Комментарий к Хагига́ 2:9

אין דורשין בעריות – to three people as one [i.e., together], we do not expound the secrets of the illicit sexual relationships, such his daughter from his outraged woman, which is not written in Scripture explicitly lest at the time when the Rabbi speaks with one, the other two will discuss it between them, and they will not give their hearts over to listen from the mouth of the Rabbi when he expounds upon this prohibition. But they will come to be lenient in illicit sexual relationships on account of the fact the soul of a person yearns for them and covets them more than the rest of the prohibitions of the Torah.

They may not expound upon the subject of forbidden relations in the presence of three.
Nor the work of creation in the presence of two.
Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge.
Whoever speculates upon four things, it would have been better had he not come into the world: (1) what is above, (2) what is beneath, (3) what came before, and ( what came after.
And whoever takes no thought for the honor of his creator, it would have been better had he not come into the world.
This mishnah is brought here because like yesterday’s mishnah it may refer to certain reasons why sages abandoned the world of Torah. There are some subjects which are, according to our mishnah, dangerous to speculate upon or to discuss in front of the masses. Pondering upon the unknowable may have contributed towards apostasy.
Section one: The danger of expounding upon the verses about forbidden relations in the Torah is either that people will be confused and make irreparable mistakes (i.e. create mamzerim) or that they will be titillated by the attention paid to these verses and they will not be able to control their urges and they will come to sin. Therefore, these verses are not expounded before even a group as small as three.
Section two: How the world was created and whether it was created from already existing material was a much debated and sensitive issue in the ancient world. That there might have been material which pre-existed God would have been seen by the rabbis to be heretical. Due to the speculative nature of this subject, it was forbidden to talk about it in front of even two people.
Section three: The study of the chariot, Ezekiel’s heavenly vision (Ezekiel 1) is the mystical study of God, God’s physical attributes and God’s unknowable mysteries. The sages seem to have believed that God had a physical existence, perhaps even a body in a certain sense, but that God’s body was hidden from human beings. It was forbidden for one sage to teach this subject to another sage unless the learning sage could understand things without really being explained to them. What this seems to mean is that one sage could begin to discuss this topic with another sage but he shouldn’t reveal to him the secrets of God unless he sees that the sage understands and can proceed on his own. However, we interpret this, what is clear is that the sages were extremely hesitant to engage publicly in mysticism.
Section four: There were some things that humans couldn’t know and therefore should not try to know. They are: 1) what is above the sky; 2) what is below the earth; 3) what came before the earth was created; 4) what will come after it is destroyed. Again, these four subjects are (or at least were) completely speculative. A person should spend their time in this world studying subjects that are knowable, such as the interpretation of Torah and halakhah. Metaphysical speculation was ruled out by this mishnah. The final line of the mishnah seems to be a continuation of the previous line. Those who try to uncover God’s secrets and reveal them to the public are not acting with respect to God’s honor. It is almost as if they are undressing God in public. Had God wanted these secrets to be revealed they would have been revealed.
I should note that there do seem to have been rabbis in this period who did engage in such speculative study and even composed works dedicated to the topic. There are two ways to justify this mishnah with those other works. First of all, there were different groups of rabbis, some of which focused on halakhah/midrash and others who focused on mysticism. The second possibility, which I believe to be more likely, is that the rabbis thought that mysticism was not an appropriate focus for most people’s study. Mysticism, which they considered dangerous, should be reserved for the elite and not spread to the masses.

ולא במעשה בבראשית – in the event of the six days of creation even for [between] two people, and all the more so, for three or more, as it states in the Biblical verse (Deuteronomy 4:32): “You have but to inquire about bygone ages that came before you, [ever since God created man on earth from one end of heaven to the other: has anything as grand as this ever happened, or has its like ever been known?]. An individual can ask, but not two individuals.

ולא במעשה מרכבה – that Ezekiel saw and that Isaiah saw. And Maimonides explained, that the event of Creation, the natural wisdom, and the episode of the Chariot, which is the reality of God and his attributes, and the angels and the soul and the intellect/intuition, and what will be after death. But it does not appear to me that all of this will be called the episode of the Chariot, for if so, the wisdom of the chariot he (i.e., the Tanna of our Mishnah) should have taught, but the event of the Chariot is that via the mention of the names of holiness, we make use of the crown, and we look out how the angelic watches while they at their prayer meetings, and how the hall containing the golden altar is inside from the hall containing the golden altar, such as those who foresee the Holy Spirit.

ביחיד אלא א"כ היה חכם ומבין מדעתו – even for another person, we don’t explain the event of the Chariot, other than if the Rabbi knows him to be wise for if he would transmit to him “chapter-headings,” he would understand the rest from his own mind.

