Mishnayos Chagigah with Running Commentary

This running commentary is an amalgam of various commentaries, including my own. Text of the Mishna is from Sefaria. Translations and commentaries used include: Sefaria, R"AV, Tosfos Yom Tov, Peirush HaRamBam L'Mishnayos, Mishna im peirush Siyata D'ishmaya, Yochin uBoaz, Mishna Mefureshes; Mishna with commentary by Chanoch Albeck, Artscroll/Yad Avrohom, Mishnayos im Biur HaMishna, Mishnayos Tosfos Yom Tov HaMevuar, Mishnas Eretz Yisroel (Safrai), Mishnat Yomi by Rabbi Dr. Joshua Kulp and J. Tabory, Moadei Yisroel B'Tekufas HaMishna v'Hatalmud (Hebrew), Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Kepshutah, Moed. . All mistakes are my own. Any comments and/or questions can be sent to [email protected].

This sheet is part of a series of source sheets related to Mishnayos Chagigah. Other sheets include:

• a source sheet for Mesechtas Chagigah (http://www.sefaria.org/sheets/64137)
• "Laying" the Table for the First Controversy (https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/65427)

Introduction to Mesechtas Chagigah

Mesechtas Chagigah is the final Mesechta in Seder Moed, wrapping up the discussion of the Yomim Tovim (Festivals). Broadly speaking, the first half of our Mesechta describes the obligation incumbent upon each person to present themselves at the Beis HaMikdash on the three major Festivals, i.e., the Mitzvah of being עולה רגל, and the various Korbonos (Sacrifices) that accompany that obligation. At the end of the first Perek there is a grouping of Mishnayos dealing in more Aggadaic matters pertaining to allegiance to the words of the Chachomim. The second half of our Mesechta (2:5 until the end) details the special rules, precautions and presumptions regarding טומאה וטהרה (Purity and Impurity) associated with the Festivals and the masses of people it would bring to Yerushlayim.

The Mitzvah to be Oleh Regel

The Torah mentions multiple times that a person is obligated to present themselves at the Beis HaMikdash on the occasion of each of the three major Festivals (Pesach, Shavuos and Sukkos). In addition, not only must a person show up but he cannot appear empty handed (וְלֹא־יֵרָא֥וּ פָנַ֖י רֵיקָֽם). The Chachomim learn from this that part of (or the fulfillment of) the Mitzvah of being Oleh Regel is to bring and sacrifice a Korban Olah (called the עולת ראיה). This Korban is to be brought on the first day of the Festival, but, if missed, can be brought for six additional days (i.e, until the end of the seventh day).

In addition to the Olas Re'iyah, the Chachomim identified two additional Korbonos, each a Shelamim, that must be brought. The first is also brought on the first day of each Festival and is called the שלמי חגיגה. It is an obligatory Chagigah. The Chachomim derive this from numerous sources including, among others:

1. שָׁלֹ֣שׁ רְגָלִ֔ים תָּחֹ֥ג לִ֖י בַּשָּׁנָֽה
2. וְחַגֹּתֶ֥ם אֹת֖וֹ חַ֣ג

The second Korban Shelamim is called a שלמי שמחה. The Torah tells us that we are to be שמח on the Festivals (וְשָׂמַחְתָּ֖ בְּחַגֶּ֑ךָ) and Simcha is achieved through eating sacrificial meat (וְזָבַחְתָּ֥ שְׁלָמִ֖ים וְאָכַ֣לְתָּ שָּׁ֑ם וְשָׂ֣מַחְתָּ֔). While the obligation may be fulfilled with any type of Korban (i.e., even an obligatory one) in the absence of those, a person was required to bring these Shalmei Simcha to satisfy this obligation. Even those who may otherwise be exempt from the Olas Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah (e.g., a woman) are, nonetheless, obligated in the Shalmei Simcha.

The first half of our Mesechta details the laws associated with Aliyas HaRegel and its associated Korbonos. Specifically:

• Who is obligated to be Oleh Regel
• The Rabbinically mandated minimum amount of money one must spend on these obligations and the mix of Korbonos one should bring
• Utilizing Ma'aser Sheini money and/or Ma'aser B'heima to fulfill one's obligations
• In the case of Shalmei Simcha, whether a person may use the meat from other sacrifices to fulfill his "simcha" obligations
• The concept of "Tashlumin," meaning a person who did not bring his Olas Re'iyah and/or Shalmei Chagigah on the first day of the Festival may bring them until the end of the Festival--for Shavuos this meant bringing them after the Festival.
• Allegiance to the Chachomim and Different levels of Torah Shel Ba'al Peh and Rabbinic teaching guidelines.
• The historic controversy of laying one's hand on a Korban (Semicha) on Yom Tov

Introduction to Mishna 1:1

Notwithstanding the presumptive obligation for everyone to present themselves at the Beis HaMikdash on the Festivals, the Chachomim recognized a number of categories of exemptions. These include:

• those generally exempt from all Mitzvos (a deaf/mute, mentally disabled and a child),
• a specific exemption, based on the Pasuk of יֵרָאֶה֙ כָּל־זְכ֣וּרְךָ֔, for women (and by extension, non-Jewish slaves) and those people who are not definitively male, and
• a broad exemption for those who are unable to optimally fulfill the Mitzvah because they could not ascend the Temple Mount on their own accord. Included in this category was a blind person since he could not "see" he need not "be seen" as well.

Some of these exemptions derive not specifically from the Mitzvah of being Olah Regel, rather they are sourced in the Mitzvah of Hakhel--the once-in-seven year obligation for all men, women and children to gather on the first day of Chol HaMoed Sukkos to hear the King read from the Torah. Similar to the underlying message of being Oleh Regel, the obligation of Hakhel (and in no small measure the obligation to consume the Second Tithe (Ma'aser Sheini) in Yerushalyim) were meant to inspire the Jewish Nation. Seeing the Beis HaMikdash and the heightened awareness of Kedusha, Tehorah and fidelity to a Torah life of those living in Yerushalyim left a strong impression upon the masses. By definition, then, if a person lacked the capacity to be inspired, they were exempt from making the pilgrimage.

Various sources identify other categories of exemptions, these include someone who is Tamei (impure), one who does not own land, a person living outside of Eretz Yisroel and someone engaged in a particularly foul-odored trade. Once all the exceptions are accounted for, the opening line of the Mishna should be translated as "[A]ll, able-bodied, landed, free, respectable, adult men are obligated..."

Finally, the second half of the Mishna describes a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel as to what age a person must start indoctrinating his son in the Mitzvah of being Oleh Regel. Beis Shammai says so long as the child can ride on his father's shoulders you must bring him along. While Beis Hillel requires the child to be able to walk up the Temple Mount--even if he has to hold onto his father's hand. It seems Beis Shammai is in line with its progenitor, who, we are told (see Mishna Sukkah 2:8) would make sure even the infants would sleep in the Sukkah.

Questions

1. If women are generally exempted from time-bound Mitzvos, why do they need to be excluded in this instance by the word, זְכ֣וּרְךָ֔?
2. If an exempted person makes the effort to appear at the Beis HaMikdash, does he receive a Mitzvah? If he finds himself on the threshold of the Beis Hamikdash, does he have an obligation to enter? Does he have the right or obligation to bring the requisite Korbonos? Does it matter into which exemption category he falls into?
3. An adult who needs support to ascend the Temple Mount is exempt from the Mitzvah of Olah Regel. So why, according to Beis Hillel, are you obligated to indoctrinate children beginning when they are capable of holding the father's hand and walking up the Temple Mount. a similarly positioned adult would be exempt?

Introduction to Mishna 1:2

From a biblical perspective, there is no minimum (or maximum) amount one must spend on the Olas Re'eiyah, Shalmei Chagigah or Shalmei Simcha. As the Torah states:
אִ֖ישׁ כְּמַתְּנַ֣ת יָד֑וֹ כְּבִרְכַּ֛ת יי אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָֽתַן־לָֽךְ. This is codified in the first Mishna in Pe'ah (1:1) אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור הפאה. והבכורים. והראיון. (see R"av there for an alternative understanding that one may appear innumerable times during the course of the year and not just on the three Festivals).

Nonetheless, the Chachomim mandated a minimum amount to be spent on the Olas Re'iyah and the Shalmei Chagigah (not unlike Bikkurim, Terumah and Challah). Our Mishna relates a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel over on which Korban a person is required to spend more. According to Beis Shammai, because it is given over to Hashem (i.e., completely burned on the Alter) one needs to spend more on the Olas Re'iyah. Whereas, according to Beis Hillel, because the Shalmei Chagigah is split amoung the owner, the Kohein and Hashem, to ensure each receive a meaningful portion, one must spend more on the Shalmei Chagigah.

For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that there are six pieces of silver (each a "ma'ah") in a Dinar and four Dinar to a Selah/Shekel. Recall, everyone was obligated to give a half-shekel to the Beis HaMikdash, according to our Mishna that seemingly could purchase up to 12 animals.

Question: When allocating our time, money and effort how do we think about splitting our resources amongst ourselves, family, community and spirituality?

Introduction to Mishna 1:3

Generally speaking, a person may not use Ma'aser Sheini (Second Tithe) money to purchase an obligatory Korban. So, for instance, if a person is required to bring a Chatos (Sin Offering) he cannot use Ma'aser money to satisfy his obligation. Further, if at the time a person vows to bring a voluntary Shelamim or a Todah (Thanksgiving Offering) he does not specifically designate that the funds will come from Ma'aser, he must use Chullin (unconsecrated) funds to fulfill his vow. (See Mishna Menachos 7:6). An Olah can never come from Ma'aser money inasmuch as Ma'aser funds can only be spent on consumable food and Olah is wholly burnt on the Mizbeach.

When it comes to the Korbonos HaChag, all agree that one can designate Ma'aser funds for the Shalmei Simcha (the excess Korbonos brought on Chol Hamoed to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simcha). However, although the Olas Re'iyah if not brought on the first day of Yom Tov can be brought on the subsequent 7 days, it remains an obligatory Korban (not to mention a fully burnt offering) and therefore it cannot be purchased with Ma'aser money.

The Shalmei Chagigah, because it is subject to Tashlumin and not fully obligatory (in fact it is never brought on Shabbos nor can a person who is Tamei bring the Korban) it is subject to a dispute. According to Beis Shammai a person cannot use Ma'aser Sheini money. Beis Hillel says one may supplement the purchase price with Ma'aser Sheini money so long as he spends the minimum amount (two silver pieces) from Chullin money. (Alternatively, because a person can bring more than one Shalmei Chagigah, the first one comes from Chullin, the additional Korbonos can come from Ma'aser money.

Question

Why does the Mishna use the term "Moed" when describing the Korban Re'iyah since, according to Beis Hillel (Mishna 2:3) you are allowed to bring the Korban Re'iyah on Yom Tov?

As a fulfillment of the obligation to be בשמחה on the holiday, Shalmei Simcha were brought to ensure a ready supply of sacrificial meat during the Festival. Although, the meat had to be sacrificial meat, it need not have been slaughtered specifically for this purpose. So, for instance, if a person had otherwise pledged a sacrifice or if he had Ma'aser B'heima (Animal Tithe), he could utilize those Korbonos to satisfy his obligation. Further, a Kohein working in the Beis HaMikdash could use the portions dedicated to Kohanim to fulfill his obligation. Importantly, Korbonos of birds and grain do not satisfy the obligation since it can only be fulfilled by eating meat.

Questions​:

1. What is the difference between a Nedarim and Nedovos korban? (see Mishna Megillah 1:6)
2. May one use Ma'aser B'Heima for a Shalmei Chagigah?

As noted above in Mishna 1:2, although the Chachomim ordained a minimum amount a person must spend on the Olas Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah, there is no maximum:

אִ֖ישׁ כְּמַתְּנַ֣ת יָד֑וֹ כְּבִרְכַּ֛ת יי אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָֽתַן־לָֽךְ. This means, you can spend significant sums on a single Korban or bring multiple Korbonos of each type. Our Mishna sets out some guidelines for different familial and economic situations. Recall, you can use Ma'aser Sheini money for Shelamim but not Olos.

Guiding the Shelamim side of the equation is you do not want to sacrifice more Shelamim than you will be able to consume since we do not want to create Nosar (left over Korbonos which much be burned).

Although the Mitzvah is to bring the Olas Re'iya and Shalmei Chagiga on the first day of Pesach, Shavuos and Sukkos, a person could still fulfill his obligation if he brought it on any of the following six days, as it says: וְחַגֹּתֶ֤ם אֹתוֹ֙ חַ֣ג לַֽה' שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים. This is called Tashlumin (תשלומים). For Pesach, this means you can bring the Korbonos throughout the Festival. For Shavuous, it means you can bring the Korbonos during the six non-Festival days following the Holiday. As for Sukkos, the Chachomim derived that the Korbonos could be brought up to and including Shmini Atzeres (i.e., for a total of 8 days). Our Mishna uses Sukkos as the example for this Halacha.

If the entire period passed a person by and he did not bring the Korbonos, he is no longer obligated (or able) to bring them and he has not fulfilled his obligations. The Mishna quotes a Pasuk in Koheles stating that "something that is missing cannot be counted" i.e., once the opportunity to fulfill the Mitzvah has slipped away it can no longer be satisfied and counted.

Questions:

1. ​If a person delibertaly did not bring the Korbonos on the first day, is he able to bring them on another day? What if he was an Oneis?
2. What if he first arrived after the start of the holiday, did a person still have an obligation to bring the Olas Re'iyah and/or Shalmei Chagigah?
3. What other Mitzvos can you think of that once their time has passed you can no longer fulfill the Mitzvah?

The previous Mishna identified the Chagigah as an example of a Mitzvah that, if missed because its time has passed, it could no longer be fulfilled. Stated differently, its absence is an irreparable sin of omission. Support for this idea was brought from the second half of the Pasuk מעוות לא יוכל לתקון וחסרון לא יוכל להמנות. Our Mishna, focusing on the first half of the Pasuk's metaphor of something originally straight, once twisted, cannot subsequently be perfectly straightened, speaks to irreversible sins of commission, (i.e., those sins whose effects cannot be undone).

Rabi Shimon ben Minasia speaks to a physical sin, such as the creating of a Mamzer, whose effects are not only irreversible but whose very existence is a constant reminder of the sin. Rabi Shimon bar Yochai, in a close read of the Pasuk suggests that it must be referring to a situation where the party starts off "straight" and then gets bent and twisted out of shape. Such a person cannot be subsequently straightened. Thus, according to Rabi Shimon bar Yochai, the Pasuk cannot simply be referring to a person committing a sin since the act of the sin is crooked from the start. Rather, he says, it is not referring to a specific sin, instead it is referring to a Talmid Chacham, a Torah Scholar, who separates himself from the true, straight path. Once he does so, it is difficult to fully recover and travel the straight path.

The history, development and transmission of Torah Shel Ba'al Peh (the Oral Law) is a topic that has captivated traditionalists and scholars alike. The debates and refinement of theories continues to this day. The first chapter in Avos gives an early Rabbinic account of the transmission chain. The Epistle of Rabi Sherirah Gaon and the Rambam's introductions to the Mishna and other works lay the groundwork for much of the traditionalist view. While there were others who attempted to trace Halachik history it was not until the 19th Century and the advent of Wissenschaft des Judentums that this topic attracted significant scholarly interest. Along with this renewed interest came new theories on the history of Halachah and even on the origin of Torah itself. Dovetailing with the advent of new streams of Judaism, Traditionalists and reformers utilized these new findings to bolster and/or reject their views.

One of the early battles was between Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch and Zacharias Frankel and their opposing views on the chain of Halachah. The rise in "reform" scholarship spurred Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer to open the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin where traditionalist students were equipped with the latest theories and techniques enabling them to combat the perceived heretical stances of the reformers. It was in this milieu that R' Isaac HaLevy wrote his multi-volume Doros HaRishonim. All this laid the groundwork for the establishment of a more source-critical study of Torah--especially Torah Shel Ba'al Peh. Talmudists and scholars have since tried to reconstruct corrupted texts, place the Talmudic discussions within their historical framework and provide insights into the development of Halachah. One of the greatest Talmudists was R' Shaul Lieberman whose epic work, Tosefta KePshutah, remains an icon of Talmudic and learned scholarship.

