Comentario sobre Tevul Yom 4:8

אוכל מעשר. מפרישין ממנו תרומת מעשר בטהרה – for a person who had immersed himself that day/Tevul Yom and hands are second degree of ritual uncleanness. And First Tithe (which goes to a Levite) is considered like unconsecrated produce, and second degree of ritual uncleanness does not make something third degree of ritual uncleanness with unconsecrated produce/food. Even though this tithe is immersed for the tithe of the tithe that is within it (which the Levite gives to the Kohen, regarding second and third degree of ritual uncleanness, the eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts is like unconsecrated produce/food, therefore, when we separate from it afterwards the tithe from the tithe it is pure.

If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin. A tevul yom or one who has unwashed hands touches tithe. Both of these people are considered as having second degree impurity. They will cause the food to have third degree impurity. However, third degree impurity counts as clean if the food is hullin non sacred. It only disqualifies terumah. Since tithe is considered hullin, the produce remains pure. Therefore, one may remove the terumah from this tithe, as is always done. In other words, although we will separate terumah from it in the future, right now it does not have the status of terumah. Hence it is not disqualified.

וקוצה לה חלה (and cuts off/separates the priest’s share of the dough) – but does not call it by a designation, for all the while that she did not call it by a designation it is like unconsecrated produce.

A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket, or on a tray, and then bring it near and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The woman is a tevulat yom (the feminine form of tevul yom). When she touches the dough, it will have third degree uncleanness, which is not unclean when it comes to hullin. The problem is that if she touches the hallah, the part of the dough that is removed and given to the priest, she will disqualify it. Hallah is holy and therefore a tevul yom touching it would defile it and a priest couldn't eat it. To prevent the hallah from being defiled she first separates it but doesn't yet call it hallah. Then she puts it on a type of tray that can receive impurity or an Egyptian basket which also cannot become impure. Then she has to bring the other dough near and then, without touching it, she can call the hallah by its name Hallah! This way she can give pure terumah to the thankful priest. Pretty cool, huh?

בכפישה או בנחותא (in a basket or on a board) – vessels that are not susceptible to receive ritual defilement. And the Rabbis needed this, because of recognition/a sign that she should not touch it again, after she has made for it a designation.

ומקפת (and brings it near) – draws it near to the vessel near her.

וקוראה לה שם – for it is a Mitzvah to take heave-offering from that which is close/brought near. And [the word] "מוקף" is the language of near-by/adjacent. Like we surround two wine jugs in Tractate Betza, [folio 32b]. But it is not considered near/close unless it is adjacent/near-by at the time of designating [the dough] by name.

מפני שהיא שלישי – for someone who had immersed himself that day has the law of second degree of ritual defilement.

לשין בה את העיסה – above (i.e., in the previous Mishnayot) we are teaching about a person who had immersed himself that day, but here we are teaching about a vessel that was immersed that day, so that you would not say that a kneading trough was prohibited for perhaps you might exchange it/switch it for a ritually impure/defiled one.

Introduction This is the third mishnah in which we learn that something that has third degree impurity does not defile hullin.

A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The kneading trough itself is a "tevulat yom" it was immersed in the mikveh to cleanse it, but the sun had not yet set. The person taking the hallah is pure, so she can simply remove the hallah, bring it near the dough without allowing it to touch the trough and call it by its name. Since the person is pure she doesn't need to first arrange it on a vessel that cannot receive impurity. And as we have learned before, since the trough has third degree impurity, it doesn't defile the dough itself, which is hullin.

לגין (a bottle smaller than a כד/pitcher and larger than a כוס/glass – a LAGIN which requires sunset to be clean and which was filled out of a cask containing tithes for heave-offering) – similar to a wooden pitcher.

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: There is a cask of tithe of some sort of produce. The terumah which must be taken from tithes has not yet been removed from the produce. They then filled up a flagon which was a tevul yom (it had been immersed but the sun had not yet set). The question is how to separate terumah without defiling it by contact with the tevul yom flagon?

ומילאוהו מן החבית – that has in it tithes from eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, that is first tithe from which its heave-offering (for the Kohen) had not yet been taken.

If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. The solution is for the person to say that the terumah of tithe will only come into being after nightfall. In such a way the terumah will remain pure because by then the flagon will be pure.

תרומת משער משתחשך – in order that the sunset of the flagon/bottle would arrive and the Terumah/heave-offering would not be invalidated, for if the heave-offering would take effect while it is still daylight, it would be invalidated by that which had been immersed that self-same day.

But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. In this section, the person wants to use the contents of the flagon as his eruv, the shared meal that will allow him to carry in a courtyard. The problem is that the eruv must be placed before the sun sets and before the sun sets this produce is still tithe from which terumah has not been removed, which cannot be used for an eruv (see Eruvin 3:2). Therefore, if he tries to use this as his eruv, it doesn't work.

הרי זה ערוב – he did not say anything because one does not acquire an Eruv other than with a meal that is appropriate while it is still daylight, and this is not appropriate until sunset.

If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If either the cask or the flagon breaks before the sun sets, before the statement he made in section two has had time to become operative, then the contents of the other container remain tithe that has not had terumah removed. In other words, until the sun sets his statement doesn't succeed in separating terumah from the tithe.

נשברה החבית (if the jar broke) – while it is still daylight.

הלגין בטבלו (that which is in the flagon continues in its status of being not tithed) – for at the time that it was appropriate that it would be established as heave-offering, there was never in the world the thing that would be made heave-offering, therefore, the designation of heave-offering does not occur upon it and it is not tithed.

נשבר הלגין – while it is still daylight.

החבית בטבלה – because the designation of heave-offering did not occur on the flagons other than when it became dark, and at that hour, it never was [heave-offering].

מחללים על פירות עם הארץ (they exchange the produce of a commoner) – they redeem Second Tithe for the produce of a commoner/someone who is not careful in the practices of Levitical cleanness and tithes, and we don't worry that perhaps the produce of a commoner are tithed, and it is found that he redeems a tithe for a tithe.

Originally they said: one may redeem [second tithe] for the produce of an am ha-arez. Later they reconsidered and said: also for money of his.
Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they reconsidered and said, even if he were leaving on a sea voyage or on a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill. Originally they said that a "haver" a person who observes the tithing and purity laws can take produce from an am haaretz and redeem the second tithe that is in it. Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. To make this easier, one is allowed to redeem the second tithe for money and then use that money to buy food in Jerusalem. In this way the produce becomes desacralized. The mishnah describes an am haaretz, one who doesn't observe these laws, who then gives his produce to a haver so that the haver can redeem the second tithe. The haver can then take out the second tithe and redeem it for money. He need not be concerned that all of the produce that the am haaretz gave him was tithe from which second tithe cannot be redeemed.

חזרו לומר אף על המעות – of a commoner/someone who is not careful in the practices of tithes and Levitical cleanness, they redeem the Second Tithe produce, and they don’t worry that perhaps these monies belonged to a commoner were the monies of Second Tithe produce.

They then were more lenient and said that even if the am haaretz gave him money to redeem, meaning instead of giving him the produce the am haaretz gave him the money so that the haver could turn it into maaser sheni (second tithe) the haver could still do this. We are not concerned that the money the am haaretz gave him was already second tithe money, which could not be used to redeem produce. Besides the particulars of this mishnah, which are always interesting, I think it is interesting that the mishnah portrays an am haaretz coming to the haver to receive help in separating second tithe. While I can't promise that this is historically accurate, it at least shows that the rabbis imagined themselves as providing religious services for the general, uneducated populace.

היוצא בקולר (he who goes out with a collar/chain around his neck) – a chain. It is the Aramaic translation of (Ezekiel 19:9): “With hooks he was put in a cage”/"ויתנהו בסוגר בחחים" -and they placed him in chains.

This section is found word for word in Gittin 6:5. My commentary here is the same as there. Usually a husband must state that he wishes the get (the divorce document) to be written and given to the woman. However, in extenuating circumstances where the husband seems to have been facing immanent death, it is highly unlikely that when he instructed someone to write a get, he wanted the get to be written but not given to his wife. After all, why else would he want to write a get at this point? Therefore, one who hears the husband says “Write a get for my wife” may write it and even give it to her. At first the category of people facing immanent death included only a person being led out to execution. Later, they expanded the category to include one leaving for a sea voyage or a caravan journey. These men would have wanted to write out a get that would go into effect should they not return, not an unlikely scenario. This would prevent their wives from being left as “agunot” a woman who doesn’t know if her husband is alive or dead and therefore cannot remarry. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added that an agent who hears such a statement from a dangerously ill person may also write and give the get. This man may want to divorce his wife in order to exempt her from levirate marriage (if he was to do childless and with a brother she would have to undergo yibbum or halitzah). Again, it is very unlikely that a dying man would want to write a get but not give it to his wife, and therefore we are not concerned with such a possibility.

הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו – and even though he did not say, “and give it [to my wife],” he certainly wanted to say, “write it and give it,” and amidst/subsidiary to his terror/agitation, he didn’t interrupt his words.

מפרש – from the land to the sea.

בשיירא – in the desert/wilderness. (Genesis 37:25): “[Then they sat down to a meal. Looking up, they saw] a caravan of Ishmaelites [coming from Gilead].” We translate in Aramaic an Arab caravan.

אף המסוכן – a sick person who feels that death is approaching. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon Shizuri.

הכדומין (a sort of lever with which a pitcher is fished out of a well/watercooler) – a long and large piece of wood and hooks come out this way and that way, and they suspend on those hooks flasks of water (i.e., bottles with a wide body and a narrow neck) in the air in order to cool them. But Maimonides explains, it is a like a kind of bronze wreath/rim and hooks surround it, and with it they lift up the vessels that fell into the cistern.

Introduction This mishnah is the same as Kelim 13:7. It deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal. The reason that this mishnah is placed here is Rabbi Joshua's comments found at the end. According to Albeck, this comment refers to all of the cases in which the sages were lenient in this chapter, and therefore his words are appropriate here. In other words, sections one and two belong in Kelim, which talks about the purity of vessels. And section three belongs more here. Somehow they were paired together and that's why both sections appear in both places. My commentary below is the same as it is there in Kelim.

האשקלונים – that are made in Ashkelon.

If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity. Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.

המעבר והמזרה והמגוב (the pitchfork -for the first stage of winnowing- passing the grain from one side to the other, the winnowing fan and the rake – an agricultural implement with many teeth, forming a sort of sieve to separate the grain from the chaff or to dry the grain) – utensils used to clean grain from the straw and to remove the straw from place to place. The מעבר/pitchfork, has teeth" and is similar to a human hand, and they remove the straw from place to place. And the מזרה/winnowing fan, with it they winnow/sift the wheat in the granary/threshing floor. Therefore, it is called a מזרה, and its teeth are greater [in number] than the teeth of the מעבר/pitchfork. But the מגוב/rake – its teeth are greater [in number] than that of the teeth of the מזרה/winnowing fan, and with it they sift/assort the grain after the winnowing fan winnowed them.

If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity. These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.

ועל כולם אמר רבי יהושע וכו' – In the Tosefta (see Tractate Kelim Bava Metzia, Chapter 3, Halakha 14 and Tractate Tevul Yom, Chapter 2, Halakha 14), it is proven that Rabbi Yehoshua refers to all these words of the Mishnah (see beginning of Tractate Tevul Yom, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2 and onwards) , from the woman who is had immersed herself that day until here, and because Rabbi Yehoshua refers to all of them, the Tanna/teacher here teaches many words whose matter is not related to here.

And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer. Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot.