כל המסתכל בד' דברים – those that are explained further on.

ראוי לו – it is pleasant and it would be good for him if he had not come into the world.

מה למעלה – from the heads of the [divine] creatures.

מה למטה – from under the ground.

מה לפנים – outside the compartment of the firmament in the east.

ומה לאחור – to the west. Another explanation: what is before – prior to the creation of the world. And was is behind, at the end of the world and in the end of days.

כל שלא חס על כבוד קונו – that he violates a transgression in secret and states that God’s presence is not found here and who will see me and who will inform me.

יוסי בן יועזר אומר שלא לסמוך – on the Festival day, because when one uses living animals, with all of one’s strength one presses hands [on the head of the sacrifice, to demonstrate ownership]. For this was the dispute that was between the patriarchs and the presidents of the Court, generation after generation.

Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Johanan says that it may be performed.
Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed.
Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed.
Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed.
Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered.
Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed.
The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.
Our mishnah is possibly the most unique mishnah in the entire Mishnah. It contains a debate about whether or not a person can lay their hands on a sacrifice on Yom Tov, the first and last days of a festival. According to Leviticus 1:4 and other parallel verses, when a person brings a sacrifice he lays his hands, or leans, on the sacrifice before it is slaughtered. On Yom Tov it is forbidden to use an animal and leaning on an animal is considered to be use of an animal. Therefore, the question could be asked, can one lean on the sacrificial animal on Yom Tov or must he do so the day before?
What is unique about our mishnah is that there are five pairs (zugot) of sages, each from a different generation, who debated this issue. The sages here are early sages who lived during the Second Temple period, from the beginning of the Hasmonean period until close to the beginning of the millennium. They might even be called proto-sages, or proto-rabbis. With one exception, all of these sages are found in Avot 1:4-10, where each transmits a moral exhortation. The final clause of the mishnah determines that of each pair the first was the patriarch and the second was the head of the court. As far as I know, there are no other mishnayot that have this structure in which the same debate being repeated generation after generation.
The fact that they debate specifically this issue is significant. We know that ancient Jews argued a lot about the laws of Yom Tov and Shabbat and that the Pharisees tended to be more lenient than the other two main sects, the Essenes and the Sadducees. This seems to be the trend in this mishnah as well Hillel allows one to lean on the animal, whereas Shammai does not.
Section four: Note that the mishnah switches order here. In all three previous pairs, the first said that it may not be performed, whereas the second said that it should be performed. It seems that there may have been some historical switch at this period, where the position of the patriarch changed.
Section five: Little is known about Menahem from rabbinic literature, except that he seems to have separated from the fold. Josephus, Antiquities 15:10, 5 relates a story about a certain Menahem who was an Essene. This Menahem receives a divine revelation that Herod will become king and he relates it to him. According to some scholars this is the same Menahem referred to in our mishnah. In any case, it is interesting that he is replaced by Shammai. It is as if the mishnah is letting us know that Shammai is not like Menahem. While Shammai’s opinions are usually not the accepted halakhah, he is still legitimate.

יצא מנחם – to the service of the king, and he withdrew being the colleague of Hillel, Therefore, it was not made known from his relation if he disputed with Hillel or not, and Shammai entered in his place to be the president of the Court in his place, and disputed with Hillel.

הראשונים – that were mentioned first in each pair were the patriarchs.

מביאין שלמים – Festival peace-offerings, because there was a need through them for food for the commoner.

Introduction In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate which sacrifices may be brought on Yom Tov and whether it is permitted to lay hands on them. The second of these debates is the same as the debate in yesterday’s mishnah.

ואין סומכין עליהם – but he presses hands [on the head of the sacrifice, to demonstrate ownership] while it is still daylight. For we do not require “and he laid hands and slaughtered, that immediately following laying of the hands is the slaughtering.

Bet Shammai say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings [on Yom Tov] but they may not lay their hands on them, and [they may not bring] wholly burnt-offerings. And Bet Hillel say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings and wholly burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them. The debate here is over two subjects. 1) Can wholly burnt-offerings be brought on Yom Tov? 2) When a sacrifice is brought on Yom Tov, do they lay their hands on the sacrifice as is usually mandated with sacrifices? Bet Shammai states that wholly burnt-offerings cannot be brought on Yom Tov at all since they are not eaten. The Torah permits preparing food on Yom Tov (see Tractate Betzah) but since wholly-burnt offerings are not food, they may not be prepared on Yom Tov. The wholly burnt offering which must be brought on account of the festival (re’eyah) should be sacrificed during the festival week. Bet Hillel allows the bringing of wholly burnt offerings because they hold that any work that is permitted when it is done in the preparation of food is also permitted when it is done for other reasons. Bet Shammai rules as did their eponymous leader in the previous mishnah, that it is forbidden to lay hands on the sacrificial animal on Yom Tov because that is considered to be making the animal work. Bet Hillel allows this, reasoning that if the sacrifice is allowed, all of the acts that accompany the sacrifice are also allowed.

