Gemara Chagigah, daf (page) kaf alef. Masechet (tractate) Chagigah is dedicated anonymously for the hatzlachah (success) of Ya'akov Yisra'el ben Frida Tziporah and Sarah bat Simchah, she-Hashem ya'arich yemeihem be-tov u-shenoteihem bi-ne'imim (May Hashem lengthen their days in goodness and their years in pleasantness), amen ken yehi ratzon (Amen, may it be His will). Today's daf is for a refu'ah shelemah (complete recovery) for the nesi ha-kehilah (community president), Eliyahu ben Rachel: ana refa na lo u-ve-toch she'ar cholei Yisra'el (Please heal him among the other sick of Israel), amen.
We begin today's daf, kaf alef amud rishon (21, first side). We start from the Gemara. Yesterday, in the Mishnah, we began chomer ba-kodesh. We said there are 10 or 11—we'll see in the Gemara today—chumrot (stringencies) that sacred things have. Kodesh means when you're dealing with korbanot (sacrificial offerings), as opposed to terumah (priestly gift).
One of them was that, when it comes to dipping a keli be-toch keli—the smaller one in the bigger one—let's say you have to dip two kelim (vessels), a bigger one and a smaller one. You want to put the smaller one in the bigger one and dip them simultaneously. We said that for terumah, that's okay. But for kodesh items, meaning if you want to use those kelim for kodesh, it's not okay.
The she'elah (question) here is: What is the concern with dipping a keli be-toch keli? The Gemara says, ba-kodesh mai ta'ama lo? What's the reason why, ba-kodesh, we say that you should not do that? Amar Rabbi Ila (Rabbi Ila said), mipnei she-kovedo shel keli chotzetz. The weight of the inner keli is going to weigh down on the inner keli. Therefore, both are going to be a problem. The inner keli is touching the outer keli, and therefore the water will not get underneath it. Both are going to have a problem of chatzitzah: the water will not get underneath it.
Now, of course, this is a chumra (stringency), because really we know that the water will go underneath it. We are just being machmir (stringent) because it may look like a chatzitzah, and it's kodesh. So the issue is chatzitzah.
Ve-ha mi-de-seifa mishum chatzitzah, reisha lav mishum chatzitzah (If the latter is because of interposition, is the former not because of interposition?). Wait, we discussed chatzitzah as being one of the chumrot of kodesh over terumah at the end of the Mishnah. If you remember, the last part of the Mishnah, which we'll see now in the Gemara, talked about a garment that had a knot in it. We said that when it comes to kodesh, you have to wait until the garment dries, untie it—which is the key point we need to talk about here—and dry it. Why do you have to untie the garment? Because we're worried about chatzitzah, even though technically the water will get through. For kodesh, we're machmir on chatzitzot, whereas, when it came to terumah, they actually let you knot it first, even before you dip it in the mikveh (ritual bath).
The Gemara is saying: You discussed the chumra of chatzitzah. So you just gave me different examples? We know we can make up all the examples, but it's the same point. The essence here is chatzitzah. So the Gemara says, Mi-de-katani seifa, and it said in the latter clause, ve-lo ke-middot ha-kodesh middat ha-terumah (The measure of sacred things is not like the measure of terumah), she-ba-kodesh matir u-menagev—you have to untie the knot and dry it—u-matbil, and then dip, ve-achar kach kosher, and then you can tie it again. U-vi-terumah kosher, you can even tie it initially, ve-achar kach matbil.
So the Gemara says: From the fact that the latter clause is because of chatzitzah, apparently the first clause is not because of chatzitzah. Reisha ve-seifa mishum chatzitzah (If the latter is because of interposition, is the former not because of interposition?): They're both because of chatzitzah. And tzaricha (it is necessary)—you need both cases, because I would not be able to learn one from the other.
If we were taught the first clause, the case of the keli be-toch keli, I might have said: That's the reason that for kodesh it's asur (forbidden), because the weight of the vessel is involved. I could understand why we're machmir by kodesh keli be-toch keli, because of the weight of the keli. But in the latter clause, where there's just a knot, there's no weight of the keli, no weight issue here. Apparently, I might have thought that even for kodesh, such a concern would not be a problem, even though we're concerned about chatzitzah. Since there's no weight of the keli, perhaps it would be okay. That's why it says it is not.
If we were taught only the latter clause, the knot case, I might have said: That's the reason that for kodesh you may not do it, because a knot tightens in water. So I would have thought that's why it is forbidden, because of chatzitzah, only because it's a knot in water. But in the first clause, the water makes the keli be-toch keli float, causes it to go up a little, and therefore perhaps it would not be considered a chatzitzah. Therefore, it is necessary. Both cases are talking about chatzitzah, and we need both cases because each one has a chiddush (novel point) in it. We could not learn one from the other. That is the opinion of Rabbi Ila.
Now, Rabbi Ila is following his reasoning, because Rabbi Ila says, le-ta'ameih de-amar Rabbi Ila amar Rav Chanina bar Pappa, eser ma'alot shanu kan. There's actually 10 cases in the Mishnah. Now, you'll count 11. What he means is that 10 ma'alot are 10 distinct chumrot. Chatzitzah is written twice, so we're counting chatzitzah as one. The case of the knot and the case of the keli be-toch keli are considered one.
He says there's going to be a difference between the first five cases and the last five cases. The first five cases are going to be stricter than the last five. Actually, it's the first six cases—which is really five, because chatzitzah is one. So chatzitzah, one and one and six, is chatzitzah. We are going to count that as one case. The first five cases are all issues that, as we're going to see now, are connected to chashashot de'orayta (Torah-level concerns). Since the first five cases have issues connected to Torah law, we're going to be more stringent.
What does it mean to be more stringent? Not only are we going to be stringent by kodesh items—for example, putting korbanot in these kelim—but even for chulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh, which is not kodesh. It's chulin that's being treated like kodesh, but we're going to be strict about these chumrot. The latter clause, which is really only about wholly rabbinical concerns, will be stringent only for kodesh, but not for chulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh.
The Gemara says, chamesh rishonot, bein lekodesh, bein lechulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh (For sacred things and for non-sacred food prepared with sacred purity). Acharonot, lekodesh, aval lo lechulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh (The latter cases, for sacred things but not for non-sacred food prepared with sacred purity). Mai ta'ama? What's the reason? Chamesh kamayta de'it behu derara de-tum'ah de'orayta: there's a connection and a gezerah (rabbinic decree) to a Torah-level tum'ah (impurity). Gazru behu rabanan (the Sages), bein lekodesh, bein lechulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh.
