Talmud sur Tohorot 7:5

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.