אבל לא עולות – the individual burnt-offering, and even the burnt-offering of appearance [in the Temple], for he is able to offer it on the rest of the days of the festival, as the Biblical verse says, (Numbers 29:35): “[On the eighth day] you shall hold a solemn gathering; [you shall not work at your occupations],” for yourselves but not for “On-High” (i.e., God).

ובית הלל אומרים מביאין – Festival peace-offerings and burnt offerings of appearance [in the Temple], as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:8): “[After eating unleavened bread six days,] you shall hold a solemn gathering for the LORD [you God on the seventh day: you shall do no work],” everything is for God, but vows and free-will donations, whether [they are] burnt-offerings or peace offerings, it is the words of all [Sages] that they are not offered on the Festivals.

יום טבוח –the day of the slaughter of the burnt-offerings of appearance [at the Temple] of the Festival day. לאחר השבת – they are not offered either on the Festival day nor on Shabbat. But [the holiday] of Atzeret/Shavuot has indemnity/payment all seven [days] like Passover and Shavuot.

Introduction Atzeret (the rabbinic term for the festival of Shavuot) is the only festival that lasts for just one day. Since Bet Shammai holds that the wholly burnt offering brought as the pilgrimage offering cannot be offered on Yom Tov but they agree that this sacrifice must be offered at some point, the question must be asked, when should it be brought.

וב"ה אומרים אין לה יום טבוח – it does not require the slaughtering and preparation of the pilgrim’s offering, as it is permitted to offer them on the Festival days. As the School of Hillel, according to its reasoning when they state that we bring peace-offerings and burnt offerings on the Festival days, and the Tanna/teacher comes to teach us that even where it is impossible to do it on the morrow, such as the case where Shavuot occurs on Friday, even in this, the School of Shammai states that the burnt-offerings of appearance [at the Temple] are not offered on the Festival day, and they postponed it it until after the Sabbath.

Atzeret ( which fell on a Friday: Bet Shammai say: the day of the slaughter [of the wholly burnt offerings] is after Shabbat. And Bet Hillel say: the day of the slaughter is not after Shabbat. Since Bet Shammai holds that the wholly burnt offering cannot be brought on Yom Tov itself, they have to posit that there is a “day of the slaughter” that comes the day afterward Atzeret. Bet Hillel says that there is no special “day of the slaughter” because the sacrifice is brought on Atzeret itself.

אין כהן גדול מתלבש – in his beautiful utensils/raiment, on the day of slaughter and preparation of the pilgrim’s offering of Atzeret/Shavuot that is after the Sabbath, in order that he should not adorn himself on that self-same day, that everyone would understand that this day is not a Festival.

They agree, however, that if it falls on Shabbat, the day of the slaughter is after Shabbat. If Atzeret falls on Shabbat, then Bet Hillel agrees that the sacrifice is offered the day after because the sacrifice of the hagigah and the pilgrimage wholly burnt offering do not override the prohibition of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat. This is because they can be sacrificed on another day.

שלא לקיים דברי האומרים עצרת אחר שבת – for the Sadducees would say that Atzeret/Shavuot always [occurs] after Shabbat, as it is written (Leviticus 23:15): “And from [the day on which you bring the sheaf of elevation offering] – the day after the sabbath, [you shall count off seven weeks. They must be complete],” and they say that “the day after the sabbath” in the beginning [of Passover] and if so, Atzeret/Shavuot will always fall on Sunday.

The high priest does not [in that case] put on his [special] garments, and mourning and fasting are permitted, in order not to confirm the view of those who say that Atzeret is after Shabbat. Perhaps the bitterest dispute between the Sadducees and Pharisees was over the date of Atzeret. The Sadducees held that the Omer began to be brought on the day after Shabbat, hence Shavuot would always fall on Sunday, seven weeks later. The Pharisees/rabbis held that the Omer began to be brought on the second day of Pesah, and hence the day of the week of Shavuot would vary from year to year depending upon the day of the week upon which the first day of Pesah fell. We just learned that if Atzeret fell on Shabbat, they would slaughter the wholly-burnt offerings on Sunday. The problem this creates is that people will think that the halakhah is like the Sadducees. To avoid creating this impression, the rabbis distinguished between this day of slaughter and a normal festival in several ways which would have been evident to the public. First of all the high priest would not wear his eight special garments that he normally wears while performing his worship service. Second, mourning and fasting was permitted. People who saw these changes would understand that the only reason that they were offering the sacrifices on Sunday was that they could not be offered on Shabbat. They would not think that the sages were actually postponing Shavuot to Sunday.

