Talmud sobre Tohorot 4:14

Rebbi Zeïra went up to Rebbi Abbahu in Caesarea. When he met him he said: Come to eat. He [R. Abbahu] gave him a loaf to break and told him: Take it and recite the benediction. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The householder knows best the qualities of his loaf. After they had eaten, he [R. Abbahu] said to him: Start and recite Grace. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The rabbi knows Rav Huna who is a great man and he used to say that he who starts is the one who finishes⁸³The parallel to this story is in the Babli, Berakhot 46a. There, the Babli adds that practice follows R. Joḥanan (in the name of R. Simeon bar Yoḥai) who declares that the head of the household should recite the benediction for the bread since he is the host but that the guest should recite Grace and add to it a public blessing for the host. Even though the two authors quoted are Israeli, it follows from the Yerushalmi here that the public blessing for the host was never accepted practice in Galilee.. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna, as it was stated⁸⁴A similar formulation is in Tosephta Berakhot 5:6 and a different one in Babli Berakhot 46b. It seems that the three texts represent three different traditions.: “The order of washing of the hands⁹⁵Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:11: “In doubtful cases involving hands to become impure, to transmit impurity, or to be pure, they are declared pure.” Hence, since the House of Shammai agree that the entire matter is one of doubt, there is no problem since the hands of the person eating remain pure.. Up to five persons, one starts with the most important personality. More than that, one starts with the least important one⁸⁶Since one cannot ask the V.I.P. to wait a long time between washing and breaking the bread. Once the hands are washed, one may not let his attention be diverted from them, otherwise he has to wash again.. In the middle of the meal one starts with the most important one⁸⁷In the Tosephta, this sentence does not refer to washing one’s hands at all, but to pouring wine. The Babli (Ḥullin 105a/b) quotes a baraita that declares washing of hands in the middle of the meal (between courses) to be voluntary; the exact halakhic meaning of this statement is in doubt.. After the meal one starts with him who will recite Grace.” Does that not mean that he may prepare himself for reciting Grace⁸⁸The Babli (46b) brings a story that Rebbi asked Rav to wash his hands first, meaning that he should recite Grace aloud for the entire company. It follows that Rebbi emphatically denies the rule of Rav Huna that, as noted earlier, was never accepted in Babylonia.? If you say that the one who starts is the one who finishes, he already is prepared! Rebbi Isaac said, explain it for those who come separately and do not know who will recite Grace.

What is the reason of the House of Hillel? In case of doubt, fluids and hands are considered pure⁹⁵Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:11: “In doubtful cases involving hands to become impure, to transmit impurity, or to be pure, they are declared pure.” Hence, since the House of Shammai agree that the entire matter is one of doubt, there is no problem since the hands of the person eating remain pure.. Another explanation: “Hands” are not for profane food⁹⁶The entire institution of secondary impurity for hands has no Biblical basis for profane food; it has been instituted following “the discipline of terumah.” Hence, there is no reason to follow strict rules in case of doubt since it is a principle that doubts regarding Rabbinic institutions must be resolved leniently..

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Ṭarphon: None of them is a nazir since nezirut exists only by warning.”¹²⁸In the Babylonian sources, Babli 34a, Tosephta 3:19, “nezirut exists only by הפלאה ‘clear statement’ ”. The meaning is the same here; a legal warning for a breach of the vow could only be issued if the vow was clearly stated. That is what Rebbi Jehudah said, “doubtful nezirut is permitted.¹²⁹Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:12.”

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..

