxes from other Jews], who entered the house [to take the pledge], and likewise, thieves, who returned [earthenware] vessels [that they stole] are believed to say: "We did not touch them" [on the inside. This, if they returned them in voluntary penance, but not out of fear.] And in Jerusalem they are believed in respect to kodesh. [They are believed for all earthenware, both large and small, to say that they are clean for kodesh; for they do not make (potters') ovens in Jerusalem. For this reason they believed them and did not decree against them.] And, during the time of the festival, (they were believed) even for terumah, [it being written (Judges 20:11): "And all the men of Israel gathered together against the city as one man, chaverim." When they are all gathered together, Scripture calls them "chaverim." And a festival is a time of gathering.]
  	If one [a chaver] opened his jug [to sell wine in Jerusalem for a festival] or began (to sell) his dough for a festival [and it was touched by amei ha'aretz] — R. Yehudah says: He may finish (selling it after the festival). The sages say: He may not finish. [For even though amei ha'aretz are clean at the time of the festival, it is not that their cleanliness is permanent, but that all are (considered) chaverim at the time of the festival. But after the festival, their touch renders (objects) unclean retroactively. As stated in our Mishnah: After the festival, they would immerse the vessels of the azarah, for amei ha'aretz had touched them on the festival. And R. Yehudah, who says that he may finish holds that if he is not permitted to finish he will not begin, and food will not be available for the festival pilgrims. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] After the festival, they would remove them [the vessels from their places to immerse them] to cleanse the azarah of the uncleanliness of the amei ha'aretz, who had touched them on the festival.] If the festival ended on Friday, they did not remove them because of the honor of the Sabbath, [i.e., because the Cohanim had to tend to their Sabbath needs in their houses.] R. Yehudah says: They also did not (remove them if the festival ended) on Thursday [They would not immerse them until after Shabbath]; for the Cohanim were not free [the day after yom tov to immerse them. For they were busy removing the ashes from the pile in the middle of the altar, which had accumulated there all the days of the festival from the (burning of) the wood-pile. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]
  	How would they remove [the vessels] to cleanse the azarah? They would immerse the vessels which were in the sanctuary, and they would tell them [the amei ha'aretz, on the festival]: "Take care not to touch the table, and render it unclean." [For they could not immerse it after the festival, not being permitted to remove it from its place, it being written (Exodus 28:30): "And you shall place upon the table show-bread before Me always."] All the vessels in the Temple had seconds and thirds, so that if the first became unclean, the seconds were brought in their stead. All the vessels in the Temple required immersion [because of the uncleanliness they had sustained on the festival], except the golden altar and the copper altar, being regarded as earth, [the copper altar being called (Exodus 20:21) "an altar of earth," and the golden altar being likened to it, viz. (Numbers 3:31): "…the menorah and the altars." As to the table, the amei ha'aretz did not touch it, as stated above.] These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: Because they are plated. [This is the intent: The sages rule them unclean and say that they, too, require immersion, because they are plated. For if they were not plated, they would be ruled clean by reason of "wooden vessels made to rest" (in their place and not be moved). Another interpretation: The sages say that the reason they do not require immersion (even though) they are plated with gold and copper is that the plating is neutralized (by the wood, which is dominant), so that they are regarded as wooden vessels made to rest, which do not become unclean. (According to this interpretation) the sages differ with R. Eliezer only vis-à-vis the reason (for their not requiring immersion). Rambam explains it thus in Hilchoth Metamei Mishkav Umoshav.]