One area that has received much attention is the Mishna. The nature of the Mishna is to provide summary rulings, the source and derivation of its rulings are rarely described. More fulsome explications can be found in the Midrashei Halachah (Mechilta, Sifri and Sefra) where many of the Halachos are derived from the Written Torah through a variety of interpretive means and tools (called Deroshos) including, inferences, implications, inductive and deductive reasoning and the thirteen [tools] as concisely laid out in the B'rayso of Rabi Yishmael.* Those Halachos which do not find even tangential support in the Torah trace their lineage back to direct revelations to Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai.

Importantly, not all Deroshos were of the same nature or quality. In some cases, the major portions of the Halachos are stated explicitly in the Torah and the Chachomim merely filled in some minor gaps (e.g., Civil laws, Korbonos and Purity laws). In other cases it is clear from the Torah that rules exist but it is left to the Chachomim to fill in most of the details (e.g., Shabbos and Chagigah). Finally, there are Halachos that have little to no basis in the Torah but the Chachomim are able to at least find an inference in the Torah to support the Halacha (e.g., the Talmud Chacham's ability to annul a vow**). The point of our Mishna is to demand fidelity to the Chachomim's rulings no matter the source.

While our Mishna mentions the Chagigah as an example of the middle level of Derash, it is not necessarily the connection between this Mishna and our Mesechta. Rather, as Chanoch Albeck suggests, Mishnayos 1:8 and 2:1 form a unit with Mishna 1:7 by providing various examples and situations that could cause a person to stray from the Torah. These include failure to adhere to the traditional interpretations of the Torah--even though they may lack a firm basis in the Torah, or because he veers unguided into the esoteric world or failure to take the requisite precautionary measures when delving into certain topics, each of these can have the drastic effect of twisting a person's Torah knowledge and faith. Once twisted, it almost it becomes subsequently nearly impossible to fully straighten.

*Whether these Deroshos were ex-ante or ex-post is not the subject of our introduction. For a brief primer on the subject see: The Early Period of Halakhic Midrash, David Halivni, Tradition Journal, 22(1), Spring 1986.

**While the Torah explicitly gives a father/husband the power to set aside a daughter/wife's vows, it makes no mention of a regular person's ability to have his vows annulled. Perhaps, one can say, that with the growing strength of the Chachomim in the lives of the Jewish people, it was only natural for them to take on a similar guardianship role similar to a father/husband. Thus, annulments may have been less about leniency in vows and more about elevating the Chachomim's role in a person's life.

This Mishna continues the theme of topics that can cause a Talmid Chacham to veer off the narrow path and be led astray from the Torah. Unlike the previous Mishna's demand that one study and follow the laws of the Torah, this Mishna deals more with setting the right environment for teaching certain areas of the Torah and setting boundaries and limiting the scope of appropriate areas of inquiry. Unguided and unbounded discussions of Metaphysics, the nature of G-d and prurient matters can easily and rapidly devolve, leading the unwitting student (and at times the Master) astray. Indeed, knowing one's limitations and setting appropriate parameters and guidelines is the hallmark of being a רואה את הנולד.

Importantly, when it comes to Torah there are no topics that are completely off limits: תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך. Nonetheless, not every subject is made for mass consumption. Our Mishna tries to strike that balance between active transmission of our tradition while placing appropriate limits.*

*For a brief review on the scholarship interpreting this Mishna, see The Rabbinic Ban on Ma'aseh Bereshit: Sources, Contexts and Concerns, Yair Furstenberg, available on Academia.edu.

Introduction to Mishnayos 2:2

As traditionally understood, the next two Mishnayos highlight a multi-generational dispute whether one is permitted to perform the S'micha rite--the laying of hands on a private Korban prior to its slaughter--on Yom Tov. Perhaps more important than the topic itself, is the historic nature of this Mishna. As noted in both the Yerushalmi and Bavli, our Mishna records and preserves what is perhaps the earliest, unresolved Halachik dispute. At its core, this dispute helped shape the general populations' interaction with, and participation in, the sacrificial ceremonies in the Beis HaMikdash during the festivals.

A brief background of the various topics at play is provided here. Further source material can be found at "Laying the Table for the Controversy over Semicha" available at http://www.sefaria.org/sheets/65427.

S'micha (סמיכה)

The Torah (with minor exceptions) prescribes that when an individual brings a Korban Olah or Shelamim, prior to slaughtering the animal, the owner is to lay his hands on the animal's head. וְסָמַ֣ךְ יָד֔וֹ עַ֖ל רֹ֣אשׁ הָעֹלָ֑ה. The Mishna in Menachos (9:8) sets out the basic rules of this procedure. It requires that when the Korban is in the Azarah (Courtyard) the owner lay both his hands on the head of the animal immediately prior to the the slaughtering. This last requirement, i.e., the temporal connection between S'Micha and slaughtering, is the point of dispute in our Mishna. One further point of background is essential to understanding our Mishna.

Prohibited Action on Festival Days (יום טוב)

The Mishna in Beitza (5:2) tells us that there is a Rabbinic Prohibition ( a "Shvus") to ride on an animal on Shabbos out of fear that a person, in an attempt to to guide and prod the animal, will rip a branch off of a tree. This narrow prohibition was expanded to prohibit all manor of use of an animal on Shabbos and Yom Tov. This ostensibly would include a prohibition on laying one's hands on the an animal prior to its slaughter.

(The Amoraim conclude that the fact that this Shvus is even applicable to Semicha must mean that the correct way of performing Semicha is to press heavily on the animal with your hands to the point that if the animal were to disappear you would fall down, i.e., you have to press down with all your strength).

The question then arises, given that the Olas Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah were personal Korbonos brought on the first day of a Festival, how did you perform the Semicha ceremony, if at all? Would the Sh'vus defer to the imperative to perform Semicha or would Semicha be enjoined in order to establish the authority of the Chachomim? That question was the cause of an eduring dispute among multiple generations of scholars.

Because the Semicha ritual was an important aspect of the bringing of a Korban, it was udnerstood that one could not simply forgo Semicha and bring the Korban without it. Therefore, even according to those who prohibited Semicha on Yom Tov, they ruled that Semicha need be done immediately proceeding the slaughter. Rather, they allowed a person to do Semicha prior (note, this would also allow a person to send his animal with a Shliach (Agent) since an Agent is typically not permitted to perform Semicha).

Those who ruled Semicha was permitted on the Festival days ruled that Semicha has to be performed immediately prior to slaughtering the Korban, and since the Korban is best brought on the Festival day, we push aside the Shvus in able to perform the Miztvah at its most opportune time.

The Zugos ("Pairs")

Following the Anshei K'neses HaGedolah (the "Men of the Great Assembly") and Shimon HaTzadik and Antigonous ish Socho, the Zugos followed, leading the Jewish people during the second half of the Second Beis HaMikdash prior to the Tannaitic period. One assumed the role of Nasi, the political leader, while the other, Av Beis Din head of the Jewish Court. The political realities through which they lived, the cultural headwinds they faced and their Halachik tendencies are further explored in The Sages, Volume 1, Binyamin Lau.

The dispute over Semicha on Yom Tov ranged over all five generations of Zugos. While originally the Nasi opposed Semicha on Yom Tov and the Av Beis Din permitted it, during the last two Pairs it switched, with the Nasi permitting and the Av Beis Din prohibiting.

There is a dispute as to where the enigmatic Menachem may have left "to." Some say he left to join one of the Sects (Tziddukim (Saducees), Boethusians and Essenes) while other suggest he left to serve in the government.

The question ultimately is why did this dispute last so long? What about the period of time, the subject matter or the personalities allowed the conflict to foment and stand the test of time? This is especially troublesome since, as noted in the Mishna in Menachos 9:8, while integral to the Korban, Semicha is not essential and a Korban brought without Semicha is nonetheless Kosher. These questions, in part, have led some to suggest alternative theories for our Mishna's subject matter.

