Commentary for Tahorot 8:11

הדר עם עם הארץ. מוקפות צמיד פתיל – they are ritually impure because his wife is a menstruating woman, lest she shook it and sat and defiled everything.

Introduction Chapter eight continues to deal with a person cautious about matters of purity who lives in close proximity to an am haaretz, one who does not observe the laws of purity.

ר' יהודה מטהר בתנור – because it is impossible to shake it, for it is merely attached a bit, and they make it secondary to attach it to the ground. But the one who defiles it (i.e., Rabbi Yossi) holds that we make the degree that something attached is because of that which is not attached. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

One who dwells in a courtyard with an am haaretz and forgot some vessels in the courtyard, even though they were jars with tightly fitting lids, or an oven with a tightly fitting cover, they are unclean. All of the vessels that he leaves in the courtyard are impure lest they were defiled by the am haaretz. Earthenware jars with tightly fitting lids cannot be defiled by touch, but if a niddah (a menstruating woman) shifts them, they are impure. Since this might have occurred, the mishnah says these too must be regarded as impure. The first opinion does not differentiate between ovens and other vessels with tightly fitting covers.

Rabbi Judah says that an oven is clean if it has a tightly fitting lid. Rabbi Judah says that the oven can be regarded as clean because it is impossible to shift it, since it is attached to the ground.

Rabbi Yose says: even an oven is unclean unless he made for it a partition ten handbreadths high. Rabbi Yose rules that even the oven is unclean for we are concerned that the am haaretz may have opened the lid to use the oven. Therefore, to preserve the purity of the oven he must keep the am haaretz away by making a partition at least ten handbreadths high. As a side note, it is again interesting that the mishnah assumes such a high degree of contact between the "haver" (the opposite of the am haaretz) and the "am haaretz." People of complete opposite religious inclinations and observances may end up living even in the same courtyard, and if so, the haver will simply have to be more cautious about the purity of his vessels.

המפקיד כלים אצל עם הארץ טמאים טמא מת – and requiring sprinkling on the third and seventh days (see Numbers 19:19).

Introduction Today's mishnah is about a person who deposits vessels with an am haaretz. What kind of impurity do we assume that these vessels have contracted?

אם מכירו – if the commoner recognizes the depositor that he is a Kohen who consumes heave-offering/priest’s due, he is careful regarding his deposit that it will not be defiled by a corpse, and it doesn’t require sprinkling [on the third and seventh days].

One who deposited vessels with an am haaretz they are unclean with corpse uncleanness and with midras uncleanness. The person who gave over his vessels (this term can include clothes and other items) to an am haaretz must suspect that they have become defiled with corpse uncleanness, which would make them unclean for seven days. He must also treat the clothes as if they have midras uncleanness, which is the uncleanness caused when a zav, zavah or niddah sit or apply pressure on a vessel. Something that has midras uncleanness defiles another person even if it is carried and not touched. Thus the law is stringent in both the length of the impurity and the manner in which the object defiles.

אבל טמאים מדרס – because his wife is a menstruating woman, lest she sat upon them, for he is not careful from the defilement of his wife.

If he knew that he eats terumah, they are free from corpse uncleanness but are unclean with midras uncleanness. If the am haaretz knows that the person who deposited the clothes (or other vessels with him) is one who eats terumah, then we can assume that the am haaretz would be careful not to contract corpse impurity. However, his wife might have sat on the vessel or clothes while she was a niddah (a menstruant) and therefore the vessels have to be treated as if they have midras impurity. Thus we can assume that he was diligent, but not that his wife was. We should also note that once she has menstruated she will be considered a niddah until she goes to the mikveh. So if she never went to the mikveh, she wills always count as a niddah.

בזמן שהיא רוצצת (at the time when it is tightly packed) – that the covering presses the clothing on account of the fact that it is too full.

Rabbi Yose says: if he deposited with him a chest full of clothes, they are deemed to be unclean with midras when they are tightly packed, but if they are not tightly packed they are only unclean with madaf uncleanness, even though the key is in the possession of the owner. Rabbi Yose deals with a situation in which the depositor gives the am haaretz a chest full of clothes. If the chest is tightly packed then it is likely that someone sat on it, including the am haaretz's wife, while she was a niddah. Therefore, in this case it has to be treated as if it has midras impurity. However, if it is not full then it only has the lightest form of impurity, which is called madaf impurity. The chest and clothes will only defile food and liquids, but not other vessels or people. The clothes are defiled even if the owner retained possession of the keys to the chest. The problem is that if a niddah shifts the chest, she defiles it, even without touching the clothes. Therefore, the fact that the am haaretz and his wife could not touch the clothes does not mean that they are free of defilement.

