## Chagigah Daf 19a

###### Chagigah 19a:1
[Chagigah 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:1)

כָּאן לְמַעֲשֵׂר. וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּחוּלִּין לָא בָּעוּ כַּוּוֹנָה — דִּתְנַן: גַּל שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ וּבוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה, וְנָפַל עַל הָאָדָם וְעַל הַכֵּלִים — טְהוֹרִין. קָתָנֵי אָדָם דּוּמְיָא דְּכֵלִים, מָה כֵּלִים דְּלָא מְכַוְּונִי — אַף אָדָם דְּלָא מְכַוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
whereas **here,** the first *baraita* is referring **to tithes,** for which intention to purify oneself is required. **And from where do you say** this, **that non-sacred** food **does not require** the **intention** that one is purifying himself for the sake of eating it? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Mikvaot* 5:6): If **a wave containing forty *se’a*** of water **became detached** from the sea **and fell on a person or on vessels, they are ritually pure.** The mishna **teaches that a person is similar to vessels: Just as vessels do not intend** to be purified, as they obviously harbor no intentions, **so too,** the case of **a person** is referring to a situation **in** which **he does not intend** to purify himself, thereby implying that people can be ritually purified even without intention.


###### Chagigah 19a:2
[Chagigah 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:2)

וּמִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא בְּיוֹשֵׁב וּמְצַפֶּה אֵימָתַי יִתָּלֵשׁ הַגַּל עָסְקִינַן, וְכֵלִים דּוּמְיָא דְּאָדָם, מָה אָדָם דְּבַר כַּוּוֹנָה — אַף כֵּלִים דִּמְכַוֵּין לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **And from where** is it clear that this is the meaning of the mishna? **Perhaps we are dealing with** one who **is sitting and awaiting** for **when a wave will detach** and fall on the vessels, and the implication is the opposite: **Vessels are similar** to **a person: Just as a person** is **capable of intention** to ritually purify himself, **so too** the case of the **vessels** mentioned in the mishna is referring to a situation **where one intends on their behalf** that they be purified.


###### Chagigah 19a:3
[Chagigah 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:3)

וְכִי תֵּימָא בְּיוֹשֵׁב וּמְצַפֶּה, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that the mishna is indeed referring **to** one who **is sitting and awaiting, what** is the purpose **of stating** this? Such a *halakha* would not appear to offer a novelty; why would it be necessary to state it?


###### Chagigah 19a:4
[Chagigah 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:4)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזוֹר דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמִיטְבַּל בְּחַרְדָּלִית שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, אִי נָמֵי נִגְזוֹר רָאשִׁין אַטּוּ כִּיפִּין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא גָּזְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It nevertheless provides a novel teaching, as **it might enter your mind to say that it should be decreed** that a detached wave does not affect purification, **lest one come to immerse in a flow of rainwater** whose volume is forty *se’a*. In other words, one might think that immersion in a flood of rainwater affects purification, whereas the *halakha* is that rainwater purifies only if it is gathered in one location. **Alternatively,** you might think that **it should be decreed** that purification by means of **the edges** of the waves that comes in contact with the ground should be ineffective **due to** the upper **arcs** of the waves. The mishna therefore **teaches us that we do not** so **decree.**


###### Chagigah 19a:5
[Chagigah 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:5)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּלָא מַטְבִּילִין בְּכִיפִּין, דְּתַנְיָא: מַטְבִּילִין בְּרָאשִׁין, וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִין בְּכִיפִּין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַטְבִּילִין בָּאֲוִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do you say that one may not immerse in the arcs? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One may immerse in the edges** of waves, **but one may not immerse in** their **arcs, because one may not immerse in air.** The area under the arc of a wave is considered mere air, despite the fact that the individual is surrounded by water on all sides.