Introduction to Mishnayos 2:3

Our Mishna takes the previous dispute one step further. First, Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai continue the dispute of their eponymous founders over whether Semicha may be performed on the Festival itself. Second, they dispute whether a person is ever allowed to bring the Olas Re'iyah on the Festival day.

As noted above, the Olas Re'iyah and the Shalmei Chagigah form their own unique subset of Korbonos. On the one hand, they are obligatory, on the other, if they are not brought on the first day of the Festival, one may fulfill his obligation by bringing them on any of the subsequent seven days. Because of this flexibility it is clear that these Korbonos may not be brought on Shabbos nor can they be brought when a person is Tamei. What about on Yom Tov days themselves. While the answer should be obvious, given the biblical command, nonetheless, Beis Shammai prohibits the bringing of the Korban Olas Re'iyah on Yom Tov.

Beis Shammai's reasoning is as follows. Generally speaking all categories of work prohibited on Shabbos are also prohibited on Yom Tov. The most significant exception to this rule is that action related to preparing food (אוכל נפש) permitted. Beis Shammai (relying on an imputation from a Pasuk) reasons that since the Korban Olah will be completely consumed on the Alter, there is no permissible hook by which to bring the Korban. Whereas, the Shalmei Chagigah, which is eaten by the owner falls within the אוכל נפש exception (so long as Semicha is done on the prior day).

Beis Hillel reasons that since the Torah mandated that these Korbonos be brought on the first day of Yom Tov, it must be the case that they are permitted to be brought even in the absence of a specific אוכל נפש component.

The Tosefta/Beraysa relates that because Shammai's rulings (i.e., not being able to bring the Korban Olah on Yom Tov and the lack of S'micha on Yom Tov) the Beis HaMikdash was desolate on the Festival. In fact, when Hillel attempted to bring a Korban Shama's students verbally assaulted him , trying to prevent his bringing a Korban. It was not until a student of Shamai's put a stop to it by bringing 3,000 animals to the Beis HaMikdash--offering anyone who wanted to bring a Korban to bring one right then and there that they established the Halacha like Hillel.

This Mishna is found in Beitza 2:4 as well.

Introduction to Mishnayos 2:4

As noted above in Mishna 1:6, if a person did not bring his Olas Re'Iyah or his Shalmei Chagigah on the first day of Yom Tov, he could bring them for the following six (or in the case of Sukkos--seven) days. This was even true for Shavuos which only lasted one day, i.e., the period for Tashlumim fell outside the holiday itself.

In line with Beis Shammai's view in the previous Mishna, if Shavuos were to fall on a Friday, according to Beis Shammai you could not bring the Olas Re'iyah on Friday (since it was Yom Yov) nor could you bring it the next day, on Shabbos. Hence, the first possible day you could bring the Olah was on Sunday. According to Beis Hillel, the Korbonos could be brought on Friday. However, even Beis Hillel agrees that if Shavuos falls on a Shabbos, then no Korbonos could be brought until Sunday.

This posed a problem. As will be explained below.

The Different Jewish Sects

Towards the second half of the second Beis HaMikdash a number of different groups (sects) of Jews developed, including the Tziddukim (Saducees), Boethusians and Essenes. The Chachomim were known as Peirushim (Pharisees). Throughout the Mishnayos we find a number of disagreements between these groups and the Chachomim. One of the most famous and contentious fights was over the day on which the Korban Omer was to be brought.

Traditional sources relate that the Sadducian sect was started by a wayward student of Antigonus Ish Socho named Tzadok. He misinterpreted one of his Rebbe's teachings and could not reconcile it with his faith. It is commonly misunderstood that that the Sadducees only believed in or followed exclusively the Torah Sh'beksav, the Written Torah (like the Karaites of the Middle Ages). However, as it appears in various Mishnayos, while they had their own distinctive way of explicating the Torah and its laws--often adhering to a more Peshat level understanding of the text--they did have an interpretive tradition. Many of their leaders were active in the Beis HaMikdash and the Beis Midrash and, more importantly, there likely was not a singular set of Halochos they all followed. In addition, while not identical, the Qumran sect espoused similar Halachik positions. See generally, Eyal Regev, הצדוקים והלכתם: על דת וחברה בימי בית שני, יד יצחק בן צבי, ירושלים תשס"ה and Yair Furstenberg, "קובלין אנו עליכם פרושים: לעיצובה של תמונת העולם הפרושית במשנה", א' רוזנק וד' שרייבר (עורכים), ההלכה: הקשרים רעיוניים ואידיאולוגיים גלויים וסמויים, מגנס וואן ליר, ירושלים תשע"ב, עמ' 283-211

Korban Omer

In describing the day on which to bring the Korban the Torah uses the term "מִֽמָּחֳרַת֙ הַשַּׁבָּ֔ת," the day after "shabbos." The Chachomim had a tradition that this meant the day after the first day of Pesach (i.e., the second day of Pesach). Whereas, the Boethusians, relying on a literal translation of the words held that the Korban was meant to be brought on the Sunday following the first day of Pesach (this would mean that the date of the Korban was not fixed and it would depend on when Pesach fell. Important for our MIshna, this meant that according to the Boethusians, Shavuos would always fall on a Sunday.

As noted above, if Shavuos fell on a Friday (according to Beis Shammai) or a Shabbos (according to everyone) they would defer bringing the Korbonos until Sunday. Given the masses of people, the Chachomim were concerned that people would have the false impression that Sunday was actually the Yom Tov of Shavuos. Not wanting to lend any credence to the Boethusians and their interpretation, our Mishna tells us that the Chachomim took clear steps to highlight the fact that the Sunday was not, in fact, a holiday. First, they allowed fasting and eulogies (practices normally forbidden on such days). In addition, they did not allow the Kohein Gadol* to perform the sacrificial duties that day. His absence would be an obvious marker that something was amiss as it was typical for the Kohein Gadol to officiate on holiday days.

*Perhaps, given the Chachomim's lingering concerns of the sectarian leanings of the Kohanim Gedolim during this era of the Beis HaMikdash (See Yoma 1:5) there may have been a parallel concern that the Kohein Gadol himself viewed the deferred date as the actual holiday. See Mishnat Eretz Yisroel ad. loc.

Introduction to the Second Half of Mesechtas Chagigah

The second half of Mesechtas Chagigah deals with various rules related to Tumah and Taharah, impurity and purity. While today these rules have limited scope and impact on our daily lives, during the times of the Beis Hamikdash and even continuing past its destruction these laws were very much a part of the fabric of society.

In addition to Kohanim (when handling and consuming Terumah) and anyone coming in contact with Kodshim, during the late Second Beis HaMikdash period there were numerous groups and sects who were scrupulous in maintaining their purity. This included treating and consuming even non-consecrated food (i.e., Chullin) in a state of purity. Some went as far as treating their Chullin as if it were Ma'aser Sheini, Terumah or even Kodshim. Meaning, for example, eating Chullin "Al Taharas HaKodesh" meant they were vigilant in not allowing the food to become even a Revi'i L'Tumah. If it was merely, Al Taharas Terumah, they would not allow the food to become Tamei as Shlishi. Naturally, this meant they they would have to take precautions that they themselves did not become Tamei. As noted below, these laws are complex and for those groups of people who carefully adhered to these rules they controlled the daily rhythm of their households.

A number of different groups have been identified as maintaining these rules. The Mishna speaks of both Peirushim and Chaveirim. Josephus identifies a third, non-Rabbinic group called the Essenes who lives according to a particularly stringent set of rules. For an overview of the nuances and differences among these groups see, Outsider Impurity, Trajectories of Second Temple Separation Traditions in Tannaitic Literature, Yair Furstenberg, Tradition, Transmission and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity, Kister et. al. Brill 2015.

As for the Perushim, they were called as such, in part, because in order to maintain their level of Taharah they essentially had to withdraw from society. Those who did not maintain this level of Taharah were called the Am HaAretz. While today that term has a negative connotation, at that time it simply meant someone who did not follow the strict Taharah laws.

