פירוש על טהרות 7:12

הקדר שהניח את קדרותיו (the potter who left his pots) – a person who sells pots who is a Haver/a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse, who left his pots in the public domain, and they would customarily place large stones or pegs on the sides of the public domain to distance the wagons so that the walls would not damage them, and since these pegs press/squeeze the public domain, and this person who left his pots near them also pressed the path more, and the passers-by rub themselves on it and their clothing passes over their airspace, and the clothing of those who are not careful in their observance of Levitical laws of ritual purity/the עם הארץ/commonfolk are impure and defile the outermost ones.

A potter who left his pots and went down to drink: the innermost pots remain clean but the outer ones are unclean. A potter who wished to preserve the purity of his pots, left them for a few moments in the public domain unguarded. When he returns he must regard the outer ones as defiled lest an am haaretz, a Jew who does not preserve his purity, touched them with his cloaks which are considered impure. Note that the am haaretz might have done so accidentally for when the potter left his pots in the public domain, the path became a bit narrower. However, the inner pots are pure.

במה דברים אמורים במותרות (under what circumstances – when they are untied)- when those who pass by and return shake them.

Rabbi Yose says: When is this so? When they are not tied together, but when they are tied together, all the pots are clean. Albeck explains that Rabbi Yose thinks that the concern is that the am haaretz picked up one of the pots to inspect it. If the pots are tied together, then he could not have done so and they remain pure.

אבל באגודות (but when they are tied up) – that it is impossible to shake them, everything is ritually pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

One who gave over his key to an "am haaretz" the house remains clean, since he only gave him the guarding of the key. A person who preserves the purity of the objects in his house who has given over his key for guarding to a person who does not observe the laws of purity need not worry that the am haaretz went into his house and defiled the things there. Just as is the case today, when one gives his key to his neighbor the understanding is that he is only giving him the key. He does not expect him to enter the house.

שלא מסר לו אלא שמירת המפתח – for he did not rely upon him to enter, because he would be arrested/made responsible as a thief.

ישן ומצאו ער הבית טמא – everything that is in the house is ritually impure, for we are concerned that perhaps when he woke up from his sleep he touched utensils that are in the house for he didn’t see them initially when he was asleep, for it is the manner of people to touch/feel and check that which they had never seen. But someone who is awake and he was found awake, we are not concerned, for he already saw everything that is in the house while he was awake.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with an am haaretz who was left in the house of a person who wished to preserve the purity of the objects in his house. The question is whether we have to be concerned lest he touched anything in the house and thereby defiled it.

עד מקום שהוא יכול לפשוט את ידו – all the vessels that he is able to reach them when he stretches forth his hand from the place where he was sleeping, we are concerned lest he touched them, but we are not concerned that perhaps he walked in the house and touched vessels. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If he left an am haaretz in his house awake and found him awake, or asleep and found him asleep, or awake and found him asleep, the house remains clean. If he left him awake and found him awake in the same place where he left him, then the owner need not worry that the am haaretz has moved around and touched other objects. According to the mishnah, an am haaretz is concerned lest the owner of the house come back suddenly and catch him touching his stuff. If he left him asleep and found him asleep, he need not be concerned lest he woke up in the meanwhile and touched something. Similarly, if he left him awake and he fell asleep he need not be concerned that his stuff was touched.

If he left him asleep and found him awake, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where he can stretch out his hand and touch it. However, if the owner left him asleep and when he came back the am haaretz was awake, Rabbi Meir says that all of the vessels in the house are considered defiled. According to Rabbi Meir, the am haaretz reasons that since the owner left him asleep he will think that he is still asleep and he won't come back to make sure that he doesn't touch any of his stuff. Since the am haaretz is not afraid of getting caught, he won't hesitate to make himself feel at home. The sages say that only things that can be touched by the am haaretz while stretching out his hand are unclean. It is interesting sociologically to note that the mishnah does anticipate a rabbi (or someone else who is cautious about the purity laws) leaving an am haaretz alone in his house. However, it is equally interesting to note that the mishnah does not afford the am haaretz a full degree of trust.