טמאים מדרס – the clothes [are defiled through treading]. For when his wife sits upon the box [full of clothing] or leans upon it, she weighs down upon the clothing.

אם אינה רוצצת טמאין מדף (if it is not tightly packed, they are unclean with indirect contact for conferring ritual impurity) -meaning to say, a lighter defilement, to defile foods and liquids, like on top of a person with gonorrhea who does not defile clothing.

אע"פ שמפתח ביד בעלים – for we are concerned lest he shook it.

המאבד ביום ומצא ביום טהור – for something undefined if a person would find it and touch/come in contact with it, he would lift it up, in the manner that he finds a lost object. But at night, even for one hour that he can’t see it, we are concerned lest a ritually impure person touched it and he did not see it. But our Mishnah is dealing with the public domain, and its manner of doubt is assumed to be ritually pure but even so at night, they are ritually impure by Midras/ritual impurity through treading or by someone defiled by a corpse. But in the private domain, its manner of doubt is ritually impure, whether during the day or whether at night, and this is brought in the Tosefta (Tractate Taharot, Chapter 9, Halakha 10).

One who loses something during the day and finds it on the same day it remains clean. If it was lost during the daytime and found in the night, or if it was lost in the night and found during the day or if it was lost on one day and found on the next day, it is unclean. This is the general rule: if the night or part of the night has passed over it, it is unclean. If one loses an object during the day and finds it the same day, he can be sure that no one impure had touched it, for had someone stumbled over it, he would have picked it up and taken it. However, at night someone might have stumbled over it without seeing it. Therefore, if night passes over it, it must be assumed to be impure.

ברשות הרבים טהורים ברשות היחיד טמאים – We don’t have here other than a manner of doubt, lest a heathen or a commoner/who is not careful in his observance of the laws of Levitical purity or tithing touched them. Therefore, in the public domain, where there is a matter of doubt of it being ritually pure, it is ritually pure, whereas in the private domain, where there is a matter of doubt of it being ritually impure, they are ritually impure.

One who spreads out his clothes: If in a public domain, they remain clean; But if in a private domain they are unclean. If he kept watch over them, they remain clean. If they fell down and he went to bring them, they are unclean. The person here spreads out his clothes in a high place in order for them to dry. If he does this in the public domain, then we have a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain and the clothes are pure. But if he does so in the private domain and there is a chance that someone impure touched the clothes, they have to be assumed impure. If he watches over them, they are pure. If they fall down from the high place in which they were, then someone might have stepped on them. Therefore, even if they are on the ground only for a very short while, they must be treated as impure.

מפני שהונח ברשות עם הארץ – and everything that is in the house of common is considered having corpse defilement and requires sprinkling [on the third and seventh days – see Numbers 19:19].

If one's bucket fell into the cistern of an ‘am ha-arez and he went to bring something to draw it up with, it is unclean, since it was left for a time in the domain of an am haaretz. The person left his bucket in the domain of the am haaretz while he went to get a rope to bring it up. Even though it is unlikely that the am haaretz touched the bucket, he must treat it as if it is impure.

מפני שהיו גנבים – meaning to say, since they left it locked and found it open, certainly thieves were there and opened it, and that we don’t defile him, for it is stated that they changed their mind and went away and didn’t touch anything that was in the house. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

One who left his house open and found it open, or locked and found it locked, or open and found it locked, it remains clean. One doesn't assume that someone had broken into one's house and defiled the things in there without some sign of breaking and entering. So if he left the house open or locked and returned and found it in the same state, the house and its contents remain pure. Even if he left it open and found it locked, we don't assume that someone came in and locked the door when he went out.

But if he left it closed and found it open: Rabbi Meir says that it is unclean; But the sages say that it remains clean, since, though thieves had been there, they may have changed their mind and gone away. If he left it closed and found it open and then looked around and even it didn't look like anyone had been there, Rabbi Meir says that he must assume that impure thieves touched the objects in the house. Therefore, all of the contents must be regarded as defiled. Obviously, if he could see that people had touched the stuff, he would have to treat it as impure. The other sages say that there is a possibility that no one touched the contents of the house, and therefore the contents remain pure. After all, if thieves had really touched the stuff, one might ask why they didn't steal it.