The Mishna is replete with rules governing the interaction among and between these groups. Given the realities of the day it was impossible for these groups to completely disassociate from one another. On the other hand, excessive interaction could have significant and severe consequences for the Peirushim. That balance lays at the heart of the many of the Mishanyos throughout Shas.

The reason this grouping of Mishnayos is brought here is because during the time of the Festivals, even the Am HaAretz were careful about the purity laws to the highest degree. Many of the following Mishnayos describe and detail the differences between various levels of Tumah and Taharah.

Introduction to Tumah and Taharah

There are six distinct aspects to Tumah and Taharah. First, being the sources of Tumah. Second, the severity of Tumah. Third, its modes of transmission. Fourth, the susceptibility of a person or item to becoming Tamei. Fifth, a person or item's sensitivity to Tumah. Sixth, purification rituals. The rules are complex and the exceptions more so. Seder Taharos generally concerns itself with these issues. Below is brief introduction to these topics.

Sources of Tumah

The Torah describes a number of sources of Tumah which can be broken down into two basic categories. The first, are external sources of Tumah, such as humans (Tumas Meis) and certain animals (N'veila) and rodents (Sheretz) that have died. These items are by their very nature Tamei and coming in contact with them will make a person Tamei. The second category are situations where the person internally, due to a change in his own body, becomes Tamei (i.e., the Tumah flows from the person himself). Examples of this include, a Zav, Zavah (Niddah), Yoledes and a Metzorah. These persons have the power to transmit Tumah as well.

Severity of Tumah

Not each source of Tumah is created equal. A corpse is the highest level of Tumah and is called an Avi Avos HaTumah (the ultimate source of Tumah). Its severity is most notable in the way it transmits Tumah and its purification ritual (i.e., sprinkling of the Mei Chatas--spring water mixed with ashes of the Parah Adumah). Most other sources of Tumah are called Avos HaTumah. Their severity can be seen by the fact that certain fluids that emanate from their bodies (e.g., saliva) are Avos HaTumah as well.

Importantly, as Tumah is transmitted from one person or item to another, it typically steps down a level of severity. Therefore, if an Av HaTumah touches a person or item, the person will become a Rishon (first derivative). A Rishon will create a Sheini (second derivative). A Sheini will create a Shlishi (third derivative). A Shlishi will create a Revi'i (fourth derivative).

There are, however, certain exceptions to the step down in severity paradigm. First, in certain instances the transmitted level of Tumah remains the same, i.e., an Av HaTumah will make the recipient an Av HaTumah as well (I.e., Tumas Midras--a cushion on which a Zav sits will likewise be an Av HaTumah capable of transmitting Tumah). Second, certain Avos have the power, so long as it remains in direct contact with a person, to turn that person temporarily into an Av HaTumah as well (טומאת חיבורין). Finally, the Chachomim decreed that liquids, even when touched by a Sheini, will always be a Rishon, with the capabilities of even making a vessel Tamei.

Modes of Transmission

The most typical mode of transmission is via touch. If an Av Hatumah touches a person the person will become a Rishon. If that person then touches an apple, the apple will become a Sheini. Similarly, if a person wearing a glove touches a Sheretz--an Av Hatumah--the glove will be a Rishon and the person will be Tahor.

In addition to direct touch, a corpse's Tumah spreads via Tumas Ohel in one of three ways (i) by being under the same roof as the corpse, (ii) the corpse hovering over a person or (iii) a person hovering over the corpse. In the case of being under the same roof, everything in the house will become Tamei. The one main exception are earthenware pots (Klei Cheres). These cannot become Tamei via touch on the outside; rather only by their interior space being exposed to Tumah (therefore, if it sealed in a house that has a corpse in it, the vessel and its contents, if sealed, will remain Tahor).

A Zav, Zavah, Yoledes and Metzorah can also transmit Tumah via leaning on an item, carrying (even without touching) and item or being carried by an item or person. These laws are very complex and can be found in the final chapter of Mesechtas Zavim.

Susceptibility to Becoming Tamei

There are differences between a person's, Keilim's and food's susceptibility to Tumah. People and most non-food items are susceptible to Tumah at any time. No preconditions exists. Whereas, a vessel will only become susceptible to Tumah when it is close to its finished state (i.e., a flat piece of wood is not susceptible to Tumah).

Food's susceptibility to Tumah is far more complex. The Chachomim learned that prior to becoming susceptible to Tumah, it first must have become consciously wet (i.e., washed with water or other liquid). In language of the Mishna, Huchshar L'Kabel Tumah. Therefore, if after picking an apple off the tree you guard it from ever becoming wet, that apple is not capable of becoming Tamei.

Sensitivity to Tumah

Sensitivity to Tumah is a influenced by both the type of item and its intended purpose. At its most basic level, Tumah will not extend beyond a Rishon and in rare occasions a Sheini. So, for instance, a person and Keilim, can only become Tamei from an Avi Avos or an Av Hatumah so that they will become at worst, a Rishon. There is no Sheini L'Tumah for a person. (A Keili can under certain circumstances stances become a Sheini if touched by a liquid Rishon).

Foods are more sensitive to Tumah and can become a Sheini. Liquids, being even more sensitive, per the Chachomim, will always remain a Rishon.

The above rules are for Chullin, non-consecrated food. However, the Chachomim identified a number of levels of sanctified foods and liquids that, given their levels of Kedusha (holiness), are more sensitive to Tumah--and hence, more susceptible as well. These levels are as follows:

• Ma'aser Sheini (the Second tithe). It was brought to Yerushalyim and was to be eaten in a state of Taharah.
• Terumah: The portion of the crop given to the Kohein. It could only be eaten by the Kohein and his family. It's holiness level made it susceptible of becoming a Shlishi L'Tumah.
• Kodshim: sacrificial meat and bread. It's holiness level made it susceptible of becoming a Revi'i L'Tumah
• Mei Chatas: at its core, the heightened level of holiness and its sensitivity to Tumah made it so that there was no limit to levels of Tumah to which it was susceptible. In other words, so long as there was somewhere in the chain some very low level of Tumah, it gets passed along as if it were a severe Tumah--despoiling the Mei Chatas.

The corollary to this sensitivity to Tumah is the requirement that a person likewise take more focused and, at times, stringent, measures when purifying himself prior to consuming and/or handling each successive level of consecrated food. What works to ensure purity for Terumah may not work for Kodshim. As you move up each level in purity, it demands more scrutiny in the chain in purity.

It is this sensitivity that is the topic of the next three Mishnayos. Mishna 2:5 describes the added precautions added to maintaining "pure" hands. Mishna 2:6 highlights the fact that purifying oneself for each successive level of Kedusha requires specific intent. Mishna 2:7 describes a precaution followed to maintain heightened levels of purity.

Purification Rituals

Once Tamei, a person and/or most items will remain in its impure state until it undergoes a purification ritual. These diverse rituals will depend on the source and level of Tumah trying to be cleansed. The most typical form of purification ritual is submerging oneself or item in a Mikvah, a standing pool of water of a particular size and volume. This works for most situations. For some forms of Tumah, rather than a Mikvah, the source of water must be a flowing spring of water. Finally, cleansing Tumas Meis requires, in addition to submersion in a Mikvah, the sprinkling the Mei Chatas on the person or item.

Notably, earthenware vessels cannot be cleansed of Tumah except by shattering the vessel. In addition, food cannot be cleansed in any instance.

Introduction to Mishna 2:5

There is an ancient decree that a person's hands are generally deemed to be טמא (impure); thereby having the power to disqualify Terumah, Kodshim and Mei Chatas. The underlying reasons for the decree(s) are discussed in the Talmud, Shabbos 13b.

As described in both the Mishna and Talmud, there are two ways that Yadayim can become Tamei. First, is by touching a "weak" source of Tumah that, itself, does not have the power to make the entire person Tamei. For example, a Rishon L'Tumah (i.e., something that touched an Av HaTumah) cannot make a person Tamei, nonetheless, the Chachomim decreed that it would make a person's Yadayim, Tamei. This can be seen as a natural extension of the core rules of Tumah and Tahara so as to prevent inadvertently making Terumah, Tamei (i.e., we don't want people handling a Rishon and Terumah at the same time). Included as a source of impurity are hands that touch an exposed portion of a Sefer.