So the Gemara—the Mishnah—is concerned about both kodesh and chulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh. But for the latter cases, the last five, there is no connection to Torah-level tum'ah. It's not a gezerah about something of Torah law; it's wholly rabbinical. The Sages made a decree, but for what? For kodesh. For chulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh, the Sages did not make a decree.
We have to go through the first five cases and see where exactly the concern of Torah law is. Rashi does that for us. He says: concern about Torah-level impurity—keli be-toch keli. Well, keli be-toch keli is chatzitzah, and chatzitzah is a Torah-level case. In this case, it is not a Torah-level concern because really the water will go through. But you're concerned about a concept that is from the Torah: chatzitzot. A regular case where we have to dip something by Torah law and it has a chatzitzah is invalid by Torah law. Therefore, the case of chatzitzah is definitely a Torah-level concern.
Keli, if there is chatzitzah, it's a Torah-level impurity. Achorayim ve-toch—that was the second thing we said. For kodesh, we said that if one part of the keli becomes tamei (ritually impure), all of the keli becomes tamei. Mah she'ein ken (unlike that) for terumah, where we said each functional part of the keli that becomes tamei remains tamei itself. That is a concern connected to Torah law.
What's the Torah-level concern? Af al gav de-kelim she-nitme'u achorav be-mashkin. Let's say liquids—which normally have only rabbinic impurity—are what we're talking about. We're not talking about Torah law; we're talking about liquids, which are rabbinic. So why is he saying that part of the keli will render all of the keli impure? The Sages made a decree about liquids rendering a keli impure because of the decree about liquids of a zav and a zavah. There you go. The liquids of a zav (a person with a discharge) or a zavah—say, roko shel zav, the phlegm or saliva of the zav, or the mei raglayim of the zav—are liquids of a zav that render the entire keli impure by Torah law.
Kegon roko u-mei raglav de-matme'in keli mide'orayta. By Torah law, there is no distinction in a keli between its outside and its inside. If it touched the outside, the whole keli is going to be forbidden. If it touched the inside, for sure the whole thing is going to become forbidden. So this concern about achorayim ve-toch, that each part of the keli can render the whole keli impure, is tied to a Torah-level case, which is a zav.
Now we have the case of midras (impurity from an object sat upon), also a concern about Torah-level impurity. What was the case of midras? That he cannot—if a person is dealing with kodesh in one hand, he cannot—Is that the case of midras? No, the case of midras is the clothes. Am I right or wrong? What's the case of midras? Yes, nosei et hamidras. The person carrying kodesh cannot carry an object of midras impurity, like the shoe of a zav. Very good. Why can't he carry it? We're concerned by Torah law that maybe this shoe will go into the airspace of the keli and render it impure by Torah law. So it's clearly a Torah-level concern.
Rashi says: nosei et hamidras is also a concern about Torah-level impurity, as the Gemara explains with the incident where the retzu'at hasandal, the shoelace of the sandal, went into the airspace of the chavit (barrel).
Bigdei ochlei terumah: we said that the garments of those who eat terumah are midras for kodesh. What's the reason there? Shema yashvah aleihem ishto nidah (a menstruating woman). We're concerned that maybe the garments of someone who eats terumah were sat upon by a nidah, and therefore there is Torah-level impurity. So we're concerned about them for kodesh. That is a concern about Torah-level impurity.
And what were the kelim ha-nigmarim? Kelim ha-nigmarim be-taharah: they were careful when the keli was finished, when it becomes susceptible to tum'ah. For kodesh, it still needs a tevilah (immersion). What are we worried about? Either the spit of an am ha'aretz (a person who is not careful with ritual purity) went on it, or maybe he is a zav, and the saliva of a zav is tamei. Maybe that spit is still moist on the keli even after it became susceptible. Obviously, we're concerned about Torah-level impurity from the saliva of an am ha'aretz who is a zav. So those cases are all Torah-level concerns.
Now the Gemara says, Rava amar. Rava has a different way of learning the Mishnah: the latter clause is also because of chatzitzah, and the first clause is not because of chatzitzah. The latter clause is certainly about chatzitzah. That's the case of the knot: you have to untie the garment before you dip it. However, he argues and says that the first clause is not chatzitzah. Keli be-toch keli is not a chatzitzah issue, as Rabbi Ila learned. He's going to learn a different reason.
Therefore, if he learns a different reason, you're actually going to have 11 cases in the Mishnah. He says, the first clause is a decree: we're concerned that you might immerse machatin ve-tzinorot—these small kelim—in a vessel whose opening is not the size of the tube of a wineskin. A nod is a flask, and the shefoferet is like a straw that they put in the flask in order to drink.
That straw had a certain width. The law is that, for the water in the keli—which, when you fill a keli up, is touching the waters of the mikveh—to be considered a chibur (connection), it has to be a certain width. Then we say: Even though there's only a little water in this keli, since it's connected to the mikveh, it's as if the whole mikveh purifies everything inside it. The reason you can't dip keli be-toch keli is that we're worried you might come to dip these kelim in a keli that does not have the width of a shefoferet ha-nod. Therefore, it has nothing to do with chatzitzah. You might dip it in a keli like this, and it won't work.
The Gemara says, ke-detnan, as we learned: eruv mikva'ot (joining of ritual baths) ke-shefoferet ha-nod. What does eruv mikva'ot mean? You have, as Rashi says, a mikveh chaser be-tzad mikveh shalem: a mikveh shalem (complete ritual bath) of 40 se'ah (measure of volume), and next to it a mikveh with less than 40 se'ah, with a hole connecting them. If the hole is less than a shefoferet ha-nod, they are separate mikva'ot. But if the hole connecting them is the size of a shefoferet ha-nod—the Gemara is going to say, actually, shefoferet ha-nod ke-ovyah u-che-chalalah, meaning not only the straw, but the width of the whole area of the nod—then what is that measure? Shtei etzba'ot chozrot bimkoman. What does that mean? You could take two fingers and go around. That's the width.
What do you see from here? When do we consider a mikveh connected? When it has a hole like that. Hu hadin (the same law applies) when you're dipping things in the mikveh. If the hole is very narrow, it will not purify the kelim inside it. So he learns that the first clause has nothing to do with chatzitzah; it's a decree because of the possibility of a narrower opening.
