Commentaire sur Makhshirin 1:11

כל מעשה שתחילתו לרצון (a liquid the contact with which is welcome at first) – that it is satisfactory (i.e., rainfall) for it with those liquids, in order that the dish be rinsed or for other usages.

Any liquid which was desired at the beginning though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of "if water be put." For a liquid to make produce susceptible to impurity its contact with the produce has to be desired either at the beginning or the end. The "beginning" is when the liquid came into being, or was separated from its natural source. Rainfall begins when it comes from the sky. If while the rain is falling a person says or thinks to himself that he wants to use the water for some purpose, then the rain is "desired." Alternatively, if he is happy that the rain fell on his produce, then the rain is desired. "Not desired at the end" means that too much rain fell on his produce. If it was desired at the end but not in the beginning means that at first he was not happy with the fact that water was falling on his produce. But then, at the end, he saw that this was good and he was happy. All's well that ends well, as they say. In either case, the produce is susceptible to impurity. It would only not be susceptible if he was never happy that it got on his produce.

אע"פ שאין סופו לרצון (though finally it may be unwelcome/injurious) – when it fell on the fruit/produce, it was not satisfactory for it, even so it is that which makes it fit to become ritually unclean. Alternatively, it may finally be welcome, when they fell upon the fruit/produce. But at the beginning of their coming, the matter was difficult in his eyes, everything is fit to become ritually unclean.

Unclean liquids render unclean whether [their action] is desired or is not desired. Unclean liquids, those that have already been defiled in some way, make produce susceptible whether or not their contact is desired.

הרי זו בכי יותן – that is to say, the foods that these liquids fell upon, are made fit to become ritually unclean from here and onwards. For no food is susceptible to receive ritual defilement until water or one of the seven liquids (see Tractate Makhshirin, Chapter 6, Mishnah 4) which are water, wine, [olive] oil, milk, honey, blood and dew, as it is written (Leviticus 11:38): “that if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be impure for you; it is written as "יתן" but we read it as "יותן". Just as "יתן"/he will place is satisfactory for it, even something "יותן"/that is placed upon it is satisfactory for it.

מטמאין לרצון ושלא לרצון – since they are impure, their defilement and their fitness to become unclean come together as one, and if they (i.e., one of the seven liquids) fell on the fruit, even not being welcome, they defile them, for we don’t require that it is satisfactory for it but rather, that the liquid comes prior to the defilement, as it is written (Leviticus 11:38): “that if water is put on the seed,” and afterwards “and any part of a carcass falls upon it.” But when the liquid and the defiling agent come together as for example that the liquids are defiled, we don’t require that it is satisfactory for it.

המרעיד את האילן – he shakes it (i.e., the tree).

If one shook a tree in order to cause food or something unclean to fall down from it, [the rain water dropping down from it] does not come under the law of ‘if water be put.' Since his intention was not to bring the rain down from the tree, but rather food or something else, such as an impure thing, the water that falls down does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity. He doesn't want this water to fall down.

או את הטומאה – as for example that he brought there an unclean raven/crow or an olive’s bulk of from a corpse or a carrion (i.e., an animal that died a natural death) and it remained between the branches of the tree.

If [he shook the tree] in order to cause liquids to fall down from it: Bet Shammai says: both [the liquids] that fall down and [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] come under the law of ‘if water be put.' But Bet Hillel say: [the liquids] that fall down come under the law of ‘if water be put’, but [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] do not come under the law of ‘if water be put,' because his intention was that [the liquids] should drop down from all the tree. In this case, he shook the tree in order to cause the rain water to fall down. Bet Shammai rules that even the water that remains in the tree now causes produce to be susceptible because he wanted that water to fall down. In other words, even if his intention is not fulfilled, the water still causes impurity because he wanted it. Bet Hillel says that only the water that falls causes susceptibility because in the end, this is the water that he wanted.

אינו בכי יותן - if on account of this shaking/vibration rain waters fell that were in the tree on the fruit that is underneath it, they were not made fit for Levitical uncleanness.