המניח אומנים וכו' – because artisans rely upon touching/feeling everything that is in the house, and I might think that in this, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir that the entire house is ritually impure, it comes to tech us that even with artisans, the Rabbis dispute him and state that there is no impurity other than up to the place where they are able to stretch forth their hands and to touch. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

One who left craftsmen in his house, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. The craftsmen that he left in his home are amei haaretz (plural of am haaretz). Just as he held in yesterday's mishnah, so too here Rabbi Meir holds that all of the items in the house are considered defiled. The owner of the house does not sit there and guard them to make sure they don't touch anything.

But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where they can stretch out their hand and touch it. This is the same as their opinion in yesterday's mishnah. Only the things that they can reach out and touch from the place where they are doing their work are impure.

אשת חבר – who is trustworthy on matters of ritual purity for the wife of a Haver is like a Haver.

If the wife of a haver left the wife of an am haaretz grinding grain in her house, if the handmill stopped turning, the house is unclean. But if the handmill did not stop turning, that part of the house which she can stretch out her hand and touch is unclean. A haver is a term used to describe the opposite of an am haaretz. The wife of a haver has the status of a haver. She leaves the wife of an am haaretz, who also has the status of am haaretz, grinding a handmill in her home. If the am haaretz stops turning the mill, we must suspect that she will walk around the house and touch things. Therefore, all of the objects in the house are suspected of being impure. But if she kept milling the whole time, we need only be concerned about the things that are close enough for her to reach out and touch.

שהנייה לאשת עם הארץ – who is not trustworthy, for the wife of a commoner/who is not careful regarding the Levitical laws of ritual purity and tithes and his children are like hi, until they accept upon themselves the words of those who are careful with the observance of the Levitical laws of ritual purity and tithing.

If there were two women, the house is unclean in either case, since while the one is grinding, the other can go about touching, the words of Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where she can stretch out her hand and touch it. If there were two women in the house taking turns at grinding (this is hard work), then Rabbi Meir is consistent with his position from mishnayot two and three, the whole house is impure. The other sages are also consistent. We need only be concerned lest she touched things that are within hand's reach. .

פסקה רחים – she completed her grinding and stopped milling. For all the time that she is busy with her work on the millstones, she does not go and examine about the house.

וחכמים אומרים וכו' – And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

בזמן שהוא רואה – at the time when the owner of the house is able to see those who enter the house and those who depart from the house.

One who left am haaretz in his house to guard him, if he can see those that enter and leave, only food and liquids and uncovered earthenware are unclean, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. The owner of the house left an am haaretz in his house for the am haaretz to be guarded there. If the owner can see whoever comes in and comes out then only food, liquid and uncovered earthenware vessels are impure. Couches and seats are impure because the sages did not decree that an am haaretz defiles place that he sits that they should become "fathers of impurity." Similarly, earthenware vessels with tightly fitting lids are not impure because a male am haaretz does not defile such vessels just by shifting them, and they can't be defiled by touch.

האוכלין והמשקין וכו' טמאין – for we are concerned that perhaps this guard touched them since he is a commoner/not careful in his observance of the laws of Levitical impurity and tithing.

And if he cannot see either those who enter or those who leave, even though the am haaretz has to be led and even though he was bound, all is unclean. However, if the owner cannot see who is going in or out, then we must be concerned lest someone else came in and defiled the vessels in the house. Thus everything is deemed impure, even if we can be sure that the am haaretz himself didn't touch anything because he was tied up.

אבל המשכבות והמושבות וכו' טהורין – for a commoner does not perform acts of lying or sitting and doesn’t defile through shaking, for they (i.e., the Rabbis) did not decree other than on the defilement of his contact alone.

ולא את היושבים – even though that if he stands he sees him, since he doesn’t see the person who is sitting, everything is ritually impure.

אפילו מובל (even someone immobilized) – even if this guard/watchman who is a commoner/not careful in his observance of the laws of Levitical purity and tithing is immobilized, that he is unable to walk unless they carry him.

ואפילו כפות – and tied up.

הכל טמא – for we don’t defile them because of the lying or sitting of a commoner, but rather because we are concerned that perhaps a heathen or a menstruating woman enters there and she sat or shook something and defiled everything.

