Talmud zu Makhshirin 6:10

Should not their⁵Speaking of deaf-mute, insane, and minor. action be proof of their intentions⁶One should allow non-verbal communication of “intention to volunteer”.? As we have stated there⁷Mishnah Makhširin 6:1: “If somebody brings his produce up to his roof because of worms and dew descended on it, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ but if he intended this {that the produce should be wetted by dew}, it is under the category of ‘when given’. If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, …”. As explained in Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141, produce is not susceptible to impurity unless it came into contact with water (or any other fluid causing impurity, cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 136) and that contact was desired, since the verse Lev. 11:38: “If produce got wetted by water … it will be impure” can also be read as: “If water was given on produce …”. It is inferred that the wetting, even if happening by a passive process, must have an active ingredient, viz., that the moistening of the produce must be agreeable to the owner.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, they are not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he grabs it while full of dew⁸In the Babli, Ḥulin 13a, R. Joḥanan explains that he turns the produce over in order to distribute the moisture evenly. This is professional action. R. Simson conjectures that the action envisaged by R. Ḥuna is the same as explained by R. Joḥanan.. We also have stated there⁹Mishnah Makhširin 3:8. It is explained in that Chapter that water drawn intentionally will make produce susceptible to impurity even if the contact of the produce with it was unintentional. The example described in Mishnah 8 is that of cattle whose feet have to be washed, either because the animal was used for threshing and now is all dusty, or because of some medical condition. Then the water drops clinging to the animal after it was washed in the river will make produce susceptible to impurity unless the animal was driven to the river by “a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person.” Here again, if the cattle are not only driven to the river but actively washed, intention is clearly shown.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them down, even if he thought that [his animals’] feet should be doused, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he rubs them with water. We should also say here, let their action be proof of their intentions! Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.” When thought is mentioned in the verse¹⁰The root both of “thought”, מחשבה, and “being accounted for”, נחשב, is חשב., his action cannot prove his intentions; when thought is not mentioned in the verse, his action can prove his intentions. Since here thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions.

⁶The text was copied more or less in Chapter 3:2, Notes 40 ff. The full explanation is given in Šabbat8, Notes 51–62. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, ⁷Deut. 28:66.your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.⁸Mishnah Idiut8:1.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,⁹Mishnah Makhširin6:5.” in the amount needed for impurity but its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who said “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant said to him, this is correct. Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

In the opinion of Rebbi Nathan, Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Eliezer, all three said the same. Rebbi Meїr, for he says³⁸It seems that this refers to the anonymous Mishnah Miqwa’ot 7:2, presumed to be R. Meїr’s teaching, which states that if a miqweh is short one half seah of the required 40 seah of water (cf. Chapter 4, Note 112, Chapter 19, Note 139), if one half of a seah of fruit juice fell in, the status of the miqweh is not changed. If the character of fruit juice could be disregarded (being less than 1 in 60 of the total amount), then the watered down fruit juice could make up the difference., “fruit juice never is disregarded.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated³⁹Mishnah Makhširin 6:3. Usually, fish sauce is impure since fish, coming out of the water, is always prepared for impurity (Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141.) If it is known that the fish sauce was extracted from pure fish by people strictly keeping the laws of purity, then the fish sauce is pure and, since it is not one of the “seven fluids” (Note 26), cannot become impure. But if any amount of water is added, it is prepared for impurity.: “Pure fish sauce into which fell the smallest amount of water is impure.” And Rebbi Eliezer here.

The rabbis of Caesarea said, of those which they decided there were seven of those where they had a majority³⁰⁵They disagree with the statement that 36 items were discussed; some decrees were passed by a majority short of unanimity. Cf. Babli 17b.. The others are the following: A person being on the road when it gets dark gives his wallet to a Non-Jew³⁰⁶A Jew on the road late on Friday evening may give his valuables to a non-Jew and retrieve them later. While in general it is forbidden to ask a Gentile to do something for a Jew which is forbidden to himself, this is an exception.. Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux because of inducement to sin. All movables transmit impurity by the thickness of the yoke³⁰⁷The standard bar of a yoke has circumference of one hand-breadth, therefore a diameter of 1/π hand-breadth. By biblical decree, a “tent” under which there is a corpse induces original impurity in everything under it if only it is susceptible to impurity. By definition, a “tent” is any cover at least one hand-breadth wide. By rabbinic decree this is extended to round beams of circumference of one hand-breadth. Tosephta 1:18.. How one harvests grapes on a broken field³⁰⁸A “broken field” is a field which contained a grave (of uncertain location) ploughed under, where the entire field might be impure since a bone may have been dislocated by the plough. The problem is to harvest the grapes in purity to make pure wine; Mishnah Ahilut 18:1. The House of Hillel have a prescription for this; the House of Shammai disagree and require the grapes to be cut from the vine with a flintstone knife (or some other permanently pure implement) and transported in a basket woven of willow twigs, which is impervious to impurity. It is asserted that practice has to follow the House of Shammai.. One who puts vessels under the pipe³⁰⁹The waters of a miqweh become invalid if they are in a vessel. If one builds a conduit of spring water into the miqweh which never had the status of a vessel, this is fine. But if the pipe is supported somewhere by vessels, the House of Shammai declare the miqweh invalid in all cases, against a more lenient opinion of the House of Hillel who declare it valid if the vessels were forgotten, not put there intentionally. Tosephta 1:19.. For six doubts one burns heave³¹⁰Mishnah Tahorot 4:5. While in general it is forbidden to burn edible heave which is not certainly impure, there is a list of six cases in which one considers a doubt as equivalent to certitude of impurity.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also the growth of heave³¹¹If heave of grain is taken as seed grain, the entire crop has the status of heave even though by biblical rules the new growth would not have been heave. (Babli 17b; Mishnah Terumot 9:4 Note 57).. The following they decided: the first ten and the remainder from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: On that day they decided about their bread, and their cheeses, and their wine²⁹²The prohibitions, later partially lifted, of Gentile bread, cheese, and olive oil, are discussed in Avodah zarah Chapter 2; a copy of some of the discussion is reproduced later in the present Chapter., and their vinegar³¹²Which may have been wine originally. Wine vinegar needs certification of kosher supervision., and their fish brine³¹³Which may be from forbidden fish, without fins and scales., and their muries³¹⁴Latin muria, -ae or muries, -ei f. “brine, fish sauce”; cf. Avodah zarah 2:4, Note 241., and their preserves, and their parboiled food, and their corned food³¹⁵Anything cooked by Gentiles is rabbinically forbidden under the rules and exceptions detailed in Tractate Avodah zarah Chapter 2., and on split grain, and on ground food, and on peeled barley^316,Mishnah Makhshirin 6:2. Produce may become impure only if it had been “prepared” for it by intentional contact with one of the fluids which may cause impurity (water, wine, olive oil, blood, milk, bee’s honey). It is assumed that any grain undergoing some manufacturing process was moistened to facilitate the production; therefore it is treated as certainly susceptible to impurity.³¹⁷טִיסָּנִי is Greek πτισάνη, Latin transcription ptisana. tisana, -ae, f. peeled barley., on their speech³¹⁸This item is not clear. It may mean a prohibition to study Greek or Latin, or it may be identical to the next item, that Gentile testimony is inadmissible in a rabbinic court. The first interpretation is preferable since then the statement of R. Simeon contains exactly 18 items, i. e., it is his list of the 18 items., and on their testimony³¹⁹The only testimony of Gentiles admitted in a rabbinic court is the testimony of a Jew that a Gentile gave certain information without being asked., and on their gifts³²⁰One should not in general accept gifts from a Gentile; cf. Avodah zarah Chapter 1., on their sons²⁹⁴While biblically a living Gentile cannot be impure and neither are his body fluids, rabbinically his semen and urine are treated as if he were impure as a sufferer from gonorrhea, to avoid homosexual contacts. Babli Avodah zarah 36b., and on their daughters²⁹³A Gentile female is treated from birth as permanently impure like a menstruating woman, making sexual relations with her a rabbinic deadly sin. Babli Avodah zarah 36b., and on their firstlings³²¹This also is not clear. It may refer to the rule that a firstling born of an animal partially owned by a Gentile is profane..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked⁹³The entire discussion is about the farmer who sells not only his own produce on the market.: According to Rebbi Meïr, should he not tithe each stem separately? As we have stated there⁹⁴Mishnah Makhširin 6:2: “All bundled vegetables on the market are impure. R. Jehudah declares the fresh ones pure. R. Meïr said, why did they declare them impure? Only because of spittle!” The first Tanna holds that on the market one sprinkles water on the vegetables to keep them fresh. Hence, they are subject to impurity and, since everybody touches them, we must assume that an unclean person may have touched them and treat the vegetables as impure. R. Jehudah disagrees for those fresh vegetables which do not need refreshing; hence, they are not subject to impurity and it does not matter who touched them. R. Meïr restricts the impurity to bundles; since in binding them the farmer will have taken the string into his mouth the bundle was wetted intentionally, and, unless the farmer is a ḥaver, the bundle will certainly be impure. If the farmer is a ḥaver, the bundle still will probably become impure on the market.: “Rebbi Meïr said, why did it become impure⁹⁵Elided א, for טמאו.? Only because of spittle!” As you will say, there it is usual to open bundles and he⁹⁶The producer of the bundles. binds using his mouth, but here, is it usual to open bundles to risk⁹⁷Does the seller risk to open bundles? Is it not usual to have the good-looking vegetables outside and the lesser quality inside? Who would risk losing his sales by having less fresh vegetables visible from the outside? having the outer ones inside and the inner ones outside?