היוצאים ואת שבו – liquids that exit on account of the trembling, and liquids that remain on the train and fell afterwards on the fruit are made fit [to receive Levitical uncleanness], they are considered as if they are detached [from the tree].

מפני שהוא מתכון שיצאו מכולו (because the man intends that they should fall – from the tree – in its entirety) – he intended to remove all the water from the tree, and that which remains did not occur to his mind, and are not made fit [to receive Levitical impurity].

המרעיד את האילן – to cause its fruit to fall down.

If one shook a tree and it fell on another tree, or a branch and it fell on another branch, and under them were seeds or vegetables [still] joined to the ground: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Shammai holds that even though the water fell on produce that was still attached to the ground, the water is now sufficient to make other produce susceptible to impurity. In other words, since the water has been intentionally removed from its original place, it now makes produce susceptible. Note that the produce on which it fell is not susceptible because produce attached to the ground is never susceptible. Bet Hillel holds that since the water fell on produce attached to the ground, it is not yet sufficient to make food susceptible. However, if after this the water fell subsequently onto other trees or other branches the water becomes ready to make food susceptible to impurity.

ונפלו על חברו – on another tree. And from that tree, they fell on seeds and on vegetables that are attached to the ground, and liquid drips on those seeds from the water that regularly waters them or from rains that fell upon them.

R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yose Holikofri a man of Tivon: Be surprised if there is any liquid that according to the Torah causes susceptibility to uncleanness except one put it on with intention, for it is said: "If water be put upon the seed." Rabbi Joshua holds that liquid causes produce to be susceptible only if it was intentionally put on to food. This is because he reads the verb "be put upon" with different vocalization, which yields, "if one puts upon." In Hebrew the former is "ki yutan" whereas the latter is "ki yiten" the only difference between the two is in vocalization.

בית שמאי אומרים הרי הן בכי יותן – for since he would know that these fruits would fall upon those seeds that have water dripping upon them, it reveals his intention that it is satisfactory for him, and the fruit that fell upon those seeds were made fit to receive Levitical defilement.

ובית הלל אומרים אינן בכי יותן - since they did not fall directly from the tree on to the seeds but from the tree to another tree [first].

חלי קופרי – this was his surname.

טבעון – name of a place.

עד שיתכוין – and these since they fell from one tree to another tree or from bush to bus, this is not intention, and he states the reasoning of the School of Hillel.

הנוער אגודה של ירק – as for example, herbs that rain fell upon them, or that water fell upon them unintentionally, and he shakes it in order that the water leaves.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Bet Shammai, even if the water only moves from part of the bundle to another part, it still causes the water to make the produce susceptible to impurity. In contrast, Bet Hillel again rules leniently. Since the water has not left the bundle, it does not yet cause produce to be susceptible.

חוששים אנו- in astonishment. Meaning to say, according to your words, we should be concerned also for this (i.e., that the water drops from leaf to leaf).

Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel argues with Bet Shammai from what they perceive to be an analogous case. If one has a stalk of some sort of produce and one shakes it and water drops from one leaf to another, all agree that the water has not yet been separated from its source such that it causes susceptibility to impurity. So too, if one shakes a bunch of produce it does not yet cause susceptibility. Bet Shammai says that the two situations are different, for when it comes to the stalk, it is only one piece of produce. The bundle contains many pieces of produce, and therefore we can perceive of the water as having left its original place and moving to another.

המעלה שק מלא פירות – that water fell unintentionally and they brought it up and placed it on the bank of the river.

Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? Bet Hillel again argues against Bet Shammai. When one brings a sack of produce to the river so that water will soak out of the sack and flow into the river, we do not consider the produce to be susceptible because water flowed from the upper side of the bag to the lower side. So too, in the case of a bunch of produce, even if water flows from one part to the other, it is not susceptible.

התחתון טהור – that is to say, even the bottom one is pure, and all the more so, the top one.

But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness. However, Bet Hillel agrees that if the water flows from one sack to the other, that it does cause the lower sack to be susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose says that even in this case the water does not cause susceptibility because it has not yet been separated from its totality.