נוטלין לידים לחולין ולמעשר ולתרומה – for profane things, Second Tithe and Priest’s due, it is sufficient for them by washing [hands] with a utensil which does not have within it other than one-quarter of a log of water.

Introduction From here until the end of the tractate the mishnah teaches laws of purity and impurity. The reason why these laws are here is that when Israel would come to Jerusalem and to the Temple for the festival they had to be pure in order to eat their sacrifices. They would immerse their vessels to purify them before Yom Tov. During the festival all of the people of Israel acted like the Pharisees and were extra stringent on eating only while in a state of ritual purity. Our mishnah deals with the topic of washing hands versus washing one’s whole body. There are some foods which only required one’s hands to be washed while holier foods required one to immerse one’s entire body.

ולקדש מטבילין – the explanation is to consume peace-offerings, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. There is a greater degree/level, that it is necessary to immerse one’s hands in one-hundred Seah, and even though they are not other than mere hands, that did not come in contact with impurity that defiles the entire body according to the Torah.

They wash hands for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for terumah [heave-offering]. One of the things that the Pharisees were famous for was washing their hands before they ate even regular unconsecrated food. There is nothing wrong with eating impure food but the Pharisees wished to preserve the laws of purity on a higher level than was required. During the festival, in Jerusalem everyone was expected to purify their hands before eating, even unconsecrated food. Second tithe and terumah are holy and therefore they certainly require one to wash one’s hands before being touched. The handwashing referred to here is done with water poured over one’s hands with a vessel.

ולחטאת – to come in contact with the water of the sin-offering, sanctified water with the ashes of the red heifer to sprinkle from them upon those who are defiled through contact with the dead. There is a greater level/degree that if one’s hands became defiled through one of the things that defile the hands but not the body, such as a [sacred] book, or impure foods and impure liquids, and all defilements that [come] from the words of the Scribes the body is also defiled and the entire body requires ritual immersion. And all of these levels/degrees one higher than the next are from the words of the Scribes. But the fact that these were taken here concerning the laws of the Hagigah/Festival offering is because at their conclusion the laws of the Festival, for the ignoramuses/Amei HaAretz are considered ritually pure on the Festivals, but not on the rest of the days of the year, at the conclusion of [the third chapter of Hagigah], “There is a greater stringency regarding hallowed things.”

But for sacred food they must immerse [their hands in a mikveh]. Before eating sacred food, such as the thanksgiving offering eaten by Israelites and the sin and guilt offerings eaten by the priests the hands must be immersed in a valid mikveh. In the Talmud they debate what this section refers to. According to one opinion this clause refers only to hands which were certainly made impure. Unless one knows that one’s hands had become impure, it would be sufficient to wash them with a vessel. According to the other opinion, in all cases before one eats sacrificial meat one must wash hands by immersing them in the mikveh.

With regard to the [water of] purification, if one’s hands became impure, one’s [whole] body is impure. The “water of purification” refers to the water with the red heifer’s ashes in it used to purify people who had contracted a serious level of impurity. One who comes to prepare the waters must be completely pure. If his hands had become impure then his whole body was also considered impure and he would have to immerse his whole body.

טבל לחולין – with the purpose of non-holy produce. And furthermore this degree [of stringency]: A person who immerses in order to consume non-holy produce and he intended to immerse for the purpose of being pure for non-holy produce.

If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe.
If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah.
If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things.
If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification.
If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness].
If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed.
This mishnah deals with the intention that one has to have when one immerses. There are various levels of holy objects ranked below from lowest to highest:
1) Unconsecrated food.
2) Second tithe (eaten by its owners in Jerusalem).
3) Terumah (separated from produce and given to priests).
4) Sacrifices
5) The waters of purification made from the ashes of the red heifer.
The general rule of the mishnah is quite clear and stated explicitly at the end of the mishnah itself. If one immerses with the intention of eating a less holy thing, say unconsecrated food, he cannot count that immersion in order to eat a more holy thing. He would have to immerse again to eat the more holy thing. However, if one immerses with the intention of eating a holy thing, say a sacrifice, that immersion counts for eating a less holy thing such as terumah. Finally, if one immerses without any specific intention in mind, the immersion doesn’t count.
This explanation should aid in explaining the whole mishnah, so you will not see a fuller explanation below.

