## Chagigah Daf 26a

###### Chagigah 26a:1
[Chagigah 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:1)

אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן יוֹצְאִין — כְּלַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 26a:2
[Chagigah 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 26a:3
[Chagigah 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:3)

תָּנָא: נֶאֱמָנִין בִּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הַדַּקִּין לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּיטָּלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁאֵין נִיטָּלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chagigah 26a:4
[Chagigah 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chagigah 26a:5
[Chagigah 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַגַּבָּאִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְכֵן הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים — נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר: לֹא נָגַעְנוּ. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.**


###### Chagigah 26a:6
[Chagigah 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:6)

**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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 26a:7
[Chagigah 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 26a:8
[Chagigah 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chagigah 26a:9
[Chagigah 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:9)

וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. תָּנָא: נֶאֱמָנִין עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס גַּסִּין לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה — שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כִּבְשׁוֹנוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chagigah 26a:10
[Chagigah 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chagigah 26a:11
[Chagigah 26a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת חָבִיתוֹ, וְהַמַּתְחִיל בְּעִיסָּתוֹ עַל גַּב הָרֶגֶל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יִגְמוֹר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִגְמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 26a:12
[Chagigah 26a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** יָתֵיב רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, פְּתַח חַד וַאֲמַר: מַהוּ שֶׁיַּנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Chagigah 26a:13
[Chagigah 26a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chagigah 26a:14
[Chagigah 26a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:14)

נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יַנִּיחֶנָּה לְרֶגֶל אַחֵר. מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?


###### Chagigah 26a:15
[Chagigah 26a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:15)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 26a:16
[Chagigah 26a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:16)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 26a:17
[Chagigah 26a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּנוּיִין מִלְּהוֹצִיא בַּדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 26a:18
[Chagigah 26a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/26a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** כֵּיצַד מַעֲבִירִין עַל טׇהֳרַת עֲזָרָה? מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם: הִזָּהֲרוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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**