Second, the Gemara describes a generic category called, "סתם ידים." This category is much broader than the first and it applies to all Yadayim, even if you know you have not touched a source of Tumah. The reason this "Tumah" was enacted is מפני שהידים עסקניות הן. People are not always conscientious and careful of where they place their hands. This raises the strong possibility that their hands may be dirty. It would be very disrespectful to touch Teruma with such Yadayim since it could potentially spoil the food. Therefore, unless a person has dutifully been watching over his hands since their last purification so as to ensure they remain "clean and pure," they will be deemed Tamei and he will need to purify them again.

To purify one's hands, a person has to perform the נטילת ידים ceremony. This entails pouring a minimum amount of water that was gathered in a utensil over your hands. The mechanics of this ritual --how to wash your hands, how much water, what type of utensil, qualifications for the water--are discussed in the first two chapters of Mesechtas Yadayim.

Our Mishna teaches that Netilas Yadayim is sufficient to purify "Stam" and Tamei hands for Chullin, Ma'aser* (prior to eating bread) and Terumah (handling and consuming fruit and bread) purposes. For Kodshim, you must dip your Tamei hands in a valid Mikvah. For "stam" hands there is a dispute whether Tevillah or simple Netillas Yadayim is sufficient.

For Mei Chatas, if your hands become Tamei it's as if your entire body is Tamei, requiring a full Tevillah in a Mikvah. However, if your hands are simply "Stam," even for Mei Chatas, dipping them in a Mikvah is sufficient.

For a more complete overview of Tumas Yadayim, see Mesechtas Yadayim with Running Commentary available at https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/47899.

* But see Mishna Bikkurim 2:1 and Parah 11:5, where it is not all that clear that one must wash their hands for Maaser.

Introduction to Mishna 2:6

Reaching and maintaining a high level of purity was a necessary corollary to preventing one's food from becoming Tamei. As noted above, Kohanim had to eat their Terumah in a high state of פורןאט, while those eating or handling Kodshim (sacrificial meat or bread) needed an even higher state. While those handling Mai Chatas needed the highest state of purity.

Moreover, different groups sought to maintain their daily lives in heightened states of purity. Some maintained their Chullin in simple Tahrah while others sought to maintain Chullin as Terumah. Others applied a higher level, i.e., as if it were Kodshim. While others maintained the highest level, treating their Chullin as if it were Mei Chatas.

Our Mishna teaches that a person must consciously intend to purify himself for each heightened level of purity. If he has in mind a lower level (i.e., Terumah) that is not sufficient to purify himself for Kodshim (even if he knows he did not become Tamei in any which way or form). It's the intent (or lack thereof) at the moment of purification that will define his level.

It is a matter of dispute how to understand the last line of the Mishna. At its most basic level, it would seem absent any particular intent, immersion will not work to purify the person to even eat Chullin in purity. This is in line with the opening statement of the Mishna requiring intent for Chullin. However, many understand that for Chullin no particular intent is needed; the opening statement of the Mishna is to emphasize the notion that intent for Chullin not sufficient for any other level of purity.

Yair Furstenburg posits that as originally understood the term " והוחזק", rather than an internal, subjective intent by the person undergoing the purification, indicated that for a person to be accepted into a particular strata of purity he needed to be accepted by the established group practicing that level of purity, i.e., acceptance of the outsider.

Introduction to Mishna 2:7

Typically, Tumah is transmitted via touch and each progression reduces the level of Tumah (e.g., something touches an Av HaTumah it will become a Rishon; a Rishon will make a Sheini). However, in certain circumstances, a person who is an Av HaTumah will convey Tumah to an object by merely resting his weight on the object (i.e., the object is supporting his weight), even if he does not directly touch the object itself (i.e., he sits on 5 pillows--even the bottom pillow will be Tamei). This is called Tumas Midras (טומאת מדרת). Further, the rule is that the object becomes Tamei at the same level as the person himself. So, for instance, if a person is a Zav, a serious form of Av Hatumah, and sits on 5 pillows, each of those pillows will be an Av HaTumah.

As noted above, Kohanim (when handling and consuming Terumah), all people when handling/consuming Kodshim and Mei Chatas needed to attain and maintain certain levels of purity. In addition, certain groups abided by strict codes of purity--maintaining their daily lives in heightened states of purity. Some maintained their Chullin in simple Tahrah while others sought to maintain Chullin as Terumah. Others applied a higher level, i.e., as if it were Kodshim. While others maintained the highest level, treating their Chullin as if it were Mei Chatas.

Maintaining these heightened levels requires extreme diligence and sensitivity to Tumah. One safeguard was to treat the clothing of the next successively lower tier as if they were Tamei Midras (a very strong form of Tumah). This was out of concern that the wives of these lower-tiered households may not have been as careful as they should have been when they were a Niddah or Zavah, accidentally sitting on the clothing.

This was an extreme precaution and could easily lead to a complete separation between these groups Therefore, the Chachomim limited the decree to the Am Haaertz's own clothing. If he borrowed clothing from the Peirushim--even if the Am Haaretz wore them--they do not take on the stringency of Midras.

The Mishna highlights two leaders who maintained high levels of purity and yet, remained subject to the decree. One was a Kohein who presumably treated all his food as if it were Terumah. The second was someone who treated all his food as if it were Kodshim. Nonetheless, their clothing was deemed impure for the next higher level of purity. Our Mishna teaches us that leaders were shown no favors when it came to maintaining discipline among the group. Further, this Mishna presupposes that treating Chullin as Kodshim will deem it Kodshim level pure. The Gemara, citing conflicting Mishnayos, concludes that our Mishna is of an early vintage; over time the rule changed and except for limited purposes, Chullin could not achieve such a high state of purity.

Chapter 3

The third and final chapter of Meschtas Chaggigah continues the discussion of Tumah and Taharah. Having previously differentiated among five levels of Taharah and the fastidious precautions taken to shield each successive level from the impurity of the lower sphere, the Chachomim insisted on additional precautions to protect and enhance the purity of both Kodshim and Terumah. Some of the decrees were specifically directed to Kodshim, others to Terumah. The first three Mishnayos enumerate eleven stringencies specifically instituted only for Kodshim, while the following three Mishnayos list leniencies for Kodhsim (i.e., while remaining stringent with Terumah).

The penultimate Mishna describes a leniency when it came to commerce among the Perushim and Amei Ha'aretz in Yerushalyim during the Festivals. While the final Mishna describes how they would purify the Beis HaMikdash at the end of the Festivals once the masses went home.

Introduction to Mishnayos 3:1-3:3

In comparison to Terumah, the Chachomim instituted eleven מעלות "degrees or stringencies" to better protect Kodshim from Tumah and enhance its purity. Although these מעלות are unique to Kodshim, many simply incorporate the next logical step of rules followed with respect to Terumah. Here is a brief background for each of these stringencies.