The Gemara says, savar lah ke-ha de-amar Rav Nachman amar Rabbah bar Avuha, yud-alef ma'alot shanu kan. He holds that there are actually 11 cases, because he counts chatzitzah as one and shefoferet ha-nod as a separate one. The other Rabbi, Rabbi Ila, had chatzitzah twice, so that is counted as one even though there are two cases in the Mishnah. Unlike that, he counts two cases, and each case has a different reason: one is because of shefoferet ha-nod, and one is because of chatzitzah.
Shesh rishonot: now we go back. The first six include chatzitzah and shefoferet ha-nod. The first one is considered shefoferet ha-nod, and number six is the case of the knot, which is considered a chatzitzah issue. Those are Torah-level concerns, as we just said in the earlier case. They apply both to kodesh and to chulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh. The latter cases, which are rabbinical concerns, apply to kodesh, but not to chulin shena'asu al taharat hakodesh.
Now the Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between Rava and Rabbi Ila? What's the nafka minah (practical difference) if you hold that the reason is chatzitzah, or that the reason is a decree because of shefoferet ha-nod? The bottom line is, you can't do it. Both rabbis will tell you that you cannot dip keli be-toch keli. So what's the practical nafka minah? He says this; he says that. Is there a practical difference?
The Gemara says there is a tremendous practical difference. Let's say you have a type of keli for which there is no possibility of a narrow opening. For example, they talk about these items used in the winepress: wide kelim into which you pour the wine, which filters out and goes into the gat (winepress), while the peels and all that stuff are filtered out. They don't make a keli like that narrow. If the whole decree is because of the possibility of a shefoferet ha-nod, you'll be able to dip keli be-toch keli in such a keli, because you would never come to make that problem. But if you hold that the reason is chatzitzah, what do I care how wide the keli is? The bottom line is that the weight of the keli is the weight of the keli.
The Gemara says, mai ika bein de-Rava le-Rabbi Ila? Ika beineihu sal (basket), ve-gargutni (winepress strainer). These are items used in the winepress, where they filter the wine through them and it goes into the pit. Basically, these are wide kelim that never even have a narrow version. The Gemara says, she-mil'an kelim, you put kelim in them, and you want to dip them. For the one who says it's because of chatzitzah, what do I care how wide the opening is? The bottom line is that it's a keli be-toch keli. If it's a chatzitzah issue, the issue is not the weight of the keli.
For the one who says it's because of the decree that you might immerse needles and tubes in a keli whose opening is smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod, if you hold like Rava, that the whole decree is because you might come to immerse in kelim like those whose openings are smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod, then guess what? Sal ve-gargutni she-ein be-fihem ke-shefoferet ha-nod leika: there are no such kelim. They're all wide. So we won't make a decree for this type of keli because of a different kind of keli.
Rava follows his reasoning. What did he say? Sal ve-gargutni she-mil'an kelim: you fill these items with kelim, the sal, the wide basket, and the gargutni, the item used in the winepress, u-tevalan, and you dip the kelim be-toch keli. What's the law? U-tevalan tehorin: they're pure. Again, there's no problem; there's no decree in such a case.
But what if you take a gargutni, for example, because they have holes in it, and divide the mikveh with this sal? I split the mikveh with this basket. Now I have 20 se'ah on one side and 20 se'ah on the other, with this sal in between. I could have argued that the water goes through the holes. But now, since these holes are small, it breaks the mikveh. Why? For eruv mikva'ot, you need at least a shefoferet ha-nod. Here you're putting the keli sideways, and therefore it's separated by the holes of the keli. These holes are very small, and so it's going to break the mikveh into two parts, with neither side having 40 se'ah.
The Gemara says, ha-tovel sham lo altah lo tevilah (One who immerses there has not fulfilled immersion). The Gemara proves it: de-ha ar'a kullah chalcholei mechalchela, the whole earth is porous throughout. Why don't you say that even a small puddle, with less than 40 se'ah, has holes in the earth, so the earth is porous and it's always connected to the ocean? Why don't you say that the holes underground connect it? We know that's not so. You need 40 se'ah in one place. Even though there are small holes, that doesn't make it one entity. We require arba'im se'ah be-makom echad: forty se'ah in one place.
Now the Gemara gives one tremendous chiddush. What we said—that when you dip keli be-toch keli, it will be a problem if the opening is smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod or because of chatzitzah—applies only to a keli tahor (a pure vessel), where you're trying only to purify the kelim inside it. You understand? When you're only trying to fix those, then you're going to have a problem, either of shefoferet ha-nod or of chatzitzah, each according to its own reasoning.
However, with a keli tamei (an impure vessel), it's unbelievable. If the outer keli is tamei, let's go slowly. Let's talk about an outer keli by itself, without anything in it. Say you have an ordinary keli whose opening is smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod. Obviously, I can dip it. We're not going to say, “Oh, the opening isn't a shefoferet ha-nod, so the water that goes in—” As he says, just as it became tamei with an opening smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod, it can become tahor with an opening smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod.
In itself, there's no question. I don't care what size the opening is. With an ordinary keli that is tamei and very narrow, do I say, “You can't dip such a keli; you have to break it”? Chas ve-shalom. “It's smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod?” No. The rule about less than a shefoferet ha-nod was said only regarding kelim that are inside, not regarding the keli itself. It became tamei, so if it can become tamei, it can become tahor.
So we're going to say a chiddush here. If the outer keli is tamei, and therefore the mikveh waters inside it are going to be mo'il (effective) for it, migo (since; by virtue of) their being effective for the outer keli, they'll be effective for the inner keli, even though its opening is smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod. You understand? I'm not going to say that the outer keli became tahor but the inner one didn't. What do you mean? The only way the outer keli became tahor was that the water inside it was effective, and therefore you're disregarding the shefoferet ha-nod when it comes to the outer keli. Once you say the waters were effective for the outer keli, they'll be effective for the inner keli too.
Migo de-salka tevilah le-kuleh gufa de-mana, just as the waters will be effective for the whole outer keli, salka lehu nami le-kelim de-it bah, they will work for the kelim inside it as well. It sounds counterintuitive. That's the migo. You might say, “Wow, the outside is tamei—a bigger problem.” No, the outside being tamei makes it better, because now it will work for itself. If it works for itself, migo de-zachi le-nafsheh zachi nami le-chavereh (Since it benefits itself, it also benefits another).
The Gemara says, detnan: we have a Mishnah that proves this. Kelim she-milan kelim, our case: you filled kelim with kelim, ve-hitbilan, and you dipped them. Harei elu tehorin: they are pure. Ve-im lo taval—now we'll see what this means—if you did not dip them, we'll see what that means. What's the question? The Gemara will explain those words. Ve-im lo taval, mayim ha-me'oravim: then the waters are considered separate, ad she-yehu me'oravim ki-shefoferet ha-nod; they need to be joined by a shefoferet ha-nod.