###### Chagigah 19a:6
[Chagigah 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:6)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: פֵּירוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ אַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וּפָשַׁט מִי שֶׁיָּדָיו טְמֵאוֹת וּנְטָלָן — יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת, וּפֵירוֹת אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the proof that the purification with regard to non-sacred produce does not require intention is **from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Makhshirin* 4:7): In the verse that is referring to the preconditions required for fruit and seeds to be susceptible to ritual impurity, it is stated: “If water be put on seeds, and any of their carcasses fall there, it shall be impure to you” (Leviticus 11:38). **If fruit fell into a water channel, and one whose hands were ritually impure extended his hands and lifted them up** with the goal of removing them from the water channel, **his hands are ritually pure,** as he has purified them by inserting them into the water channel, **and** these **fruits are not** included **in** the category of **“if** water **be put** on seeds.” The verse is referring only to fruit that has intentionally been brought into contact with water. Since the fruit in this case was not intentionally made wet, it cannot as yet contract impurity.


###### Chagigah 19a:7
[Chagigah 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:7)

וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיּוּדְחוּ יָדָיו — יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת, וְהַפֵּירוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** he put his hands into the water channel **in order to wash his hands, his hands are ritually pure, and the fruit is** included **in** the category of **“if** water **be put** on seeds.” Since he intended to wet his hands, the contact of the fruit with this water renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. In any case, the mishna teaches that his hands are ritually pure in either situation, indicating that no special intention is required for purification.


###### Chagigah 19a:8
[Chagigah 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבָּה לְרַב נַחְמָן: הַטּוֹבֵל לְחוּלִּין וְהוּחְזַק לְחוּלִּין — אָסוּר לְמַעֲשֵׂר. הוּחְזַק — אִין, לֹא הוּחְזַק — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from the mishna here: **One who immersed for** the purpose of eating **non-sacred** food **and assumes a presumptive status** of ritual purity **for non-sacred** food **is** still **prohibited** from eating **tithes. The Gemara infers: If one** immersed with the intention of **assuming a presumptive status** of ritual purity for non-sacred food, **yes,** he assumes that status; **if he did not** immerse with the intention of **assuming that presumptive status, no, he does not** assume that status. This proves that even for the sake of non-sacred produce, one must intend to assume the appropriate status of ritual purity.


###### Chagigah 19a:9
[Chagigah 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:9)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּחְזַק לְחוּלִּין — אָסוּר לְמַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman refutes this proof: **This is what** the mishna **is saying: Even though he assumes a presumptive status** of ritual purity **for non-sacred** produce, **he is prohibited from** eating **tithes.** In other words, the mishna does not teach that intention is required for eating non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. Rather, it teaches that even if one intended to purify himself for non-sacred food, he is not purified with regard to tithes.


###### Chagigah 19a:10
[Chagigah 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:10)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: טָבַל וְלֹא הוּחְזַק — כְּאִילּוּ לֹא טָבַל, מַאי לָאו — כְּאִילּוּ לֹא טָבַל כְּלָל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He,** Rabba, **raised an objection to him** from another teaching of our mishna: With regard to one who **immersed without** intending to **assume a presumptive status of ritual purity,** it is **as if he has not immersed. What, is it not** teaching that it is **as if he had not immersed at all?**


###### Chagigah 19a:11
[Chagigah 19a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:11)

לֹא, כְּאִילּוּ לֹא טָבַל לְמַעֲשֵׂר, אֲבָל טָבַל לְחוּלִּין. הוּא סָבַר דַּחוֹיֵי קָא מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ. נְפַק דָּק וְאַשְׁכַּח דְּתַנְיָא: טָבַל וְלֹא הוּחְזַק — אָסוּר לַמַּעֲשֵׂר וּמוּתָּר לַחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman rejected this proof as well: **No,** it means that it is **as if he has not immersed for tithes, but he is** considered to have **immersed for non-sacred** produce, for which no intention is necessary. The Gemara comments: **He,** i.e., Rabba, **thought** that Rav Naḥman **was** merely **refuting his** proof by saying that the wording of the mishna does not conclusively prove his case, but he did not actually think that the mishna should be understood differently. However, he subsequently **went** and **examined** the sources **and found that** a *baraita* **was** explicitly **taught** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman: One who **immersed and** did not intend to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity **is prohibited from** eating **tithes, but is permitted to** eat **non-sacred** produce, even if he eats non-sacred produce only when ritually pure.