שנכנסה שלא ברשות – out of trembling that she will not be caught like a thief and she runs to leave, and even though she entered for the need of his (i.e., the Haver/the member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse) son or the beast of the owner of the house.

If the wife of an am haaretz entered a haver's house to take out his son or his daughter or his cattle, the house remains clean, since she had entered it without permission. The assumption in this mishnah is that the wife of the am haaretz does not stay in the house. She goes in to take out one the child or animal of the haver (a person who is strict about the purity laws, the opposite of the am haaeretz) and she immediately leaves. "Without permission" does not mean that she entered the house without permission. It means that she didn't have permission to stay. Therefore, the things in the house remain pure.

כל המיוחד למאכל אדם – as, for example, mere/undefined foods.

Introduction Today's mishnah discusses how spoiled food can be for it no longer to count as food such that it would be susceptible to uncleanness.

טמא – the ritual impurity of foods [is impure] until it becomes invalid/unfit from being the food for a dog.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. If food is meant to be human food it stays susceptible to uncleanness until it becomes so despoiled that even a dog won't eat it. However, if the food was meant to be animal food, it is not susceptible to impurity until someone changes his mind and designates it for human consumption. In other words, even if it is fit for human consumption it remains pure unless someone actually decides to eat it.

עד שייחדנו לאדם – that there is a separation between removing defilement from it and bringing defilement to it.

How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. A pigeon living in a pigeon cote above a winepress dies and falls into the winepress (yuck!). When it was alive, the pigeon would have been fit for human consumption (yes, people often ate pigeons back then). However, once it dies and falls into the wine it is no longer considered fit for human consumption. If the owner decides to give it to a Gentile it is impure. This is bird carrion and as we learned in the first mishnah of this tractate, the carrion of pure birds is impure. However, if he decides to give it to a dog, the pigeon is considered animal food and it is pure. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the pigeon is impure for pure bird carrion does not need to be considered food for it to defile.

גוזל שנפל לגת – when it didn’t fall into the vat, thee is no dispute [between] Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. For the carrion of a ritually pure bird in the cities that doesn’t require intention to declare it food, because there a lot of people with those who come to the marketplace and consume the carrion of a pure bird. But in the villages where there isn’t a lot of people, it requires intention, as is explained in chapter 1 (see Mishnah 1). Where they disagree is where it (i.e., the bird) fell into the vat and died in the cities, the Rabbis hold that even though that in the cities it doesn’t require intention/giving thought to it, where it fell into the vat, his vat made it detestable and it is not appropriate/fit and requires intention/giving thought to it, whereas Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that his vat did not make it rejected, and it is like the rest of the carrion of ritually pure birds that don’t require intention/giving thought to it in the cities. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence. The three people in this section do not have legal consequences to their intention. They are considered to lack "da'at" which I translate as awareness. Therefore, if they intend to eat the food it still is not considered food. However, their actions do have legal consequences. When they pick the food up to eat it, it becomes human food and it is susceptible to impurity.

חישב עליו חרש שוטה וקטן – to feed it to Canaanites.

אחורי כלים שנטמאו במשקין – that [the Mishnah] took/used the term, "אחורי כלים"/the outer sides of utensils, is because they were lenient, for a vessel whose outer part was ritually defiled with ritually impure liquids, its outer sides are ritually impure, but its inside – its handles, its rims/borders and its hands are ritually pure because the ritually impurity of liquids to defile vessels is from the Rabbis, they were lenient concerning it. But if its inside was defiled by impure liquids, all of it is defiled.

The outer parts of vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids: Rabbi Eliezer says: they defile liquids but they do not disqualify foods. Rabbi Joshua says: they defile liquids and also disqualify foods. The outsides of these vessels are impure through contact with impure liquids but the inside remains pure. This is a light form of impurity, and the sages will now debate just how light it is. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the backs of the vessels defile liquids, even non-sacred liquids. They don't defile regular food and neither does it disqualify terumah. Rabbi Joshua says that it even disqualifies terumah food. This is because the liquids that defiled the vessel cause the vessel to have second degree impurity. Second degree impurity defiles liquids and disqualifies terumah.

מטמאים את המשקין – even that which is non-consecrated [liquids].