המוחק את כרישה (a person who rubs – the wetness off – the leek) - he presses/squeezes the leek in order that the dew leaves it.

If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it. There are two scenarios in this mishnah. In the first he rubs off water that fell onto a leek. The second is that he squeezed out his hair or his garment to get the liquid out of them. According to Rabbi Yose in both of these cases the liquid that comes out of his hair has been separated from its source so it can now cause food to be susceptible to impurity. However, the water that remains on the leek, hair or garment does not make food susceptible to impurity because his intention was only upon the water that would come out. This fits the opinion of Bet Hillel in mishnah two.

כרישה – leeks in the language of Scripture (see Numbers 11:5, PUROSH in the foreign language, and in Arabic KURAT.

והסוחט בשערו ובכסותו (and he who wrings out his hair with his garment) – that he was coming on the path and rain fell on his hair and on his garment, and he wrings them out in order that the water would leave.

ואת שבו – the remaining liquids that fell afterwards on the fruit.

מתכוין שיצאו מכולן – that he intended to remove from them all the water, but it is was not his intention concerning the remainder. Therefore, it is not fit for Levitical uncleanness, according to the School of Hillel of the beginning of the chapter (see Mishnah 2).

הנופח – [he blows] with this mouth.

If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Rabbi Shimon, the moisture that comes out of a person's mouth when he blows on the lentils does not count as a liquid. But the sages say it is a liquid and therefore the lentils are susceptible to impurity.

בעדשים – that spittle exited upon them from his mouth with his blowing, and the spittle that comes out from the mouth is considered from the derivatives of water.

If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. A person wets his finger so he can eat sesame seeds by having them stick to his finger. Again, Rabbi Shimon does not consider this to be liquid such that the seeds are susceptible to impurity, but the other sages do.

אינן בכי יותן – since he did not intend for this [to occur].

If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. This person hid his produce in water only to protect it from thieves. Since he didn't really want the produce to get wet, it is not susceptible to impurity. The mishnah even includes a story of such a case occurring and the sages ruling that the produce remained insusceptible to impurity.

וחכמים אומרים בכי יותן – since he intended to blow, and it is the manner of the spittle to leave through blowing. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Again, this person didn't want his produce to get wet, he just wanted to put it in the stream so that he could transport it. The produce remains insusceptible to impurity.

האוכל שומשמין – as for example, that he placed sesame in one hand, and a finger that was on his second hand he places into his mouth to moisten with spittle and he places it on the sesame that is in his other hand and they become attached and he brings in his finger into his mouth and eats, and on account of this, the hand that the sesame was in is moistened. And there is liquid dripping.

ר' שמעון אומר אינן בכי יותן – for he intended to moisten his finger, but not to moisten the hand that the sesame was in. But the Rabbis hold, since that he considered/planned with his finger, he makes it fit for Levitical uncleanness even unintentionally, as is taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of our chapter (Mishnah 1): “Any liquid which in the beginning is acceptable, even though at the end it is not acceptable…is under the law of “if water is put [on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be impure for you]” (Leviticus 11:38). But Rabbi Shimon holds, that it was not acceptable at the beginning other than the moistened liquid of the finger alone. But the remainder that was moistened by the hand was never acceptable. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon in our entire Mishnah.

הסריקין (the robbers. See also Tractate Gittin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6) – (Judges 11:3): “Men of low character gathered about Jephthah [and went out raiding with him].” We translate into Aramaic: “reckless men.” The language of an אילן סרק /a tree which bears no fruit. Another explanation: סריקין/thieves, for such is the language of Ishmael who calls thieves סראקין/unsavory. And there are those who have the reading: סקרין , the language that there weren’t robbers in the Judea among those who were killed in the war [as described] in the chapter (the fifth chapter of Tractate Gittin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6) הנזקין (see Tractate Gittin, folio 55b, meaning robbers and violent men.

בשבולת הנהר (the current of the river, the rapid stream) – the path of the river and the running of its waters. It is the language of (Psalms 69:3): “the flood sweeps me away.”

להביאן עמו – that he was not able to carry them, and he floated them down the river.