###### Chagigah 19a:12
[Chagigah 19a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: טָבַל וְעָלָה — מַחְזִיק עַצְמוֹ לְכֹל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity, **Rabbi Elazar said:** If one **immersed** without any particular intention **and ascended** from his immersion, **he may assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity after his immersion **for whatever he wishes.** In his opinion, there is no need to have a definite intention in mind at the actual moment of immersion.


###### Chagigah 19a:13
[Chagigah 19a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:13)

מֵיתִיבִי: עוֹדֵהוּ רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בַּמַּיִם, הוּחְזַק לְדָבָר קַל — מַחְזִיק עַצְמוֹ לְדָבָר חָמוּר, עָלָה — שׁוּב אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to this from the following *baraita*: In a case where one has immersed and is ascending, **and one of his feet is still in the water, if he** had originally intended to **assume presumptive status** of ritual purity **for a minor matter, he may** still intend to **assume presumptive status for a major matter.** But if he has fully **ascended, he may no longer** intend to **assume a presumptive status** for any other matter.


###### Chagigah 19a:14
[Chagigah 19a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:14)

מַאי לָאו — אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיק כְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from this *baraita*: **What, is it not** teaching that if one has ascended **he may not** intend to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity **at all,** which proves that one may do so only if he is still at least partially in the water?


###### Chagigah 19a:15
[Chagigah 19a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:15)

לֹא: עוֹדֵהוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּחְזַק — מַחְזִיק, עָלָה, אִם לֹא הוּחְזַק — מַחְזִיק, וְאִם הוּחְזַק — אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference: **No,** it should be understood as follows: If **he is still** in the water, then although **he** previously intended to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity for a minor matter, **he may** now intend to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity for whatever purpose he wishes, since one can adjust his intention during his immersion. Once he has already **ascended, if he did not** intend to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity at all, but immersed without any intention, **he may** intend to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity for whatever he wishes even after ascending from the ritual bath; **but if he did** intend to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity for a minor matter, **he may not** intend to **assume a presumptive status** of ritual purity for a major matter, as his intention was fixed when he ascended from the ritual bath.


###### Chagigah 19a:16
[Chagigah 19a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:16)

מַאן תַּנָּא עוֹדֵהוּ רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בַּמַּיִם? אָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דִּתְנַן: מִקְוֶה שֶׁנִּמְדַּד וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה מְכֻוּוֹנוֹת, וְיָרְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְטָבְלוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה — הָרִאשׁוֹן טָהוֹר, וְהַשֵּׁנִי טָמֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִם הָיוּ רַגְלָיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן נוֹגְעוֹת בַּמַּיִם — אַף הַשֵּׁנִי טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In relation to the above, the Gemara explains: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** that one **whose foot is still in the water** is considered to be still immersing himself? **Rabbi Pedat said: It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned** in a mishna (*Mikvaot* 7:6): In the case of **a ritual bath that was measured and** found to **contain exactly forty *se’a*** of water, **and** then **two** individuals **descended and immersed one after the other, the first one is ritually pure,** since he immersed in a valid ritual bath, **but the second is ritually impure.** Because a small amount of water clings to the first individual, the ritual bath subsequently holds less than the requisite amount. Therefore, it does not purify the second individual. **Rabbi Yehuda said: If the feet of the first one were** still **touching the water,** so that he had not yet exited the ritual bath entirely while the second one immersed, **the second is also ritually pure.** This teaches that Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one who still has a foot in the water is considered to be inside the ritual bath.


