we declared them pure for the am ha’aretz himself, not for ḥaverim, since ḥaverim in any event do not consider anything touched by an am ha’aretz to be pure. A ḥaver would therefore never relate to the food of an am ha’aretz as pure, and he would not use the earthenware vessels of an am ha’aretz for preparation of pure food, since an earthenware vessel cannot be purified through immersion. However, he might borrow a metal vessel, for instance, and purify it through immersion before using it for pure food.

But how can we purify a vessel of metal and other materials, whose purity would be relevant both for you and for him? A ḥaver may one day borrow a metal vessel from the am ha’aretz, and not realize that it was once inside an earthenware vessel in the same room as a corpse and as a result requires extensive purification from corpse contamination through the ashes of the red heifer, rather than mere immersion. Therefore, the am ha’aretz is informed that his vessels of metal and other materials have contracted impurity from the corpse, and must undergo the extensive purification process, and after this is done these vessels will now be fit for use of the ḥaver after mere immersion.

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am ashamed of your words, Beit Shammai, for they are illogical. Is it possible that there should be a corpse on the first floor, with an earthenware vessel blocking the opening to the second story, and a woman is standing upstairs kneading dough in a metal bowl, and the woman and the bowl are impure for seven days owing to the impurity of the corpse, while the dough inside the trough is pure? For that would be the result according to Beit Shammai, who distinguishes between food and earthenware vessels on the one hand and metal vessels on the other. Similarly: Is it possible that there is a metal pitcher [login] full of liquid in the second story, and the pitcher should be impure with impurity of seven days, while the liquids remain pure?

After Rabbi Yehoshua posed this question, one student from among the students of Beit Shammai approached him and said to him: I will tell you Beit Shammai’s reasoning. He said to him: Speak. He said to him: Does an impure vessel serve as a barrier to corpse contamination or does it not serve as a barrier? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: It does not serve as a barrier. The student asked further: And is a vessel of an am ha’aretz pure or impure? He said to him: Impure. The student responded: And if you tell him that his vessel is impure, will he pay attention to you at all? Clearly he will not. What is more, if you say to him that it is impure, he will say to you: On the contrary, my vessel is pure and yours is impure.

And that is Beit Shammai’s reasoning: Food, drink, and earthenware vessels inside a sealed earthenware vessel remain pure, as, since they belong to an am ha’aretz, a ḥaver will not eat the food or borrow the earthenware vessel. Vessels of metal or similar materials may one day be borrowed by a ḥaver, however, and therefore Beit Shammai declared these to be impure.

Once he heard the logic behind Beit Shammai’s opinion, Rabbi Yehoshua immediately went and prostrated himself on the graves of Beit Shammai, i.e., the students and proponents of Shammai, and said: I humble myself before you, bones of Beit Shammai. If such clarity and wisdom is found in your rulings that you stated and left unexplained, all the more so must this be the case in your rulings when they were stated and explained. People said of Rabbi Yehoshua: Throughout his days his teeth darkened because of all his fasts that he undertook to atone for having spoken inappropriately of Beit Shammai.

The Gemara returns to its main point. In any event, this mishna teaches that the status of the vessels of an am ha’aretz is relevant both for you and for him. Apparently, then, we ḥaverim may borrow vessels from amei ha’aretz. The question therefore arises: Why are the Sages not concerned that amei ha’aretz may immerse vessels inside of other vessels in an inappropriate way, so that they will remain unpurified when borrowed by a ḥaver? The Gemara answers: For when we ḥaverim borrow vessels from them we immerse them before using them. It is therefore inconsequential to us if their vessels were not immersed properly beforehand.

The Gemara asks: If so, let Beit Hillel respond to Beit Shammai. They can respond as follows: When we borrow vessels from them we immerse them, and that is why we rule that vessels of metal or similar materials are pure. The Gemara explains: That dispute is referring to the impurity of a corpse. And that which becomes impure by proximity to a corpse requires sprinkling of the red heifer’s ashes on the third and seventh days of its purification, and people do not generally lend vessels for seven days. The solution the ḥaver implements of immersing vessels that he borrows from an am ha’aretz is effective only for other impurities, but not for the impurity imparted by a corpse.

The Gemara poses a question with regard to the halakha that a ḥaver must immerse vessels that he borrows from an am ha’aretz: But is it so that amei ha’aretz are not trusted with regard to immersion? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Amei ha’aretz are trusted with regard to the purification process of immersion of that which has become impure by contact with a corpse? In addition to being sprinkled with purification water on the third and seventh days, a person or article that has been in contact with a corpse must also undergo immersion on the seventh day. An am ha’aretz is believed when he says that he has performed this immersion.