Shimon the brother of Azariah says: neither this nor that. Rather, liquids that were defiled from the outer parts of vessels defile at one remove and disqualify at a second remove. It is as if it say, "that which defiled you did not defile me but you have defiled me." According to Albeck, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were arguing about an older halakhah. Shimon brother of Azariah responds that both of them are incorrect for neither recited the ancient halakhah correctly. Rather, the earlier sages had said that if liquid is defiled by the outer portion of a vessel it has first degree impurity. It will defile terumah and give it second degree impurity. If this terumah that has second degree impurity has contact with other food, it will disqualify it. The final line of the mishnah is a personification of the food (such personifications were found in Parah 8:2-7). The food says to the liquid that which defiled you, the outside of the vessel, was not sufficient to defile me. For the outside of vessels can only defile liquids. But you, Mr. Defiled Liquid, you did defile me!

ואין פוסלין את התרומה – and even that of heave-offering.

ר' יהושע אומר מטמאין את המשקין ופוסלין את האוכלים – Rabbi Yehoshua derives (in Tractate Niddah 7b) that the outer sides of utensils defile foods of heave-offering through an a fortiori/Kal VaHomer from the law of a person who immersed himself that day/טבול יום. Just as a person who immersed himself that day does not defile liquids and the Sages did not decree on a person who immersed himself that day that he defiles the liquids, nevertheless, he defiles the foods of heave-offering, as it is written (Leviticus 22:7): “As soon as the sun sets, he shall be pure; and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, [for they are his food],” for he is not ritually pure to eat heave-offering until his sun has set, for the Biblical verse is speaking about heave-offering/Terumah. The outer sides of vessels that defile the liquids, does it not follow that they would invalidate the heave-offering? But Rabbi Eliezer did not concern himself with this a fortiori/Kal VaHomer, because the outer sides of utensils that are defiled by liquids is according to the Rabbis, and the person who immersed himself that day/טבול יום is from the Torah, and that which is Rabbinic, we don’t make an a fortiori [argument] on something from the Torah.

שמעון אחי עזריה – because Azariah dealt with practical maters and he would supply food to his brother Shimon who engaged in Torah study, therefore he is called by the name of Azariah, his brother.

לא כך ולא כך – we do not defile unconsecrated liquids nor do we invalidate/make unit food of heave-offering, but we do defile liquid have-offering, and those liquids of heave-offering, we defile at first degree of ritual impurity with foods of heave-offering that became second-degree of ritual impurity, and those foods invalidate/make unit other foods of heave-offering. And this is that we state that foods of heave-offering to liquids of heave-offering, “things that defile you do not defile me,” meaning to say, “the outer sides of a vessel that defiled you do not defile me, for they do not invalidate foods of heave offering, bur you defile me.” But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer.

שהיא קטפרס ([a kneading trough] that lay on an incline/sloping downward) – that one side is low, similar to a slope.

If a kneading trough was sloping downwards and there was dough in the higher part and dripping moisture in the lower part, then three pieces that jointly make up the bulk of an egg cannot be combined together, but two are combined. There is a kneading trough with a sloping side. On the top of the slope, stuck to the sides, are pieces of impure dough. Below them and beneath each piece is some moist liquid. If the dough defiles the moist liquid, then the liquid will defile the trough as well. According to the first opinion, if the dough is in three pieces and together they make up the minimum amount to cause defilement (the bulk of an egg), then they do not join together to defile the liquid. This is because there is not an egg's worth of dough touching any portion of liquid, for each part of the liquid only touches 2/3 of the volume of an egg. However, if there are only two pieces that add up to the volume of an egg, then the pieces do defile the liquid between them because the liquid touches the entire volume of an egg.

משקה טופח מלמטן (running liquid is from below) – on the low side, that is the [unclean] dough that its mixture is soft and its liquid drips, but from above, its mixture is thick and its liquid doesn’t drip.

Rabbi Yose says: the two also cannot be combined unless they compress liquid between them. Rabbi Yose says that for the two pieces of dough to combine they must be pressing the liquid in between them. This means that the liquid is not simply below the pieces of dough, it is right between them, and the dough holds the liquid up, preventing it from flowing to the bottom of the trough.

שלש חתיכות – between the three [pieces of dough] is like an egg’s bulk, one dripping and two that do not drip, they are arranged one next to the other, and the one that drips is below, and now the middle one touches the dripping one and the upper one touches the middle one.