The Gemara asks, mai ka'amar ve-im lo taval? What do you mean, “if he did not dip”? Hachi ka'amar: ve-im eino tzarich lehatbilo—and if it does not need to be immersed—if the outer keli doesn't need to be dipped, meaning the outer keli is tahor (ritually pure)—then you need a shefoferet ha-nod. Unlike the first clause, where the outer one was tamei, you don't need a shefoferet ha-nod. The joined waters are therefore considered separate until they are joined by a shefoferet ha-nod.
Now the Gemara says, ve-ha de-Rava ve-Rabbi Ila tana'ei hi: the disagreement between Rava and Rabbi Ila is actually a disagreement among tanna'im (early rabbinic sages). Detanya: sal ve-gargutni, our case—the basket and the gargutni, the keli they use in a winepress—she-milan kelim, you filled it with kelim, ve-hitbilan, and you immersed them, the kelim be-toch keli. Bein lekodesh bein li-terumah tehorin. Stop right there. Whose opinion is that? Rava's: it will even be kasher (valid) for kodesh. Why? These kelim are never smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod, and therefore this tanna says there is no problem; you can dip keli be-toch keli in wide kelim.
However, Abba Shaul says li-terumah aval lo le-kodesh. What do you mean? Why? For terumah but not for kodesh? Because he obviously learned that it's a chatzitzah issue, and therefore we're stringent for kodesh, because kodesh is stringent: chomer ba-kodesh. You see that the disagreement between Rava and Rabbi Ila is actually a disagreement among the tanna'im.
Now the Gemara is going to ask a question about these opinions. If you hold that the issue is either shefoferet ha-nod in an ordinary keli, or chatzitzah, apparently these issues should apply to terumah just as much as to kodesh. Even Rava agrees that, outside of a sal ve-gargutni, in an ordinary keli that can become narrow, you have a problem. You cannot use this keli to dip things for kodesh, but you can use it for terumah.
Apparently, if you're making a decree that you might come to use a keli smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod, it should apply to terumah. If you're concerned about chatzitzah, you should be concerned about it for terumah as well. These sound like legitimate concerns. So the Gemara says, i hachi (if so), terumah nami: terumah should also have the same concerns. That's how Rashi learns it.
The Gemara says, le-man ka'amrei: hold on, who are we talking about there? Who's asking the rabbi, “Rabbi, can I dip keli be-toch keli?” Who's asking? Is an am ha'aretz asking? He doesn't care about tum'ah ve-taharah. Who's asking? Chaverim (associates who observe purity laws), righteous people, Sages! Chaverim meida yad'ei: the Sages know the law. They know that you can't dip unless there's a shefoferet ha-nod, or they know the laws of chatzitzah. So who's asking the question about terumah? The Sages. They know the law; what is there to worry about?
Hold on, if that's the case, kodesh nami! Who's asking the question about kodesh? Also righteous people and Sages, people who are obviously mindful of tum'ah. For the same reason you're telling me I don't have to worry about terumah—because the questioners are chaverim—why shouldn't that apply to kodesh? Who's asking about kodesh? An am ha'aretz? They don't care about tum'ah ve-taharah. The questioners are chaverim, and therefore we should not make a decree about something the Sages are well aware of. They know that chatzitzot are an issue, and they know that shefoferet ha-nod is an issue.
The Gemara says no: chazi leh am ha'aretz. We're worried that if you let the chaver dip keli be-toch keli for kodesh, the am ha'aretz will see him and ve-azil madbil—he'll go and do it himself. Therefore, we're worried about kodesh because we don't want him to copy you, and he doesn't know the law.
But you're letting terumah be done. Terumah nami chazi leih am ha'aretz ve-azil madbil! What are you talking about? You let the chaver do terumah, and now the am ha'aretz is in the mikveh watching. He sees the chaver dipping keli be-toch keli for terumah. What is he going to do? The same thing. You're not worried about that?
I'll tell you why I'm not worried about it: I don't accept terumah from an am ha'aretz. That will never be a problem. Lo mekablinan minaihu. So let him do what he wants; it's never going to affect us. We don't accept terumah from an am ha'aretz, so let him copy, let him make a mistake.
The Gemara says, “Wait. If that's the case, say the same thing: Let the chaverim dip keli be-toch keli for kodesh, and when the am ha'aretz comes to give kodesh, don't accept it from him.” Kodesh nami lo nekabel minaihu? The problem here is that we have only one Beit HaMikdash. It's not as if you can tell the am ha'aretz, “This Beit HaMikdash doesn't accept your items.” With terumah, he'd give it to his am ha'aretz friend who's a kohen (priest). Unlike terumah, with kodesh there is only one place.
So there's an eivah (animosity) issue. The man will be insulted: “Where am I going to bring it? Shall I open up a Beit Chonyo, or what am I doing? Open up my own conservative shul now to make my own Beit HaMikdash?” With kodesh, we don't have the option of telling the am ha'aretz, “We don't accept it.”
The Gemara says, “Wait, terumah nami havya leih eivah? When the kohen tells the am ha'aretz, ‘I'm not accepting your terumah,’ that can also be insulting and cause friction.” Lo ichpat leih: when it comes to terumah, he doesn't care. Why? D'azil yahiv leih le-kohen am ha'aretz chavreih. He'll just give it to his friend, the am ha'aretz. But the am ha'aretz doesn't have his own Beit HaMikdash. So we have no choice but to accept kodesh from an am ha'aretz. Therefore, we need to tighten up the laws of kodesh because we're worried the am ha'aretz is going to see it, and we have to accept it, and it's going to ruin us.
Unlike that, the chaverim know the laws of terumah: you cannot dip the keli be-toch keli; it might be a chatzitzah, so they'll be careful, and the weight of the keli is a non-issue. If the am ha'aretz sees it, let him see it. It will never get to us; it'll always stay in the am ha'aretz's world. There's no reason to make a decree about chaverim because of the am ha'aretz. But with kodesh, it's going to get to us. Don't only worry about the chaverim. With kodesh, it's going to get to us because the am ha'aretz will see it, dip keli be-toch keli for kodesh, and come to the Beit HaMikdash. We don't have the luxury of telling him, “We don't accept it,” because of eivah. To protect that situation, we made a decree for kodesh.