It was stated¹⁷¹Tosephta 1:6.: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified¹⁷²Derivative impurity in the second degree. by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure¹⁷³Original impurity or derivative impurity in the first degree. by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah¹⁶⁶This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel¹⁷⁴For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them¹⁷⁵Babli Šabbat 15b.. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha¹⁷⁶In Usha, the place of R. Jehudah, a loyal supporter of the Roman government, the Rabbinate was reconstituted by the third generation Tannaim after the death of Hadrian and the suspension of the latter’s anti-Jewish decrees. The executive officer of the Cohanim must have served in the Temple; he therefore belongs to the first generation of Tannaim.? Before Usha there was no burning for their words¹⁷⁷Rabbinically impure sancta neither could be used nor destroyed.. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel¹⁷⁸Biblical impurity applies only to kinds of vessels and implements mentioned in the rules of impurity: earthenware and metal (Lev. 6:21), leather and textiles (Lev. 13:49), bone and wood (Num. 31:20). Other vessels cannot become impure; to this fact one attributes the great number of stone vessels found on archeological sites of the Second Temple period. (Similarly intrinsically pure vessels made of cow dung have not survived for the archeological record.) The impurity of glass vessels, unknown to Moses, is purely rabbinical. One has to take the information that the impurity of glass ware “was decided” by the heads of the Synhedrion to mean that they codified the rules which were popularly observed before. Glass vessels are compared to earthenware vessels since the former are made from sand, the latter from clay. They are also compared to metal vessels since if broken they can be melted down and made into new vessels.. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁷⁹Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b., Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware¹⁸⁰The land outside the Holy Land was always being considered impure (cf. Am.7:17). What they decided was that earth of Gentile places, within or outside the Holy Land, is considered infected with the impurity of rotting human bodies. While it is in dispute whether Gentile corpses induce tent impurity, it is universally accepted that they transmit impurity by touching.. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels¹⁸¹The possible impurity of metal vessels is biblical (Note 178). Following the Babli Šabbat 16b, what they decreed was that metal impure by the impurity of the dead should not become pure by being melted down, but only by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow.. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands¹⁸²They codified the rules that hands which were not all the time consciously guarded from impurity after being washed are impure in the second degree and, therefore, impart impurity to fluids, heave, and sacrifices but not to solid profane food (cf. Demay 2:3, Notes 136–137; Babli Šabbat 14b). Corrector’s addition from Ketubot..] Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁷⁹Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b. was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning¹⁸³That it was decided that glassware has the biblical status of metalware.. The following are the six doubts¹⁸⁴Mishnah Taharot 4:5.: “On the doubt of a bet happeras¹⁸⁵A place known to contain a grave whose position is no longer known or ascertainable. If heave was transported over this place, it might have become impure by tent impurity., on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar¹⁸⁶A person not known to observe the rules of impurity. His clothing may be impure either by contact with his impure wife in her period or because he suffers from gonorrhea.
The quote here is lacunary; there is missing the possible impurity of vessels found in the public domain., on the doubt of spittle¹⁸⁷Which might be the source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a woman menstruating or suffering from flux or a male sufferer from gonorrhea., on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine¹⁸⁸Urine was used industrially and as a household chemical. Animal urine is pure; human urine may be a source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a person whose impurity is caused by his own body (Note 187)., on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity¹⁸⁹If the fact that it touched the object in question is not in doubt; the only doubt is whether that object transmits impurity or not. on these one burns heave.

HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon²⁰⁰While the expression “sprinkled upon” refers to water with the ashes of the Red Cow needed to purify the impurity of the dead, clearly here it cannot refer to a procedure that extends for a week but is taken as general expression for purifying biblical impurity. However, if the immersion is for biblical impurity, the vessel returns to a status of purity only after the following sundown. Then the question arises, how was the Temple service performed for the remainder of the day of immersion if there were no pure vessels available? The answer is given in the Mishnah, that there were reserve vessels available which had not been used during the holiday.. Then should we not suspect all of them²⁰¹The answer given in the preceding Note seems to be invalid since one refers to pre-existing biblical impurity. Then the second and third vessels should also be immersed and not only after a holiday but every day of the year. While the second objection may answered that daily immersion clearly is impractical, the first objection remains unanswered.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure²⁰²A woman after childbirth or after an extended period of menstrual impurity regains her right to participate in sacra only by a sacrifice of a couple of birds, a “nest”. These sacrifices have to be brought after the woman was purified by immersion in a way which shields the Cohanim (Mishnah Šeqalim 6:8), here one refers to a Cohen who counsels a woman still impure as zavah, whose body fluids are primary sources of biblical impurities, on the ways of purification.. Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status²⁰³Which are impure in the first degree by rabbinical convention only. Then it is reasonable to restrict the general immersion to holidays since at all other days precautions can be taken that such a case does not occur in the Temple.. There we have stated²⁰⁴Mishnah Taharot4:9. The Mishnah seems to imply that the case envisaged by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya cannot occur since possible rabbinic impurity does not cause certain impurity of implements known to be pure.: “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure²⁰⁵Tosephta 3:35..” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta.