Talmud for Tahorot 7:11

¹¹⁴Qiddušin 1:4, Notes 435–438. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key¹¹⁵S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.? Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi said, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there¹¹⁶Mishnah Tahorot 7:1. The vulgar person is one who does not observe the rules of purity. He is considered a source of original impurity; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.: “If somebody hands over his key to a vulgar person, the house remains pure since he only entrusted him with safekeeping the key.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon declares it impure¹¹⁷Tosephta Tahorot 8:1. He holds that handing over the key implies authorization for unlimited entry into the premises..

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If somebody sell a cistern, when he handed over its pail [the buyer] took possession⁴³⁴The Babli, Baba qama 51b, requires a declaration by the seller that the pail is handed over for possession.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sell a house, when [the buyer] stored there, he took possession. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi asked, what if he handed over the key⁴³⁵In the Babli, Baba qama 51b/52a, handing over the key as sign of transfer of possession is undeniably a valid action.? Rebbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rebbi Levi, said: This is a disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there⁴³⁶Mishnah Ṭahorot 7:1.: “If somebody hand over the key to his house to an ‘am ha’areṣ⁴³⁷A person who does not keep the rules of ritual purity. If he did enter the house, any movables (food and vessels) he touches there would become impure., the house is pure since he handed to him only the guarding of the key.” It was stated⁴³⁸Tosephta Ṭahorot 8:1. He implies, against the othet Tanna, that handing over the key implies permission to use the house.: “Rebbi Simeon declares impure.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?⁹¹Mishnah Tahorot7:4. Since an anonymous Mishnah is supposed to follow R. Meïr’s formulation, an apparent contradiction between two statements attributed to R. Meïr must be resolved.
Since the wine in the store is for sale, it is stored in open amphoras. The wine would become forbidden for usufruct if touched by the Gentile. In our Mishnah it seems that R. Meïr assumes that the Gentile will not touch the open amphoras. But in Mishnah Tahorot7:4 he holds that if a woman keeping all rules of ritual purity invites one careless in these matters to help her in her home all vessels in the home become impure since one must assume that the helper is impure and touches everything in sight.” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall⁹²The explanation is Rashi’s (70b, Bava batra 2b). The etymology is unknown; the word certainly is different from פְּסֵיפָס ψῆφος “pebble”., for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure⁹³A courtyard (in the back of houses or walled in, not directly open to the street) has been divided by a low wall as a sign that each party has only the use of its own part. Even though it is easy to step over the partition, the fact that it is raised is enough to create the presumption that the parties will abide by the rules and not trespass. If the dwellers in one part are scrupulous in observing the rules of purity while the others are not (or are Gentiles), the vessels standing in the courtyard of the observant party remain pure. Similarly, if one party is Jewish and the other Gentile, wine amphoras stored in the the Jewish part remain permitted since the presumption is that the Gentile will not enter the Jewish part., since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine⁹⁴While a store catering to customers observant in matters of purity certainly cannot have a Gentile employee, a grocery store for the general public can have such an employee. In the Babli, 70b, this is reported as the opinion of Rav, opposed by R. Joḥanan..

HALAKHAH: “If tax collectors entered a house, the house is impure. If they are accompanied by a Gentile they are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch.¹⁸²Mishnah Taharot 7:6. Tosephta Taharot 8:5 explains that even though the Gentile is no formal witness, the tax collectors fear to lie in the presence of people who know better.” One may explain this by two explanations. They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch if witnesses know of it¹⁸³Probably this should be read as “no witnesses know of it.” In this case it would be an application of the principle, “the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits.” If no witness knows that he entered, the house would be impure only by his testimony. But if one believes him in this one also must believe him that he did not touch and therefore the house is pure.. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it. One may explain by another explanation: They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch. This is necessary {to be stated} even if witnesses know of it. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it.

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave²²²If the garments of a Pharisee are impure like those of a sufferer from gonorrhea, is it not reasonable to expect the same from the Pharisee’s body?? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state²²³Mishnah Taharot 7:5., “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure²²⁴As long as the Pharisee has control over the stream of visitors, only things impure by touch are considered impure; the vulgar is not supposed to cause impurity by sitting on something even though this would be the cause of biblical original impurity (not only derivative impurity as in the case of touch) if the vulgar actually were a sufferer from gonorrhea.”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure²²⁵Since the exception for tightly closed vessels applies only to tent impurity.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything²²⁶The entire Mishnah refers to ordinary impurity on the level of profane food and is irrelevant for the question raised here.. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here²²⁷The Mishnah in Taharot. refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving²²⁸The part of the Mishnah quoted here refers to the situation that the Pharisee has no control over the stream of visitors which therefore may include menstruating women which may make seats and couches impure by biblical standards. This proves that these arguments do not apply to the vulgar himself and that therefore also the Mishnah here has to be read to apply to garments only and to nothing else.? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar²²⁹Rabbinic extensions of impurity do not apply except in cases where they are mentioned explicitly. The corrector’s addition has to be deleted since it refers to a rule, that questionable cases in private domains have to be judged restrictively, which by general consensus is of biblical status.. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta²³⁰Same question as that referred to in Note 222.? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses²³¹If he prepares vessels for use with sancta but he himself is not pure for the consumption of sancta, it is clear that the vessels must be immersed since by necessity he touched them. But immersion may be done indirectly as described.? Could he not bind it with a (sit)²³²Here the corrector’s text has to be accepted since the scribe’s sit is a measure, half a hand-breadth. [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it²³¹If he prepares vessels for use with sancta but he himself is not pure for the consumption of sancta, it is clear that the vessels must be immersed since by necessity he touched them. But immersion may be done indirectly as described.. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure²³³Mishnah 7 applies only to humans, not to vessels.. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure²³⁴Spittle is biblically original impurity for the sufferer from gonorrhea; it is pure for the person pure for heave. But semen is biblically impure from everybody. Therefore for the rabbinic extensions described in Mishnah 7 there is no difference in the rules according to levels of impurity.. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.