How about the am ha'aretz kohen? Shouldn't we worry about him? Is he not holy? He doesn't care himself! He doesn't care. I'm not promoting them not to care. They don't care. I'm not giving him anything; he's doing it himself. He's preparing something that's not good and giving it to another person who doesn't care that it's not good.
The am ha'aretz has terumah. He's going to come to a religious kohen, a chaver. The chaver is going to say, “Sorry, I don't accept your terumah.” What is the am ha'aretz going to say? “Jump in the lake! I'll give it to my friend, who's also an am ha'aretz. He doesn't care about it. We have a different standard. He's modern. Give it to that guy there.”
And that's okay? I'm not doing—what should I do? Should I take something that's tamei? If there's a decree for terumah, then I'm not following you. I'm not trying to cause him to give it to the am ha'aretz. Go learn hilchot tumah ve-taharah, go to yeshiva. I didn't make you an am ha'aretz. You decided to live on the level of an am ha'aretz, and you're going to blame it on me? Now that you're an am ha'aretz, I cannot accept your terumah.
When the Sages made the decrees, they looked at what was going to happen. It's a beautiful lesson: when the Sages made decrees, they saw the far-reaching effects. If I do this, this is going to happen, and then this is going to happen. They played out the story. That's the beauty of the decrees of Chazal: they were able to anticipate that this decree was going to have this outcome. It's very easy just to say, “We're making a decree.” Think it through. If you do this, there's an action and a reaction. Something is going to happen here. So let's speak it out: What's the worst thing that could happen?
We're going to let Sages dip keli be-toch keli for terumah. What are you worried about? The am ha'aretz is going to watch you and do it, and then his terumah is going to be prepared keli be-toch keli, and he doesn't know the halachot? An am ha'aretz doesn't ask questions, as you know. He doesn't care. He is oblivious, or willingly oblivious, to the laws of tumah ve-taharah. He doesn't care; he does his leniencies without question.
So what will happen? It'll never hurt the people who are careful, who are particular about this. Why? He'll prepare his terumah wrongly and bring it to us. We'll tell him, “Sorry, we don't accept it,” and he'll give it to somebody else. No eivah, no hard feelings, nothing. But with kodashim, where do we have that luxury? There's only one Beit HaMikdash. If we don't accept it, what is he going to do?
Again, does that mean we're telling the am ha'aretz to go to Gehenom? No, metziut (reality). Go learn. Maybe he'll learn a lesson, by the way, when you tell him, “I cannot accept your terumah.” Maybe the man will wake up and say, “Why is the rabbi not accepting my terumah? Maybe I'm doing something wrong here.” So it might cause him to make teshuvah.
Anyway, the Gemara says, u-man tanna de-chayeish le-eivah? Obviously this follows an opinion that is concerned about animosity. I guess not everybody is. Who is the opinion that's concerned about animosity? The Gemara says, Rabbi Yosei. The mekubalim (Kabbalists) say eivah is the rashei teivot (initial letters): Eichah yashvah vadad ha'ir, the first words of Megilat Eichah, because the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed because of sinat chinam (baseless hatred). Eivah: Eichah yashvah vadad ha'ir.
Rabbi Yosei—he is Rabbi Yosei. Detanya, amar Rabbi Yosei: mipnei mah hakol ne'emanin al taharat yayin ve-shemen kol yemot hashanah? An am ha'aretz comes to the Beit HaMikdash and brings yayin (wine) for nesachim (libation offerings), or shemen (oil) for a minchah (grain offering). We don't question the kashrut or the taharah of anyone when they come to the Beit HaMikdash all year long. If he tells us it's tahor, we accept it, and we're not concerned about tum'ah.
Why? Kedei shelo yehei kol echad ve-echad holech u-voneh bamah (private altar) le-atzmo. If you're not going to accept the oil and the wine, what will end up happening? Everybody's going to open up their own Beit HaMikdash. “Oh, you don't accept my oil? All right, good, I'll open up my own Beit HaMikdash.” The Sages were smart about that. Ve-soreif parah adumah (red heifer) le-atzmo. What's going to end up happening? “I'll get my own parah adumah,” like their own Chonyo, and you end up causing this big takalah (disaster) and splitting the whole people.
Rabbi Yosei says that's the concern. And what's going to end up happening then? You really get the am ha'aretz into trouble, because he's going to start bringing korbanot outside the Beit HaMikdash. Then he'll start doing serious karet (spiritual excision) things. We don't want that. So they are trusted.
“To join them?” One hundred percent. It's much easier, of course, because they're not going to make it more difficult than the real law. Okay, let's go for it.
Rav Pappa says: Keman (according to whom) mekabelinan ha'idna sahadauta me-am ha'aretz? An am ha'aretz comes to the beit din (rabbinical court) and gives sahadauta (testimony). Do we accept him? Yes. You might say he's an am ha'aretz, he's not precise, he's not careful with his testimony, so maybe we should make a law that you can't accept an am ha'aretz as a witness. He says: You know what? According to whom? Like Rabbi Yosei. Same reason. Why? They're going to start opening up their own courts. Who knows what they'll do? So there's eivah. Rabbi Yosei is always concerned about eivah, and therefore you have to accept an am ha'aretz as a witness, according to the regular rules. And you have to accept his oil and his—
Now the Gemara says that matbilin keli be-toch keli le-terumah: we said they can dip keli be-toch keli for terumah. The Gemara asks, ve-nichush li-she'eilah (Should we not be concerned about borrowing?). Why aren't you concerned that someone will borrow the keli? Rashi says, ve-nichush li-she'eilah: don't dip keli be-toch keli for terumah. Why? Dilma chazi am ha'aretz, fine, ve-avid hachi: he's going to do it. Ve-anu sho'alim et kelav: we're going to borrow the keli from the am ha'aretz, and that keli was not dipped correctly. Now we're going to get in trouble, because we've got this keli of the am ha'aretz that was dipped incorrectly because he saw us, and now we use it on the side where it needs to be tahor.
Apparently, we should make a decree. If people don't borrow kelim, I have no problem. But if you're saying that people borrow kelim from each other, the concern still applies. Maybe that keli of the am ha'aretz that was handled incorrectly is going to end up in our possession, the chaver's possession, and here we're back to square one. Ve-nichush li-she'eilah.
By the way, we have a baraita in Eduyot. A keli cheres (earthenware vessel) that's sealed—remember, the Torah says tzamid patil (sealed cover), a wrapping around it and a seal around it—matzil al hakol: anything inside it cannot become tamei, even if it's tumat met (impurity from a corpse), even if it's in an ohel (tent; enclosed space). Why? The keli cheres can only become tamei mitokhto (from its interior), me-aviro (from its airspace), and, since it's sealed, a keli cheres does not become tamei mi-gabo (from its exterior). Therefore, a sealed keli cheres is fine; there's nothing to worry about, even in an ohel ha-met.
