Talmud sobre Keilim 8:12

There we have stated¹²⁸Mishnah Kelim 8:10.: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …¹²⁹R. Meïr declares the fig cake impure but R. Jehudah pure. They disagree about the status of the saliva of a pure person. As noted later, saliva in the mouth does not prepare for impurity; otherwise a person never could eat in purity. R. Jehudah holds that saliva in the mouth is immune from impurity; for him the problem does not exist. R. Meïr holds that saliva is a fluid subject to the rules of impurity since the spittle of a person sick with gonorrhea is a source of biblical impurity. Since unwashed hands are impure of second degree, the saliva in his mouth makes them impure in the first degree. If then he again touches the fig cake it will be impure in the second degree.” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah¹²⁸Mishnah Kelim 8:10. disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.¹³⁰The stove is made of clay. Biblically clay vessels become impure if and only if impurity is placed into its concavity with or without touching. The person himself would make the stove impure only if most of his body were inside but since the food in his head is moist and impure, putting his head inside makes the stove biblically impure. If therefore a pure person with food in his mouth puts his head inside the stove, the food becomes impure and makes the person impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva¹³¹Since as explained in Note 129, saliva in a pure person’s body is pure and does not prepare for impurity.! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food¹²⁰Which somehow never was wetted and therefore is impervious to impurity. But all food eaten with sacrifices is subject to the rules of impurity. with dirty hands¹²¹Which are second degree impure and therefore have no influence on profane food, only on heave and sancta. with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws¹³²He throws the food into his mouth so it is swallowed immediately without being wetted.. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget 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. and he forgets.

There we have stated¹²⁸Mishnah Kelim 8:10.: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …¹²⁹R. Meïr declares the fig cake impure but R. Jehudah pure. They disagree about the status of the saliva of a pure person. As noted later, saliva in the mouth does not prepare for impurity; otherwise a person never could eat in purity. R. Jehudah holds that saliva in the mouth is immune from impurity; for him the problem does not exist. R. Meïr holds that saliva is a fluid subject to the rules of impurity since the spittle of a person sick with gonorrhea is a source of biblical impurity. Since unwashed hands are impure of second degree, the saliva in his mouth makes them impure in the first degree. If then he again touches the fig cake it will be impure in the second degree.” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah¹²⁸Mishnah Kelim 8:10. disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.¹³⁰The stove is made of clay. Biblically clay vessels become impure if and only if impurity is placed into its concavity with or without touching. The person himself would make the stove impure only if most of his body were inside but since the food in his head is moist and impure, putting his head inside makes the stove biblically impure. If therefore a pure person with food in his mouth puts his head inside the stove, the food becomes impure and makes the person impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva¹³¹Since as explained in Note 129, saliva in a pure person’s body is pure and does not prepare for impurity.! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food¹²⁰Which somehow never was wetted and therefore is impervious to impurity. But all food eaten with sacrifices is subject to the rules of impurity. with dirty hands¹²¹Which are second degree impure and therefore have no influence on profane food, only on heave and sancta. with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws¹³²He throws the food into his mouth so it is swallowed immediately without being wetted.. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget 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. and he forgets.

⁴³⁷In this paragraph one gives example of technical terms used in Mishnaiot which are essentially the same. The list is made to explain the term זֵיתֵי קֻלוּסְקָא הַמְגוּלְגָּלִין which however is somewhat different in combining two expressions which are translations of one another (Note 405). Coverings are the same as protuberances⁴³⁸In Mishnah Ahilut 8:2 it is explained that סְכָכוֹת refers to trees giving shade and פְּרָעוֹת to bushes growing out of a stone wall. Both transmit “tent” impurity.. Veiled is the same as hulled⁴³⁹Mishnah Šabbat 6:6: On a Sabbath, a Jewish woman in Arabia may walk in the public domain veiled and in Persia hulled.. Roofs are the same as covers⁴⁴⁰Mishnah Kelim 8:9. An oven (furnus) may become impure if according to R. Jehudah it has a roof (στέγη), according to Rabban Gamliel if it has a platform (שְׂפָיוֹת).. Cups are the same as grooves⁴⁴¹Mishnah Parah 2:5: Two black hairs growing in the same groove disqualify a red cow; R. Jehudah says in the same cup.. A place under cups is a place for putting down pieces⁴⁴²Mishnah Kelim 22:1: A table or tripod (portable pieces of furniture which may become impure if whole) which were damaged but were covered with a marble top (which cannot become impure) still may become impure if the cover excludes a place for putting there cups (majority opinion) or pieces (R. Jehudah).. Κυλιστόι olives are rolled olives,⁴⁰⁵It seems that the correct reading is that of the Arukh: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25..