אסור למעשר – it is forbidden to eat the Second Tithe which is consumed in Jerusalem until he would ritually immerse for the sake of the [Second] Tithe, and so the case with all of them.

אסור בחטאת – in waters sanctified in the ashes of the [Red] Heifer.

ולא הוחזק – He did not intend for the purpose of a pure ritual immersion, but merely for washing.

כאילו לא טבל – for the [Second] Tithe, and all the more so for Terumah/priest’s due and for sacred food. But the immersion is for non-holy produce, for non-holy produce does not require religious intention.

מדרס – a direct cause of Levitical uncleanness to defile a person and utensils like treading-contact uncleanness of one suffering from a flux/discharge which defiles a person and utensils as it is written (Leviticus 15:21): “Anyone who touches her bedding shall wash his clothes, [bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening].”

Introduction The vessel that a zav or zavah (a man or woman who had an unusual genital discharge) steps, sits, leans or lies upon is impure. This vessel will now transmit impurity to those who touch it. This type of impurity is called “midras” which means “stepped upon.” In our mishnah the rabbis state that the garments of people who have immersed for a lesser purpose possess midras-impurity for those who wish to preserve a higher degree of impurity. What this would mean is that if the person who wished to possess the higher degree of impurity touched these clothes, he would become impure. On a less literal level, this mishnah seems to rank those who preserve their purity, granting a higher status to those who are more cautious about the purity laws. Also, this mishnah is parallel to yesterday’s mishnah, both ranking degrees of purity.

לפרושים – to those who consume their non-holy produce in ritual purity of non-holy produce.

The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. An am-haaretz literally means, “one of the land” but it is used to refer to a person who does not observe the laws of purity and tithing as do the Pharisees. As an aside, the word does not have quite as negative a connotation in the Mishnah as it does in later rabbinic literature. In later literature one could translate the term as “ignoramus.” In any case, since they were not cautious about purity laws, their clothes have midras-impurity for Pharisees.

בגדי פרושים מדרס לאוכלי תרומה – here is missing one gradation/level and this must be aught: the clothing of Pharisees are deemed as infected with treading-contact-uncleanness for those who consume the Second Tithe. The clothes of those consume Second Tithe are deemed as infected with treading-contact-uncleanness to those who consume Terumah/priest’s due, which are the Kohanim who consume Terumah, and all of these are gradations/levels from the words of the Scribes who said that there is no guarding/protecting of their ritual purity of these are considered observance/guarding with those, since they are [in comparison with the others] as if they had not observed it, they made a decree with regard to their garments lest his menstruating wife sit upon them and they are infected with treading-contact-uncleanness from a menstruating woman.

The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. While Pharisees were cautious about purity, they were not as pure as priests who ate terumah. The Pharisees immersed to eat unconsecrated food and we learned in yesterday’s mishnah that one who immerses to eat unconsecrated food cannot eat terumah. Hence the clothes of Pharisees have midras-impurity for a priest who eats terumah.

היה אוכל על טהרת הקדש – he would consume his non-holy produce in a state of ritual purity as if he was holy, as he was warned about them from all defilement that defiles that which is holy.

The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. Yesterday we learned that one who immerses to eat terumah is not pure enough to eat sacrifices (sacred things). Today we learn that the clothes of the one who eats terumah have midras-impurity for the one who wishes to eat sacrifices.

והיתה מטפחתו מדרס לחטאת – but not for that which is deemed holy for this Tanna/teacher holds that non-holy produce that was made through purification of the holy is considered as holy. And this is not the Halakha. For non-holy produce that was made on the purification of holy things are not holy for all things, as is brought at the end of the [Tractate of] Niddah (73a).

The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. One who wishes to deal with the waters of purification cannot touch even the clothes of one who immersed to eat sacrifices.

Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yose ben Yoezer was mentioned above at the beginning of mishnah two. He was, according to our mishnah, the most pious of priests and he would immerse before eating unconsecrated food as it is was terumah. Nevertheless, his apron which he used to wipe his hands after eating, possessed midras-impurity for one who wished to eat sacrifices. As strict as he was in matters of purity, they still treated his clothes according to the above rules.

Yohanan ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification. Yohanan ben Gudgada was even stricter with regard to purity and ate even unconsecrated food as if he was eating sacrifices. This is one level stricter than the Pharisees who ate unconsecrated food as if it was terumah. Nevertheless, since there is one level higher than the purity for sacrifices, his garments were still considered to possess midras-impurity for one who wished to deal with the waters of purification. These last two sections demonstrate that favor was not shown in matters of purity.