Whose opinion is that? The words of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai says, eino matzil ela al ochlin ve-al ha-mashkin ve-al keli cheres: it protects only food, liquids, and earthenware vessels. But let's say you have begadim (garments) in this item, in this keli cheres; it won't protect them.
Amru lahem Beit Hillel le-Veit Shammai (Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai), mipenei mah? “For what reason?” Beit Shammai said: mipenei shehu tamei al gav am ha'aretz. We're talking here about a case where the am ha'aretz already touched the item, and the am ha'aretz is tamei, so it's going to render what's inside impure. The rule is, ve-ein keli tamei chotzetz: when do we say a keli cheres interposes against the impurity? When it is tahor. But if the keli cheres is already tamei, it won't interpose. Here we're talking about a case where an am ha'aretz touched the keli cheres.
The Gemara then says, “Wait. If that's so, why are you saying the food is okay? If you're saying the keli cheres is tamei because the am ha'aretz touched it, then it should render everything impure!” Beit Hillel comes back: ve-halo tehartem ochlin u-mashkin she-be-tocho? “But did you not purify the food and liquids inside it?” Exactly: all or nothing!
Beit Shammai said, ke-she-teharnu ochlin u-mashkin she-be-tocho, le-atzmo teharnu. Who are we saying the food is okay for? For the am ha'aretz! Rashi says, hu yochlem: let him eat them, since chaverim badelim me-hem u-mi-maga'am. We said, “We're never going to eat the food of an am ha'aretz anyway, so for us it's not relevant.” By the way, even if he came to us without this keli cheres and the corpse, we would never—
So when I declared it permitted, what did I permit? The food for the am ha'aretz. Let him eat it! But the Gemara says, aval netaher et ha-keli. If I'm going to purify this keli, what's going to happen? She-tiharto lecha ve-lo: you purified it for yourself, but not for him. He is going to lend it to us! We don't borrow food from an am ha'aretz, but we are going to borrow kelim. If I'm going to say that the keli is tahor, I'm not worried about the am ha'aretz; he doesn't care himself. We care about the people who care. But I'm worried about the chaverim. Therefore, I have to declare the keli impure, because if I go to the am ha'aretz and ask, “Can I borrow your shirt?” and he gives me this shirt, I need to know where it was. It was in a keli cheres that was tamei. That way it won't come to bother a talmid chacham (Torah scholar). Rashi says: you purified it for yourself, but not for him, in case you borrow it and use it.
So the Gemara has not yet gotten to the question. The Gemara comes along with this amazing, famous story. Tanya (it was taught), amar Rabbi Yehoshua (Rabbi Yehoshua said): oy oy oy (woe, woe, woe), boshani mi-divreichem Beit Shammai. “I'm embarrassed by what you said, Beit Shammai. Your words don't make sense.” He's going to give a mashal (parable) based on Beit Shammai's ruling. He says, “What kind of words are you saying, Beit Shammai?”
What's the case here? Efshar (Is it possible?): there's an ishah (woman) on the second floor of a house. It's a two-floor, two-family house, right? She's on the top floor, kneading dough in an areivah (kneading trough), a wooden bowl that they knead in. Ishah lashah ba-areivah. Ishah ve-areivah teme'in shiv'ah u-vatzek tahor? “Are you going to say that the woman and the trough are impure for seven days, but the dough is pure?”
Now, I guess, what's happening here? There's a hole in the floor. There's a met (corpse) in the basement, on the first floor, and the tum'ah goes through the hole. She has an areivah in the hole, and she's kneading. The tum'ah is touching the bowl. So you want to say the bowl and the dough are tahor, and the woman herself is tamei? That's basically Beit Shammai: you're making a distinction between the food and the person or the keli.
Rashi: Ishah lashah ba-areivah ba-aliyah zo. “In this attic.” Ve-arubah setumah bi-keli cheres shel am ha'aretz. That's the case: this opening is sealed by the keli cheres of an am ha'aretz, actually plugging it up. So it's on the hole? Yes, yes, yes, plugging it up.
If you're going to say, she-im dino ke-tahor hu chotzetz bifnei ha-tumah she-lo titpasheit lema'lah, you're trying to stop the tum'ah from going to the second floor. But is it possible that a woman kneads in a trough on the second floor, and the woman and trough are impure for seven days, while the dough is pure? You are telling us that the keli cheres of an am ha'aretz interposes against impurity only with regard to food. Therefore, the dough is tahor, but it does not interpose with regard to other kelim, which is the same law for a person. Basically, you're saying that in this case the keli cheres interposes only for food. It sounds very strange. You're going to say the food is tahor and the woman is tamei?
It's hard to explain what's going on here. He gives another example. The woman is like a keli: you're telling me only the food is okay, but nothing else is protected. Lugin (a liquid-measuring vessel)—what is a lugin? It's a type of keli, metal. Fill it with some kind of beverage. Same story: it's on the second floor. Is the lugin tamei with the status of impurity for seven days, while the liquids are tahor? Again, the same question.
Nitpal lo talmid echad mi-talmidei Beit Shammai. One of the students of Beit Shammai joined him to defend his rabbi's opinion, of course, because Rabbi Yehoshua had said, “I'm embarrassed by what you said.” Amar lo, omar lecha ta'aman shel Beit Shammai: “I will explain to you the reasoning of Beit Shammai.” Rabbi Yehoshua said, “Say it.” “Bichvod (with respect), I'd love to hear it.”
He said to him: “Does an impure vessel interpose or not?” Rabbi Yehoshua said, “It does not interpose.” We already know that an impure vessel does not interpose. “Is the vessel of an am ha'aretz impure or pure?” He was setting him up. A vessel of an am ha'aretz: is it tahor or tamei? He said, “Tamei.” “Im ken muvan me'eilav she-ein keli shel am ha'aretz chotzetz bifnei ha-tumah (If so, it is self-evident that an am ha'aretz's vessel does not interpose against impurity).” That's why it does not interpose regarding a person and other vessels.
The student continued: “If you tell this am ha'aretz that his keli is tamei, will he pay any attention to you?” Is he going to accept it? For sure not. “And not only that, if you tell him it's tamei, what will he say back to us? ‘Mine is pure and yours is impure.’” He's going to tell me, “Mine is tahor, and yours is tamei.” We'll see what that means.