The Gemara presents two answers for this question. Abaye said one answer: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an am ha’aretz is trusted, is referring to the immersion of his body, whereas this teaching of the Gemara that amei ha’aretz are not trusted concerning immersion deals with his vessels. Rava said a different answer: Both this and that, both the baraita and the Gemara’s teaching, refer to the vessels of an am ha’aretz, and it is nevertheless not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that an am ha’aretz is trusted, is referring to an am ha’aretz who said: I never immersed one vessel inside another, which is a statement that we accept. And this teaching of the Gemara that amei ha’aretz are not trusted deals with one who said: I have immersed vessels inside of other vessels, but I did not immerse with a vessel whose mouth does not have the width of the tube of a wineskin. It is with regard to such details that an am ha’aretz cannot be trusted.

And so it was taught in a baraita to this effect: An am ha’aretz is trusted to say that produce has not been made susceptible to impurity, i.e., that it has never come into contact with water, but he is not trusted to say that the produce has been made susceptible to impurity but has not actually become impure. This baraita shows that amei ha’aretz are trusted concerning basic facts, but not concerning matters that require detailed knowledge and scrupulous care.

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Abaye’s opinion: And is an am ha’aretz really trusted concerning his body, when he claims to have immersed? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Concerning a ḥaver who comes before those in charge of sprinkling water of purification to be sprinkled with that water, and claims that the requisite three days have passed since his contamination by a corpse, they may sprinkle upon him immediately. But concerning an am ha’aretz who comes before them and claims that three days have passed, they may not sprinkle upon him until he performs and counts in our presence the third day and the seventh day? This shows that an am ha’aretz is not trusted concerning the purity of his own body.

Rather, Abaye said, modifying his previous explanation: Because of the stringency that you applied to the am ha’aretz in his beginning, i.e., at the beginning of the purification process, by not allowing him to purify himself without first ensuring that he has not been in contact with a corpse for three days, you may be lenient with him in his end, in that he is trusted regarding having immersed at the end of the seven days, removing the impurity contracted through contact with a corpse.

§ The mishna teaches: The halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside apply to vessels used for teruma, but not for sacrificial food. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The back and its inside?

The Gemara explains. As we learned in a mishna (Keilim 25:6): A vessel whose back part, as opposed to its inside, was defiled by contact with impure liquid. Its back is impure, while its other parts, such as its inside, its rim, its ear-shaped handles, and its straight handles are pure. By Torah law, foods and liquids cannot impart ritual impurity to a vessel at all, but by rabbinic law liquids can. In order to clarify that it is only a rabbinic decree, they instituted that the impurity thereby imparted, if the liquid touched the outside of the vessel, should affect only the part touched by the liquid, but not its inside or the other parts of its outside. However, if its inside was defiled, even by impurity only according to rabbinic law, it is all impure. This halakha applies only to teruma, but regarding offerings, the defilement of any part of the vessel renders it all impure.

§ The mishna teaches: And its place for gripping. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Place for gripping [beit hatzevita]? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is the place where he grips the vessel in order to pass [tzovet] it, a kind of indentation used for grasping the vessel. And similarly it states: “And he pinched [vayitzbat] some parched corn for her” (Ruth 2:14), which means that he gave her a little of the corn. Therefore, the term is referring to a place on the vessel used to grasp it. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is the place that fastidious people use for dipping. A small receptacle for spices and the like would be attached to the sides of vessels for dipping one’s food.

Rav Beivai taught the following baraita before Rav Naḥman: No vessels have this difference between the back and inside, whether they are vessels used for consecrated foods of the Temple or those used for consecrated foods of outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple. In these cases, if one of the parts of the vessel was defiled with impure liquids the entire vessel becomes impure. Rav Naḥman said to him: What are these consecrated foods of outlying areas mentioned in the baraita? This term is usually applied to teruma, but if so the baraita contradicts the mishna. For didn’t we learn in the mishna: The halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside and its place for gripping apply to vessels used for teruma?

Rav Naḥman continued: Perhaps when you said the consecrated foods of outlying areas you were not referring to teruma, but rather you are speaking of non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, and you called them consecrated foods of outlying areas because this level of purity can be observed outside the Temple as well.

In the course of this discussion Rav Naḥman said to Rav Beivai: You have now reminded me of something that Rabba bar Avuh said concerning this issue: They taught eleven stringencies of sacrificial food here in the mishna. The first six apply both to sacrificial food and to non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, whereas the last five apply only to sacrificial foods but not to non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food. Rabba bar Avuh’s statement therefore corroborates the interpretation of the baraita as dealing with non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial foods.

§ The mishna teaches: One who carries an object trodden by a zav may carry teruma at the same time, if he is careful that neither he nor the impure object come into contact with the teruma, but this may not be done with sacrificial food. The Gemara asks: Concerning sacrificial food, what is the reason that he may not carry it? As long as contact with the food is prevented, why should he not carry sacrificial food as well? The Gemara answers: This enactment was made due to an incident that occurred. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was once an incident involving someone who was transferring a barrel of sacrificial wine from one place to another,