1. Generally speaking, when immersing numerous vessels in a Mikvah, you can place a number of Kaylim into a single vessel and, so long as the vessel's opening is wider than two fingers, you can immerse them collectively (i.e., one inside another). However, when it comes to Kodshim, the Chachomim decreed that you must immerse each vessel individually. This is so either (i) out of concern that sometimes the outside vessel's opening may be narrower than permitted, invalidating the immersion or (ii) given the heightened level of purity desired for Kodshim we are concerned that the inner vessel may press against the inside of the outer vessel causing a "חציצה", an interposition between the water and the vessel.
2. A person and Kaylim are typically limited to becoming a Rishon L'Tumah (i.e., they become Tamei solely by touching an Av HaTumah). The one exception is when a Tamei liquid (which is always deemed a Rishon) touches a vessel, then the vessel becomes a Sheini (this is out of concern that there are certain liquids, such as the spit of a Zav which is an Av HaTumah with the power to make a vessel Tamei). The Mishna in Kaylim 25:6 teaches us that in the situation where a Tamei liquid touches only a part of a vessel--the outside or the handle-- the rest of the vessel remains Tahor. If the liquid touches the interior of the vessel the entire vessel is Tamei. When it comes to Kodshim, these differences do not apply and the vessel will be fully Tamei no matter where the liquid may fall.
3. When it comes to טומאת מדרת (see introduction to Mishna 2:7) the Torah tells us of an added stringency called, טומאת חיבורין. That is, so long as a person is holding or carrying the Tamei item, he is considered an Av HaTumah capable of making another vessel Tamei (as a Rishon)--but not a person or an earthenware vessel. This, however, is only so long as the person, while holding the Midras, is also touching the second vessel. If, however, he is merely carrying the second vessel it will not become Tamei (as the person is considered a Rishon and cannot make the vessel a Sheini). Our Mishna teaches that when it comes to Terumah, a person may carry Terumah contained in an earthenware vessel while also carrying a Midras since the person is only directly touching the earthenware vessel (if it were a regular vessel, it would become a Rishon making the Terumah a Sheini). However, when it comes to Kodshim, the Chachomim decreed that one cannot carry it when also holding a Midras.
4. The fourth stringency is the one noted above in Mishna 2:7, that the clothing of those who are watchful to maintain Terumah purity are considered Midras for those purifying themselves for Kodshim.
5. The fifth "degree" concerns the purification process and a stringency related to a "חציצה", an interposition, when immersing certain items in a Mikvah. The basic law is that if you tie two edges of a garment together, the knot will not be considered a חציצה since the water will be able to flow into the knot. However, when it comes to Kodshim, the Chachomim were more stringent and required you to untie the knot prior to immersion. Similarly, if the clothing were saturated with Tamei water, when it comes to Kodshim you are required to first dry the garment prior to immersing it in the Mikvah.
6. When it comes to vessels, they become susceptible to Tumah once they are complete. Therefore, someone who was particular and wanted their Kaylim to remain pure would watch over them at the precise moment of completion--ensuring their purity (without the need to actually purify them). However, out of concern that an Am Haaretz's moist spit might be on the vessel at the moment of completion, for Kodshim, the Chachomim required you to Tovel the vessel prior to its use.
7. As Tumah is transmitted from one person or item to another, it typically steps down a level of severity. Therefore, if an Av HaTumah touches a person or vessel, the person or item will become a Rishon (first derivative). A Rishon will create a Sheini (second derivative). A Sheini will create a Shlishi (third derivative). A Shlishi will create a Revi'i (fourth derivative). Therefore, if you have a bunch of Terumah loaves gathered together on a plate and they are touching one another, if an Av HaTumah touches one loaf, that loaf will be a Rishon, the one next to it a Sheini and the one touching the Sheini will be a Shlishi. The rest of the Loaves on the plate will remain Tahor. However, if the loaves or pieces were Kodshim, then, even if they are not touching one another, if a source of Tumah touches even one of them, all of them will be Tamei.
8. The eighth stringency is that Kodshim can become Tamei to the fourth derivative (i.e., it can become Tamei from a Shlishi) while Terumah only becomes Tamei to the third derivative (i.e., from a Sheini--even if touched by Kodshim that is a Shlishi).
9. The Mishna in Yadayim (3:2) describes a dispute between Rabi Yehoshua and the Chachomim whether a person's Yadayim can become Tamei only from a Rishon L'Tumah or even from a Sheini (i.e., can a Sheini make another Sheini). The example in dispute are Yadayim themselves since they are always considered a Sheini L'Tumah. It is undisputed that if a single hand becomes Tamei it will not make the other hand automatically Tamei. Rather, the dispute is if one touches one hand to his other hand whether it will render the second hand Tamei. Our Mishna, in line with the Chachomim, teaches that when it comes to Terumah, one hand will not render the other impure. However, when it comes to Kodshim, if one hand becomes Tamei, if the Tamei hand is wet or one hand touches the other hand (even when dry) both hands will require immersion in the Mikvah (see above Mishna 2:5).
10. The next stringency continues with Yadayim. Stam Yadayim are a Sheini L'Tumah, and so long as they are dry, they cannot make Chullin Tamei. They can, however, Pasul Terumah. If they are wet, the liquid on the hand will be a Rishon making any Chullin a Sheini which, in turn, will make Terumah Pasul. Therefore, if someone wanted to eat both Terumah and Chullin together with dry, Tamei hands he could have someone else place the Terumah in his mouth and then use his own hands for the Chullin. The Chachomim decreed, however, that this only works for Terumah. When it comes to Kodshim, you must wash your hands prior to eating.
    A more basic way to understand this Mishna is that we are talking about foods that have never before come in contact with a liquid, hence, they are not yet susceptible to contracting Tumah. Therefore, when it comes to Terumah, one may eat such food even his hands are Tamei as they cannot transmit Tumah to the food. However, when it comes to Kodshim, the Chachomim decreed that because of its innate holiness, such food is always susceptible to Tumah and, therefore, cannot be touched with Tamei hands.
11. The final stringency is the requirement that someone who is otherwise ritually "Kodshim" pure but, nonetheless, is Halachically barred from eating Kodshim, must, once the prohibition is lifted, immerse himself again prior to eating Kodshim. The two examples of a person becoming prohibited from eating Kodshim are an Onen and a Mechusar Kapparah (מחסר כפרה). The former is a person who lost a close relative. Such a person is exempt from certain Mitzvos and is prohibited from eating Kodshim until after the burial. The later describes a person who became Tamei and as part of his (or her) purification ritual must bring their own Korban before being allowed to partake in any Korbonons. The purification ritual for such a person usually entails immersing in a Mikvah, waiting for sundown and, the next day, bringing a Korban. A Yoledes, Zav and Metorah are included in this category. The Mishna teaches us that the additional Tevilah is only required for Kodshim, for Terumah one may (assuming he did not become Tamei in the interim) eat Terumah. Neither an Onen or a Mechusar Kapparah are prohibited from eating Terumah.

Questions

1. In case one, does it make a difference if the outer vessel is Tamei or Tahor, in other words does it make a difference if the outer vessel needs purification as well?

Introduction to Mishnayos 3:4-3:6

As noted in the introduction to the second half of the Mesechta, the Chachomim were cognizant of the social reality of Peirushim/Chaveirim and Amei Ha'aretz socializing, interacting and transacting among and between themselves. To foster this environment they, therefore, needed to strike a balance between the punctiliousness of the Peirushim/Chaveirim in matters of Tumah and Taharah with the perceived laxity of the Amei Ha'aretz. [This needed to be done by respecting the seriousness of the matter at hand while finding ways to allow the mixing of the populations.]

In searching for common ground, the Chachomim identified certain items, places and times of year when either the Amei Ha'aretz were trustworthy about Tumah and Taharah or the Chachomim were willing to dispense with some of the strictures to facilitate inclusion. These included the Am Ha'aretz's respect for maintaining the purity of items that were to be used for Kodshim, Terumah during certain periods of time and in Yerushalayim during the Festivals. Outside of these times and places, the Amei Ha'aretz reverted to their normal, Tamei status.

The main focus of the following Mishanyos highlight the fact that when it came to Kodshim the Amei Ha'aretz were fairly reliable, whereas, for Terumah, it was more limited. So, unlike the previous three Mishnayos which highlighted real stringencies as practically applied to Kodshim over Terumah, the following Mishnayos merely highlight the lack of trust the Chachomim had for the Amei Ha'aretz when it came to Terumah.

Introduction to Mishna 3:4

When it came to provisions being used for Kodshim, the Amei Ha'aretz were generally reliable to vouch for their purity.* So, for instance, if one wanted to purchase wine or flour from an Am Ha'aretz to be used as part of a sacrificial service, he is believed when he says that they are pure enough to be used for the service. While this rule should apply throughout Eretz Yisroel, the Chachomim limited this to the area of Judea (and the Galil) since to get from one to the other you would have to pass through the land of the Shomron/Kuthim--potentially causing impurity--(for background on the Kuthim see Kuthim: Their origin and relationship with the Chachomim http://www.sefaria.org/sheets/20860).

In addition, the Amei Ha'aretz were stringent in giving and maintaining the purity of Terumah--at least so long as it was the time of the harvest. Once the harvest had passed, they were no longer believed as to its purity. Because this was a credibility issue and it was bounded by time, the Chachomim allowed for the possibility that the Amei Ha'aretz could, theoretically keep the Terumah in his possession for an entire year and, as soon as the harvest began he would once again be believed even as to last year's production.