That's the reason of Beit Shammai: she-tiharu ochlin u-mashkin u-keli cheres. You know why? She-ein am ha'aretz mekabel mimecha: he's not going to accept it. You're going to tell him the kelim are okay, his keli cheres is okay, and the food is okay, because the am ha'aretz is not going to accept what you tell him. What will he answer? “You tell me I'm tamei? You're the tamei!” So then what? Because, basically, you're telling him his keli is tamei going in, and that's why it doesn't interpose. He'll say, “Why is my keli tamei? Your keli is tamei.”
Do you understand the rule here? If the keli is tamei, does it interpose against impurity? No. A regular vessel of an am ha'aretz: how do we view it? As tamei. So in truth, we're telling the am ha'aretz, “Your keli does not interpose.” He gets offended by that: “Why doesn't my keli interpose?” Because you're an am ha'aretz, and we have a rule that the kelim of an am ha'aretz are tamei. If you're going to tell him that, what will he say? “My keli is tahor; your keli is tamei.” So we're looking at this from the am ha'aretz's angle, and therefore, to protect ourselves, we have no choice.
Regarding the food, let him eat it. We're not going to take the keli anyway, it seems. Since it's a keli tamei, good luck. “Oh, what were we worried about in the case of the areivah?” He says the areivah is a different case. That wasn't an am ha'aretz; that was an ordinary woman, and they put a keli cheres over the hole. So we have the rules here: if the keli is tahor, it will interpose, and therefore everything should be okay.
The Gemara says, read Rashi for a second. Kelum mashgi'ach alecha: if you're going to tell the am ha'aretz that his kelim are tamei, will he listen to you? Look at Rashi, third line: le-fichach tiharu lo Beit Shammai ochlin u-mashkin bi-keli cheres. You know what? They told the am ha'aretz, “Your keli is good; your food is good; your drink is good,” because they have no purification except through sheviratan (their breaking). How do you purify a keli cheres? The only way is to break it.
He isn't going to break it. So they told him, “Listen, for you it's tahor.” If you come to forbid it to him, he won't listen to you. But with a keli shetef (metal vessel)—that's the case—when they can put it in the mikveh, even the am ha'aretz will listen to you, because you give him a way out. Yishma lecha ve-yitbilenu: He'll listen and immerse it. Understand? The case we were talking about above was a keli cheres, and since the only way to fix it is by breaking it, what are you going to tell the man? Tell him it's tamei; he's not going to listen to you anyway. So for the am ha'aretz, he thinks it's tahor. That won't affect us.
The Gemara says: If you tell him it's tamei, will he pay any attention to you? And not only that, if you tell him it's tamei, he'll tell you, “Mine is pure and yours is impure.” That's the reason of Beit Shammai: they declared the food and liquids in the keli cheres pure because the am ha'aretz will not accept it from you.
Rashi says: Why did Beit Shammai say that the other kelim are tamei? It's specifically the food and liquids in a keli cheres that the am ha'aretz won't listen about, since there's no remedy for them. But kelim that can be dipped in the mikveh—understand? Whatever solution you give the am ha'aretz, he'll accept. If you tell him his keli cheres is tamei and his food is tamei, he can't fix it, so he won't listen. So they tell him, “Listen, for you it's tahor.” Unlike that, with the shirt inside, if you tell him it's tamei, “Rabbi, do you have a solution?” “Yes, go put it in the mikveh and then come back; you'll be okay.” So we can tell him what we can fix; what we can't fix, we don't.
Miyad halach Rabbi Yehoshua ve-nishtatach al kivrei Beit Shammai. Rabbi Yehoshua immediately went and prostrated himself at the graves of Beit Shammai. Wow. He went to the grave of Beit Shammai and started asking forgiveness. He said, “Ne'eneti lachem atzmot Beit Shammai—I caused you agony, bones of Beit Shammai,” because he had said, “I'm embarrassed by what you said.” He said, “U-mah setumot shelachem kach meforashot al achat kamah ve-chamah: If your unexplained teachings are thus, how much more so your explained ones!” If this is how clear the things you didn't explain are, imagine how clear the things you did explain are. You didn't give a reason for this, and look how good the reason is. Kol sheken (all the more so) for the things that were meforashot—the things that were explained.
Amru kol yamav hushcharu shinav mipnei ta'aniyotav: They said that all his days his teeth were blackened because of his fasts. Rabbi Yehoshua fasted for the rest of his life in order to seek forgiveness for the way he had spoken against Beit Shammai, because of kavod talmidei chachamim (respect for Torah scholars). One time he said one word, and he went to the grave and asked forgiveness. His teeth became blackened from the fasts he undertook because of respect for Torah scholars.
Now, let's get back to our story. Put this to the side. Katani mihat, lecha ve-lo lo (for you, but not for him). Why did we render the kelim impure? What did Beit Shammai say? Because the kelim are going to affect us as well. Why? Because we're going to borrow them. Alma sha'alinan mineihu: there you go. Let's get back to the question. What did we say earlier? When it comes to terumah, keli be-toch keli is okay. Why? The am ha'aretz is going to see it and do it, but it's not going to bother us. He'll give his terumah of an am ha'aretz; it won't come close to us.
It will come close to us, because if he sees us dipping keli be-toch keli, he's going to dip keli be-toch keli incorrectly, and we're going to borrow the keli from him. Don't tell me we don't borrow kelim. Here you see Beit Shammai clearly made it forbidden and declared the kelim in this keli cheres, which had a tzamid patil, tamei. Why? Because we might borrow it. Look, then it's going to affect us.
The Gemara says, ki sha'alinan mineihu be-matkeninan lehu. When we borrow from them, we fix them. Chazak u-varuch! What do you think? We just borrow a keli from an am ha'aretz like this? Anytime we borrow a keli from an am ha'aretz, we immerse it, so you'll never have a problem.
The Gemara says, “Wait. If that's so, nidru lei Beit Hillel le-Beit Shammai (Let Beit Hillel say to Beit Shammai): When we borrow from them, we immerse the kelim.” What did Beit Hillel hold in that Mishnah? Beit Hillel didn't understand the difference. They said, “Keli cheres matzil al ha-kol: An earthenware vessel protects everything.” Everything! It protects bein al ochlin bein al mashkin (both food and liquids), and—what do you call it?—kelim. Beit Shammai made a distinction. So what's Beit Shammai's claim? “You know why I have to be stringent about kelim? We're going to borrow them.” Let Beit Hillel say back, “Wait. What are you worried about? We might borrow it? We'll immerse it.”
