Talmud zu Kelim 25:7

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant⁷Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta⁸If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it⁹The permission for eaters of heave to immerse a smaller vessel inside a larger one holds only if the smaller vessel weighs less than one Roman pound. Cf. Babli 21a.. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket¹⁰Greek γύργαθος.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there¹¹Mishnah Miqwaot 8:5., “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure¹²If his hands block the access of the water in the miqweh to even the smallest part of the surface area, the immersion is ineffective. According to R. Simeon it is possible to hold something in the miqweh without obstructing the access of the water.. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon¹³Abba Shaul holds that joint immersion is possible only if the outer vessel is permeable; hands are not permeable.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior¹⁴Finger-holes while cavities cannot be used to store anything since they have no bottom; they are irrelevant by biblical standards. But it is agreed in the Mishnah that for vessels used for sancta, rabbinic impurity is treated as biblical..

There, we have stated³⁰Mishnah Kelim25:7.: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough³¹All vessels become impure, possibly by different rules, inside and out. But finger-holes apply only to heavy wooden troughs used to prepare dough.. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups³²The rules of finger-holes also apply to earthenware cups. The rules essentially state that finger-holes, being horizontal cavities, are rabbinic transmitters of impurity and therefore subject to rabbinic disregards of rabbinic rules.. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands³³Following R. Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the back of the cup pure. If his hands were pure and the back of the cup impure, handling the cup by finger-holes keeps the hands pure. Following R. Yose only the second case holds..” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure³⁴Since the finger-hole is a separate entity, for R. Meïr impurity of the back of the vessel is a separate affair not influenced by anything in the finger-hole, even if some of the fluid is in the finger-hole.. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place³⁵Since it was stated that the fluid does not become impure in the finger-hole, is this a statement about the fluid or about the finger-hole? In the second case the fluid will be impure in the moment it flows out of the finger-hole.? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure³⁶Since any impure fluid is impure in the first degree, even if made impure by secondary impurity.. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup³⁷The formulation excludes finger-holes; the statement was about the fluid.. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure³⁸If the fluid is on the hand outside the finger-hole, if the back of the cup is impure and it touches at the outside of the finger-hole, will the hand become impure?? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand³⁹According to R. Meïr there cannot be connection for impurity between fingers in finger-holes and any other part of the cup.. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure⁴⁰For R. Yose, the exemption of finger-holes only works to protect the fingers from impurity on the back of the cup.. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place⁴¹Same question as Note 35.? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand⁴²Same answer, in cases relevant for R. Yose, as Note 39.. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure⁴³Contrary to the opinion of R. Meïr, R. Yose holds that impurity can be transmitted through finger-holes..

Rebbi Vivan⁴⁹A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of all the great Amoraïm of R. Joḥanan’s generation. His name probably was Vivianus. In other quotes, his name is shortened to Bibi, Vivi. in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It turns out that the House of Shammai is consistent with Rebbi Yose and the House of Hillel with Rebbi Meïr⁵⁰This is paradoxical since practice follows the House of Hillel and Rebbi Yose. The Babli (52a/b) explains otherwise, that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on whether one may use a cup which is impure outside at all if one cares about consuming food in purity., since we have stated there (Mishnah Kelim 25:7)⁵¹Chapter 25 starts: “All vessels have an inside and an outside.” For earthenware vessels, it is a decree of the Torah that they become impure only if an impure “father of impurity” is found in the volume enclosed by the vessel (even without touching the walls,) never from the outside (even if the “father of impurity” touches the wall.) From this is derived a Rabbinic decree that also all other vessels, e. g. metal vessels that become impure from a biblical “father of impurity” by simple touch, cannot become impure inside if a Rabbinic impurity touches from the outside (but not vice versa.) Mishnah 7 then reads: “All vessels have an outside, an inside, and a rim. Rebbi Tarphon said, [one speaks of] a large wooden trough, Rebbi Aqiba said, of cups. Rebbi Meïr said for impure and pure hands, R. Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.” Since inside and outside have been discussed before, the opinions of Rabbis Meïr and Yose, students of R. Aqiba, deal with the rim, the part of the outside of the cup that is slightly bent outward or otherwise distinguished as place for the lips when one drinks from the cup. The explanation of the Mishnah is given in Tosephta Kelim Baba bathra3:9–10: “R. Meïr said: How is it for impure hands? If one’s hands are impure, the outside of the cup is pure; if it has moist spots then he may hold the cup by its rim without worry. R. Yose said: How is it for pure hands? If his hands were pure and moist, but the outside of the cup impure, then he may hold the cup at the rim without worrying that the moisture of his hand should become impure from the outside and then defile his hand.” It follows that for R. Yose, the hands have to be pure (i. e., washed) and for R. Meïr they may be impure.: “Rebbi Meïr said, for impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.”