Further, because he could vouch for Kodshim, if an Am Ha'aretz poured some Kodshim-pure wine into a barrel of Terumah, he could then vouch for the entire barrel (i.e., he is not suspected of contaminating the entire barrel).

Finally, while the Am Ha'aretz is not believed as to the Terumah itself, he is believed as to the purity status of the jugs/pots used to hold the Terumah starting from 70 days prior to the harvesting season.

* See Oholos 5:5 where the Mishnah suggests that people were believed when it came to Tahor for Chattas (Parah Adumah). And see Mishnayos Oholos, Critical Edition, Avraham Goldberg, Yerushalyim 1955, for a discussion on whether these two mishnayos may be reconciled and noting that the Chachomim's views regarding believing the Amei Ha'aretz was evolving.

Introduction to Mishna 3:5

The Pasuk (Vayikra 6:21) states: וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר, any earthenware vessel in which you cook a Korban must be broken after its use. The reason for this is that the flavor of the Korban seeps into the walls of the pot and will turn to Nossar (leftover of a Korban). Nossar needs to be burned or, in the case of the earthenware vessel, broken. As such, pilgrims making their way to the Beis HaMikdash to bring Korbonos were always in need of these vessels. There was an ordinance prohibiting the manufacture of these vessels in Yerushalayim itself so the industry grew up in the surrounding areas. Our Mishna teaches that the outer boundary in which people were believed to vouch for the purity of these vessels was Modi'in (a city made famous by the fact that it was the home of the Chashmonaim). It stood around 30 kilometers to the northwest of Yerushalayim. Any potters and pots found within this area were automatically believed as to their purity. If brought anywhere beyond Modi'in they were no longer believed. At its core, this Mishna teaches us that it is all about location, location, location.

Introduction to Mishna 3:6

The first half of our Mishna is related to the Mishna in Taharos 7:6. Both Mishnayos describe the purity status of a house and its contents after being either ransacked by the tax collector or pillaged by a burglar. The Mishna in Tahraos says the trustworthiness of the tax collector/burglar to state that he had not entered and/or touched anything is contingent on whether a non-Jew was present and what type of item it he took. Our Mishna discusses the situation where the perpetrator is returning the item stolen/took, in such a scenario he is believed to say that he did not touch (i.e., make impure) the vessel he is returning. Many commentators understand that he is only believed as to Kodshim but not for Terumah purposes (hence its juxtaposition to the surrounding Mishnayos). Others suggest that he is believed in toto.

The Second half of our Mishna is describing the trustworthiness of Amei Ha'aretz in Yerushlayim--they are always trusted as to all manner of Kodshim (including large earthenware vessels). Whereas, during the Festivals, they are even trusted regarding Terumah as well. This dispensation during the Festivals was granted by the Chachomim, in part, due to the reality that all persons were careful about matters of purity during the Festivals. In addition, socially, it worked to foster inclusion of all people in the festivities. They found support for this in the Pasuk ויאסף כל איש ישראל אל העיר כאיש אחד חברים. That at times when everyone is gathered together all are called "Chaveirim."

Introduction to Mishna 3:7

As noted in the previous Mishna, during the Festivals, Amei Ha'aretz were deemed both pure and also trusted to vouch for the purity of objects. This, however, was a temporal dispensation. Once the Festival passed, the Amei Ha'aretz would automatically revert to their impure status causing retroactive Tumah to items they may have touched. This posed a problem for the storekeepers in Yerushalayim. The Mishna assumes that many of them were Chaveirim whose food was kept in a state of purity. If, after the Festival, the food would retroactively become impure there was a concern that the shopkeepers would be stingy with opening up wine barrels and making dough so as not to get stuck with Tamei, unsalable products. To keep the food and wine flowing Rabi Yehudah extended the dispensation until the open barrels and dough were used up. The Chachomim disagreed.

The second half of the Mishna and the following Mishna describe how after the Festivals the Kohanim would purify the Beis HaMikdash. It needed purification out of concern that either the general population or Kohanim (who were Amei Ha'aretz) may have entered the Azarah and inadvertently touched some of the vessels making them retroactively Tamei. Everyone agrees that when the Festival ends Thursday evening that you extend the dispensation (i.e., you do not need to purify the Beis HaMikdash) until after Shabbos. This is to allow the Kohanim to properly prepare for Shabbos. Rabi Yehudah would extend it the dispensation even when the Festival ends Wednesday evening since the Kohanim would be busy on Thursday cleaning out the Ash pile that accumulated in the Beis HaMikdash over the Festival.

Introduction to Mishna 3:8

The final Mishna of the Mesechta (and Seder) describes how they purified the Keilim of the Beis Hamikdash after the Festivals (and at other times of the year when and as needed). Obviously, the movable vessels required immersion in a Mikvah. The Mishna also tells us that they had duplicates or triplets of each of the Keilim. If the one in use became Tamei they would slip in the new one to take its place.

There are a number of vessels that did not require immersion or, for specific reasons, could not be immersed in a Mikvah. The later group consists of the Shulchan (the Table holding the Lechem HaPanim (Show Bread)) and, according to some, the Menorah.* For the Shulchan, the Torah mandates that the Lechem HaPanim remain on the Shulchan, "Tamid," always. Therefore, if the Shulchan were to become Tamei the concern is that either the Lechem HaPanim itself would become Tamei (requiring its disposal) or when immersing the Shulchan you would have to remove the Lechem HaPanim from the table. In either case, the Shulchan would be bereft of the Lechem HaPanim for some period of time. According to some, the Torah likewise mandated that the Menorah's lamps remain eternally lit. If it became Tamei requiring immersion, obviously the flame would be extinguished. Therefore, to prevent these two vessels from becoming Tamei, the Mishna says they would warn the people not to touch them.**

The commentators have different views as to whom this warning was directed. Either is was directed (i) during the Festival to the Amei Ha'aretz or Kohein Am Ha'aretz (since a non-Kohein was generally not permitted to enter the Ezras Kohanim) or (ii) during the purification process to the Kohanim so that they would be careful not to touch the Menorah and Shulchan with any of the Tamei Vessels they were carrying.

Finally, the Mishna tells us that the two Alters, the Outer, Bronze Alter and the Inner, Gold Alter did not require immersion. According to Rabi Eliezer this is because they are considered to be like the ground, which is not susceptible to Tumah. According to the Chachomim, it's because they are plated with metal, and plating is not susceptible to becoming Tamei.

Note the Mishna is Shekalim 8:4-5 describes how they would purify the Peroches, the hanging curtain in the Beis HaMikdash.

* The underlying assumption surrounding the question of whether or not to include the Menorah is that if it were to become impure, you would have to immerse the Menorah, thereby extinguishing its flame. The Tosefta (3:13) reports that the Tzidukkim (Sadduccees) were of the view that the Menorah was immune from impurity (i.e., never needed immersion since it could not become Tamei).
מעשה [והטבילו] את המנורה ביום טוב והיו [צדוקין] אומרים באו וראו פרושין שמטבילין לאור הלבנה.
For a brief discussion of this dispute see, Immunity to Impurity and the Menorah, Joseph M. Baumgarten (JSIJ 5 (2006) 141-145. See also, Eyal Regev, הצדוקים והלכתם: על דת וחברה בימי בית שני, יד יצחק בן צבי, ירושלים תשס"ה, 197-202.

**In Parshas Bamidbar (4:7) the Torah mandates that the Lechem HaPanim remain on the Shulchan even when being transported (וְלֶ֥חֶם הַתָּמִ֖יד עָלָ֥יו יִהְיֶֽה). Obviously, the Menorah's lamps were extinguished when being transported, suggesting that the imperative to keep them lit was circumscribed by practical circumstances. Hence, I would suggest that the eternal placement of the Lechem HaPanim was perceived as being of a greater nature than that of maintaining lamps. So there may have been less concern if the Menorah became impure as the lamps could be extinguished to accommodate the subsequent immersion if needed. This was less obvious for the Shulchan, hence warranting the Mishna's admonishment.