Being careful not to create feelings of hatred TB Haggigah 22

We learned yesterday that Rabbi Ila interpreted the Mishnah why immersing one vessel inside another was invalid for sanctified food was interposition, hatztitzah- חֲצִיצָה, meaning that the mikvah water would not come in contact with all the surfaces. Beginning on the bottom of yesterday’s daf and continuing on today’s daf TB Haggigah 22, the Gemara elaborates Rava disagreement with Rabbi Ila.

“Rava disagreed with Rabbi Ila. He said that since the reason for the stringency in the latter clause is due to concern for interposition, this implies that the reason for the stringency in the first clause is not due to interposition, but to a different reason. And with regard to the stringency in the first clause that one may not immerse one vessel within another, this is the reasoning: It is a rabbinic decree to ensure that one not immerse small vessels, such as needles and hooks, inside a vessel whose mouth is less than the width of the tube of a wineskin. In such a case the water in the bottle would not be considered attached to the rest of the ritual bath, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 6:7): The joining of different bodies of water in cases of ritual baths takes place if the opening between the two bodies is at least as wide as the width of the tube of a wineskin, counting both the thickness of the wall of the tube and its space, which is equivalent to the width of two fingers going around in their place, i.e., a space large enough to insert two fingers and twist them around inside. If one body of water contains the requisite forty se’a, while another, adjacent body is lacking this amount, then if the opening between the two bodies of water is wider than this measurement, the two bodies are considered as one, and the smaller body is also considered an acceptable ritual bath. Since any opening smaller than this is not considered to connect two bodies of water, the water inside a bottle with a narrow mouth would be considered disconnected from the water of the ritual bath, and smaller vessels inside such a narrow-necked vessel would not be considered as having come into contact with the water of the ritual bath. The Sages therefore enacted a decree rendering prohibited the immersion of any vessel inside another vessel.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although Rabbi Ila and Rava disagree on the reason behind the prohibition of immersing one vessel within another when comes to sanctified food, they both agree that one may not immerse one vessel within another when it comes to sanctified food. The Gemara immediately recognizes the contradiction whether you defend the position that immersing a vessel within a vessel is kosher for terumah, but not for sanctified food.

“The Gemara asks: If so, in light of these two reasons we have given for concern with regard to immersing vessels inside other vessels, this should not be permitted for teruma either. The Gemara responds: For whom do we say the principle that one vessel may not be immersed inside another? For ḥaverim, individuals devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity. Others do not carefully follow these halakhot in any event. And ḥaverim know such things well, that water is considered detached from the ritual bath if it is separated by a narrow opening, and that if one vessel is weighing down on another, preventing the water from reaching that spot, the top vessel must be lifted to allow the water to touch all parts of the vessel. Therefore, there is no need to apply these concerns and stringencies to the case of teruma.

“The Gemara counters with another question. If so, we should say the same thing in the case of sacrificial food too, i.e., that all these halakhot are for ḥaverim, who meticulously follow ritual purity for sacrificial food and inquire about such halakhot. Why, then, did the Sages apply these concerns and stringencies to the case of sacrificial food? The Gemara responds: With regard to sacrificial food they were concerned that a common person [am ha’aretz], who is not meticulous about ritual purity, may see the ḥaver immersing small vessels inside of large vessels (today the term am ha’aretz connotes an ignoramus; however, that is not the original meeting of the phrase), and will then go and immerse vessels of his own in this manner. But he will not take the same precautions as the ḥaver would, ensuring that the outer vessel has a wide opening and that the vessels on top do not weigh down on the lower ones.

“The Gemara objects: But the same concern could be raised with regard to teruma as well. It is possible that an am ha’aretz may see the ḥaver immerse vessels for teruma in this manner, and he will then go and immerse his vessels this way, without taking the precautions that the ḥaver would take. The Gemara answers: We do not accept teruma from amei ha’aretz, as they are not trustworthy with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity, and therefore it does not matter if the vessels he uses for teruma are not immersed properly. Therefore, the Sages were not concerned that the am ha’aretz may come to a misunderstanding when observing a ḥaver immersing vessels within vessels.

“The Gemara continues its line of questioning. If so, we should likewise not accept sacrificial food from amei ha’aretz, since they are not sufficiently meticulous with ritual purity, and we should therefore not care if they immerse their vessels improperly. The Gemara responds: The am ha’aretz will have feelings of hatred (my translation-gg) if sacrificial food is not accepted from him, and this would lead to internal discord and conflict within Israel.

“The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of teruma he will also have feelings of hatred (my translation-gg) if teruma is not accepted from him. Why were the Sages concerned about this factor only with regard to sacrificial food and not teruma? The Gemara replies: An am ha’aretz does not care if his teruma is not accepted by ḥaverim, as he can always go and give his teruma to an am ha’aretz priest who is his friend and who will accept it from him. In the case of sacrificial food, however, there is only one Temple, and care must be taken not to make the amei ha’aretz feel they are being rejected.”

Our sages understood how dangerous this type of hatred is. According to our tradition the Second Temple was destroyed because of senseless and baseless hatred. Consequently, they tried to instill within the Jewish people to be considerate of other people’s feelings as demonstrated with the continuation of our sugiyah.

“The Gemara notes that this sensitivity of not causing offense to the am ha’aretz is expressed elsewhere as well: And who is the tanna that is concerned for such antagonism of amei ha’aretz? It is Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: For what reason are all people, i.e., even amei ha’aretz, trusted with regard to the purity of their wine and oil that they bring to the Temple for sacrificial purposes throughout the year? Why is the status of these items not investigated to determine that they were prepared with the necessary regard for ritual purity? In order to avoid schisms among the people, so that each and every individual should not go off and build a private altar for himself and burn a red heifer for himself. Were the Sages to reject sacrificial wine and oil from amei ha’aretz, they would become alienated and go off and create schisms, going so far as to build their own separate temples and bring their own private offerings. (Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is codified in Rambam’s Mishnah Torah, Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Metamei Mishkav Umoshav, chapter 11 halakha 1)

“Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion do we accept testimony nowadays from an am ha’aretz, despite the concern of some Sages that their carelessness with regard to observance of halakha might also lead to personal untrustworthiness? In accordance with whom is this done? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.” (Sefaria.org translation) (The Shulkhan Arukh codifies Rav Pappa’s opinion in Hoshen Mishpat 34:17)

I only wish the modern streams of Judaism would be as careful about their statements and rulings concerning the other streams and not incite hatred amongst their fellow Jews as the rabbis in the Talmud were.