Beit Shammai's worry is that a chaver might borrow the keli and then it's going to bother us. It's not going to bother us; we'll immerse it. So let Beit Hillel answer back! Beit Shammai answered: “I'll tell you why I made a distinction. We're not going to take food from an am ha'aretz, so good luck to him, but we might borrow a shirt.” Beit Hillel should answer back, “Good. When we borrow a shirt, we'll immerse it.” Why couldn't Beit Hillel answer that to Beit Shammai?
The Gemara says no: tamei met ba'i haza'ah shelishi ve-shevi'i. If it became impure through corpse impurity, it needs parah adumah and sprinkling on the third and seventh days. U-mana le-shiv'ah yomei lo mushlei inshei: people don't lend a vessel for seven days. So you're not going to be able to purify it. You worry that the am ha'aretz might lend a keli to a chaver, who will use it while it is impure. Even if he immerses it, that's not enough, because here we're talking about corpse impurity. We now understand the logic of Beit Shammai: immersing the keli in this case won't help because of corpse impurity.
Look at Rashi: matbilin lehu, shema yatbilu keli be-toch keli. Okay, very good. Now the Gemara says, ve-ha-tevilah lo mehemni? We said above that chaverim immerse kelim that they borrow from an am ha'aretz. In other words, whenever chaverim borrow from an am ha'aretz, what do they do with the keli first? They immerse it. So what are we saying? That we're suspicious that the am ha'aretz doesn't immerse his kelim if they're tamei. He's not trusted to say, “My keli is tahor.”
The Gemara says, ve-ha-tevilah lo mehemni? Why, is he not believed about it? Rashi says: an am ha'aretz who borrows from him needs to immerse it. You just told me that if he borrows from him, he needs to immerse it. Why? Is the am ha'aretz not trusted? Ve-hatanya: ne'emanim amei ha'aretz al taharat tevilat temei met. Oh, an am ha'aretz is trusted regarding the purification by immersion of people impure from a corpse. He's trusted to say that he immersed it.
Abaye says, lo kashya (there is no contradiction). Ha be-gufo, ha be-kelim (One refers to his body, the other to vessels). Where we say that the am ha'aretz is trusted about immersion, that's talking about his own immersion, his body. He's trusted to say that he immersed according to halachah. But not regarding kelim. Rava amar (Rava said): No, idi ve-idi be-kelim (Both refer to vessels). There's no contradiction.
One case is where he says, me'olam lo hitbalti keli be-toch keli: “I have never immersed a vessel inside a vessel.” He's trusted to say that, because that's the issue here; you're worried he might immerse it incorrectly. He's trusted to say, “I never did that.” But when is he not trusted? De-amar hitbalti aval lo hitbalti bi-keli she-ein be-fiv ke-shefoferet ha-nod: “I immersed it, but not in a vessel whose opening is smaller than a shefoferet ha-nod.” When it comes to saying that he immersed it, but made sure the opening was the right size, he's not trusted. Why? He's not going to be careful about that. If he says, “I didn't do it at all,” we trust him. But if he says, “I did it, and I made sure the opening was the right size,” he's not careful. That's too much to ask of an am ha'aretz. Rashi says, nothing, by the way. Rashi left us over here.
The Gemara asks, ve-al gufo mi meheiman? Is the am ha'aretz trusted about his own body? It says—I'm sorry, I skipped a passage. Mechilah. Ve-hatanya ne'eman am ha'aretz lomar: this is a proof. An am ha'aretz is trusted to say, peirot lo huchsheru. You're getting produce from an am ha'aretz and want to know whether it became susceptible to tum'ah. What makes it susceptible to tum'ah? Water fell on it. He's trusted to say it was always dry and therefore did not become susceptible to impurity.
Aval eino ne'eman lomar peirot huchsheru aval lo nitme'u. But he's not trusted to say, “The produce became susceptible, but I was careful that it didn't become impure.” Once he says it became susceptible, he's not careful. It's too much to ask of him. So if he stops it at the beginning, he's trusted. But once he starts getting involved—for example, saying, “It became susceptible, but I was careful”—sorry. So you see the difference.
“Why don't you say migo?” In other words, “He could have just said—” That assumes he has trustworthiness. I'm saying that assumes he has trustworthiness when you say migo. But if a person doesn't have trustworthiness to start with, then you say, “He could have said”—he's a liar. That's only—The chiddush is the first one, where you believe him. Right. First of all, we believe him because he's saying nothing happened there. Now you want to say that because he could have said nothing happened, you're giving him credibility to say it never became susceptible. He could have said it never became susceptible. Right, but you're giving him credibility that he doesn't have. When do you use a migo? He could have said it if he were an honest person. But if he's not careful, you're not going to give him a migo to protect him. We're worried about the man's tum'ah.
Now the Gemara has one more question: ve-al gufo mi meheiman? You just told me he's trusted about his body. So the am ha'aretz comes along and says, “I went to the mikveh.” He's trusted? What are you talking about? Ve-hatanya: chaver she-ba lehazot mazin alav miyad. When an associate comes to be sprinkled, they sprinkle him immediately. What does that mean? He's trusted to say it's the third day, because normally you have to wait until the third day, obviously. He comes and says, “I'm ready,” and they trust him. However, am ha'aretz she-ba lehazot ein mazin alav ad she-ya'aseh lefanenu shelishi ve-shevi'i: when an am ha'aretz comes to be sprinkled, they do not sprinkle him until he observes the third and seventh days before us.
What do you see from here? He's not trusted regarding the purification of his body. This is taharat gufo (purification of his body). Haza'ah (sprinkling) is taharat gufo, and he's not trusted. He comes for the sprinkling and says, “I'm ready to be sprinkled.” What do we tell him? “What are you saying, am ha'aretz? I'm saying it's the third day.” We say, “We don't know. Come back in three days.” Everybody sees why he's not trusted about his body.
The Gemara's answer: Abaye says, mitoch chomer she-hechemarta alav be-techilato he-kalta alav be-sofo. Because we're stringent with him at the beginning of the process—meaning that we don't believe him about the third and seventh days—at the end of the process, after the sprinkling is over and he has gone to the mikveh, you can trust him. Since we're tough on him at the beginning, we can trust him at the end. He sees that we're being tough on him; he's not going to fool around. We made him come back, so we can give him some leeway at the end. We tightened the screws on him at the beginning, so we can give him some leeway at the end.
Okay, we'll stop here. Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve-amen (Blessed is Hashem forever, amen and amen).