If the liquid was level, even though the piece was the size of a mustard seed they are combined together. If there is liquid simply standing at the bottom of the trough and there is a lot of it, not just moistness on the sides as there is in sections one and two, then even if the pieces are in small crumbs the size of a piece of mustard, they defile the liquid which defiles the trough.

אינן מצטרפות – to be an egg’s bulk to defile the liquid that is flowing from below and the liquid returns and defiles the kneading trough, for contact does not connect the dough unless they stick together as is taught in the Mishnah in the First Chapter [of Tractate Taharot] (Mishnah 7)"מקרצות נושכות זו את זו" /pieces of dough – separated from the main dough in the trough - stick to each other.

Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food cannot be combined together. Rabbi Dosa says that crumbs don't add up to the requisite amount to transmit impurity. He disagrees only with the opinion in section three, not those in sections one and two.

שתים מצטרפות – if there weren’t other than two pieces of dough, the bottom one that has liquid flowing and the one that is above it that touches it, and if there is between of them an egg’s bulk, they combine to defile the liquid and return and defile the kneading trough.

אפילו שתים אין מצטרפין אא"כ היו רוצצות משקה – always the liquid does not connect until the liquid will be pressing and standing between the two pieces [of dough]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

ואם היה משקה עומד (and if it was standing liquid) – meaning to say, there wasn’t a sloping/inkling, but rather a cavity for the reception of water/a pond, and the liquid stands between the pieces of dough, even all the measure of an the egg’s bulk that is in the dough are thin crumbs similar to the mustard seed that are separated one from the other, the standing liquid attaches them and combines them to be an egg’s bulk, and defiles the liquid and the liquid returns and defiles the kneading trough.

אוכל פרור – food that is divided into thin crumbs does not combine, for the liquid does not attach them. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Dosa.

כיון שהשיקה למקוה – since the end of one of the sticks was attached in the Mikveh, even though he didn’t immerse all of it, he purified all the impure liquids that are on the other head, for the incline/sloping is an attachment.

If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. According to Rabbi Joshua as soon as any part of the stick covered with impure liquids is put in the mikveh, it is pure. The water of the mikveh "flows" through the impure liquids on the stick and purifies them, even before it actually touches them. The sages rule more strictly. The entire stick must be immersed for it to be pure.

עד שיטביל את כולה – for the Rabbis hold that an incline/sloping is not an attachment/connection.

A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness. "Flow" refers to liquid that is being poured from an upper vessel to a lower vessel. The slope is the sides of the vessel, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. In both of these cases we do not consider the lower liquid to be attached to the upper liquid. As an aside, the purity of "flow" was a big debate among ancient Jews. In one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, called Miktzat Maase Torah, the author complains that "you" (this refers to the other Jews with whom he doesn't agree) say that a "flow" is pure. The fact that in our Mishnah the rabbis do indeed say that the "flow" is pure, has been a major proof for scholars who wish to say that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls opposed the Pharisees (with whom the rabbis certainly did identify). While the sloping or flowing liquid does not serve as a connective, a standing pool of water does. If one side is impure, the entire body is pure.

הניצוק (an uninterrupted flow of a liquid – poured from vessel to vessel) – the continuous flow/jet of a water pipe/spout that comes from above to below with erection like a pillar.

קטפרס – water from above to below through the sloping of a high hill.

ומשקה טופח – it doesn’t have moistness to moisten other objects, for it doesn’t have in it so much liquid for if he struck his hand in them, liquid would come up that would be able to moisten something else.

אינו חיבור לא לטומאה - for if the liquids are detached and an impure thing came in contact with the bottom part, the top part is ritually pure. And similarly for flowing liquid, and even in a smooth place, if there are liquids from here and liquids from there and liquid flowing in the middle, if an impure person touched with flowing liquids, the liquids from here and from there are ritually pure, even though they are attached/connected to it.

ולא לטהרה – as for example, a hole that doesn’t have forty Seah and an uninterrupted flow of a liquid or flowing liquid that is attached to this hole/indentation or to a Kosher ritual bath/Mikveh, it is not a connection, for a person who immerses in this hole/indentation, his immersion did not count for him.

אשבורן – a deep place where water is gathered.

חיבור לטומאה ולטהרה – for if part of them were defiled, all of them were defiled, and similarly, if part of them were attached to a Mikveh/ritual bath and they were purified, all of them were purified.