###### Chagigah 19a:17
[Chagigah 19a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:17)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּמַעֲלוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל מִטּוּמְאָה לְטׇהֳרָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אַף הַשֵּׁנִי טָמֵא. וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי פְּדָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said:** This **dispute** between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda pertains **to higher standards of ritual purity** established **by the Sages,** where the obligation to immerse is due to a rabbinical ordinance. **However,** when the purpose of the immersion is to transition **from** full-fledged **ritual impurity to purity, everyone agrees** that **the second** individual **is impure. And this is** in accordance with the statement **of Rabbi Pedat** on this topic, who asserts that only Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one may assume a presumptive ritually pure status if one of his feet is still in the ritual bath.


###### Chagigah 19a:18
[Chagigah 19a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:18)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַחְלוֹקֶת מִטּוּמְאָה לְטׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל בְּמַעֲלוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אַף הַשֵּׁנִי טָהוֹר. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי פְּדָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** a different version of this statement: **Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said:** This **dispute** is referring only to one who is obligated to immerse in order to transition **from ritual impurity to purity, but with regard to higher standards of ritual purity** established **by the Sages, everyone agrees** that **even the second** individual **is ritually pure** if the foot of the first is still in contact with the water. **And** consequently, this opinion **disagrees** with the statement **of Rabbi Pedat,** since, according to this version, all agree that with regard to higher standards of ritual purity, the immersion continues as long as a single foot remains in the water.


###### Chagigah 19a:19
[Chagigah 19a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:19)

אָמַר עוּלָּא, בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַהוּ לְהַטְבִּיל מְחָטִין וְצִינּוֹרִיּוֹת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the discussion above, **Ulla said: I asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to Rabbi Yehuda, what is** the *halakha* with regard to **immersing** small vessels, such as **needles and knitting needles, on the head of the first** individual immersing himself? Since Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one whose foot is still in the water is considered as immersed in the ritual bath, does this mean that his body and even his wet hair can serve as part of the ritual bath?


###### Chagigah 19a:20
[Chagigah 19a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:20)

גּוּד אַחֵית אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, גּוּד אַסֵּיק לֵית לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: גּוּד אַסֵּיק נָמֵי אִית לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma raised by this question: Does **Rabbi Yehuda accept** only the principle of **lowering the partition,** meaning that an item positioned above another item is considered as if it continued downward, and therefore the water on the body of the one immersing is viewed as descending into the ritual bath, so that the bath retains its requisite size; but **he does not accept** the concept of **raising the partition,** so that the water in the ritual bath is not considered to rise up to one’s head, making him part of the ritual bath as well? **Or, perhaps he also accepts** the principle of **raising the partition,** which means that one is indeed considered part of the ritual bath?


###### Chagigah 19a:21
[Chagigah 19a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: שָׁלֹשׁ גְּמָמִיּוֹת בַּנַּחַל, הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה וְהָאֶמְצָעִית; הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים עֶשְׂרִים סְאָה, וְהָאֶמְצָעִית שֶׁל אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה, וְחַרְדָּלִית שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים עוֹבֶרֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵאִיר הָיָה אוֹמֵר: מַטְבִּיל בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: You** already **learned** it in the *Tosefta* (*Mikvaot* 3:3): If there are **three depressions in** the bed of **a stream that** are not completely dry, **an upper one, a lower one, and a middle one;** and **the upper and lower ones** hold **twenty *se’a* each, while the middle one** contains **forty *se’a*, and a flow of rain runs between them,** thereby linking the depressions one to another, **Rabbi Yehuda says:** My colleague, Rabbi **Meir, would say:** One may **immerse in the upper one.** This indicates that Rabbi Meir holds that the waters of the middle depression, which contains the requisite amount of water for a ritual bath, are considered to have ascended by means of the rainwater into the higher depression. Since Rabbi Yehuda cites his colleague’s statement without comment, he evidently accepts the principle of raising the partition.


###### Chagigah 19a:22
[Chagigah 19a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/19a:22)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla raised a difficulty: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says:**