דבר חדש חידשו הסופרים – that the temperament/mind does not provide that the matter will be such. (See also the Bartenura commentary to this phrase in Tractate Kelim, Chapter 13, Mishnah 7, where he states: "ראויין היו להיות טהורים דפשוטי כלי עץ נינהו ומשום שן אחת של מתכת לא נחתא להו טומאה"/”they should be worthy of being ritually pure, for they are simple wooden utensils and because of one tooth made of metal, they should descend to ritual impurity.”)

ואין לי מה להשיב – because of what they said as such [which I cannot respond to].

התורם את הבור (he who gives a heave-offering from the cistern) – of wine or of [olive] oil.

Introduction The final mishnah of Tevul Yom deals with a tevul yom who is separating terumah from a cistern.

על מנת שתעלה שלום (on the condition that it come up in safety) – that he made the condition of mere safety (without specifying), but did not make a condition for a specific matter, without qualification regarding the matter of breakage and spillage it is stated, for on this, a person is afraid at the time that he raises it up from the cistern.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. The person was taking terumah from a cistern of wine. He wanted to dip a jug into the cistern, declare the contents of the jug terumah and then have the remainder of the cistern become drinkable. He stipulated that it would be terumah only if the jug came up "safely." The question is what does "safely" mean. The first opinion holds that "safely" means that the jug didn't break or its contents spill. If the jug did break and the wine fell back into the cistern, it wouldn't give the contents of the cistern the status of terumah and hullin mixed together. However, if he accidentally disqualified the terumah wine (because he was a tevul yom) then his terumah is terumah and it will be disqualified (what the mishnah calls made impure). Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. His intention of saying "safely" was that even if the contents should be defiled, the separation of terumah wouldn't count. If he brought up the jug and accidentally defiled the wine, the jug would not be terumah.

אבל לא מן הטומאה – therefore, if it was defiled, his heave-offering is a heave-offering.

If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. If the jug broke and the contents fell back into the cistern, then the contents of the cistern are not considered to have terumah in them. That is they don't have the rules of doubtful terumah due to the jug's contents, because the jug wasn't terumah.

אף מן הטומאה – that when he said that it should come up safely [from the cistern], he is saying that it should come up in ritual purity. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. The question now is for how long does this stipulation last? In other words, how far away from the cistern can the jug go and still not be considered terumah if it is broken. The mishnah rules that if the jug breaks when it is still close enough to the cistern that it could roll back there in one push, then the terumah is not terumah. But if he takes it further away, and then it breaks, the terumah does count as terumah. If some of it falls into the cistern, the contents of the cistern will have to be considered doubtful terumah.

נשברה אינה מדמעת (if it – the jar – broke, it does not count as heave-offering) – the designation of “heave-offering” does not come upon it.

Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court. Finally, the mishnah rules that even if he didn't specifically stipulate that the contents had to come up safely for them to be terumah, the stipulation is still valid. This is because it is a "court stipulation" it is something that the court dictates is understood even if not stated explicitly. A person, after all, would only benefit from making such a statement. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Tevul Yom! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. One thing that you might have been wonder about while studying this tractate was what made the sages so interested in this category. Of course you probably know by the now that the answer will not be practical i.e. this was a commonly occurring issue. Rather, I think this is another example of the sort of topic that really interested the rabbis in-between or marginal cases. The tevul yom is sort of pure, for s/he has already been to the mikveh. But s/he is also impure because the sun hasn't set. This type of category seems to have immensely interested the sages, and although we tend to prefer to see practical ramifications for everything the rabbis said, the truth is that much of rabbinic literature, and especially the Mishnah, is interested in the theoretical and not the practical. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Yadayim.

עד כדי שתתגלגל (until it rolls back) – all the while that it was not distanced from the cistern so much, that if it rolls back it is considered as [part of] the cistern, we call it – that it didn’t come up in safety.

שהיה בו דעת להתנות – meaning to say that it was in his mind and he thought in his heart (i.e., to himself) to make a condition, but forgot and did not make the condition. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.