הגבאים שנכנסו לבית (of Israelites) -they are tax collectors of the king to collect from the hand of an Israel the money of their capitation tax and the taxes and taxes from crops and other farmer’s produces delivered in kind, and they are commoners/not careful in the observance of the laws of Levitical purity and tithing, and they entered into his house to seize his pledge.

If tax collectors entered a house, the house is unclean. The tax collectors are amei haaretz and since they enter the house to collect something in lieu of taxes we must be concerned that they touched the things in the house and therefore everything is impure.

הבית טמא – all the vessels of the house are ritually impure because they search throughout the house.

If a Gentile was with them they are believed if they say, "we did not enter" but they are not believed if they say "we didn't touch anything." I have explained this section according to Albeck's preferred version. If a Gentile boss is with the tax collectors they are only believed to say that we didn't go into a certain house or room. But they are not believed to say that they didn't touch something in certain room into which we know they entered because the Gentile would have instructed them to touch whatever he felt was necessary. However, if no Gentile is with them then they are even believed if they say that they didn’t touch anything, since they came with a specific purpose in mind.

אם יש עמהן גוי נאמנים לומר לא נכנסנו – and all the more so if there isn’t a heathen with them, they are more and more believed to state, “we have not entered.” But because of the concluding phrase of the clause of the Mishnah, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took it (i.e., these words), as it is taught: “but they are not believed to state – we entered, but didn’t touch,” for specifically if there is a heathen with them they are not believed, for they are frightened/trembling from the heathen lest he punish them if they don’t search through the entire house, and by force they feel touch/handle everything that is in the house. But if there is no heathen with them, they are believed even in this to state, “we entered but we didn’t touch [anything].”

If thieves entered a house, only that part in which the feet of the thieves have stepped is unclean. Thieves who come into a house will only defile the places where we know they walked. We can assume that thieves are going to want to be in and out as quickly as possible, therefore we need not fear that they walked elsewhere and touched other things.

And what do they cause to be unclean? Food and liquids and open earthenware, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. This is the same as in mishnah five above.

אם יש עמהן גוי או אשה – that they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed on the heathens to be like people with gonorrhea/זבים for all of their matters. And the woman, perhaps she is a menstruating woman/נדה or a זבה/woman with a flux.

If a Gentile or a woman was with them, all is unclean. A Gentile and a female am haaretz both defile by sitting on something or by shifting earthenware vessels. Therefore, everything in the house is impure.

אודיארין (store-keeper) – a bathing attendant – who receives a small coin as a fee/keeper of the clothes at the baths, the owners of the bathhouses which have many windows/apertures and anyone who enters to the bathhouse places his clothes in a window and he (i.e., the bathing attendant) locks them up with a door that is in the aperture/window.

One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them. The mishnah describes bath house attendants to whom one gives his clothes to watch over while bathing. The bath house attendant would put the clothes in the cubby. The fear is that someone else might have touched the clothes and thereby defiled them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules leniently the clothes are assumed to have been watched over and they are pure. The other sages rule more strictly. The clothes are pure only if the owner takes some precaution to make sure no one else touches them. If the attendant gives him the key they are pure. If he gives him a seal to make sure no one opens the cubby, they are also pure. Finally, if he puts a sign on the clothes so that he could tell if they were touched, then they are pure.

רבי אליעזר בן עזריה מטהר – from the time that he looks the door in front of the window/aperture. And we are not concerned that perhaps a ritually impure person will touch there, after he is seized as a thief.

One who left his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean. This refers to a priest who wants to make sure that the wine he presses is pure. Therefore he has special clothes that he uses just for wine pressing. If he leaves them from one wine pressing to the next, they can stay pure.

עד שיתן לו המפתח – and even though he places the key in the hand of the bathing attendant who is a commoner/not stringent in the observance of the Levitical laws of purity and tithes, for it is taught in the Mishnah (a text which I could not find) above (note: we have a teaching in the Tosefta Tractate Taharot, Chapter 8, Halakha 1 that teaches the reverse: "המוסר מפתח לעם הארץ הבית טמא"/He who gives over the key to a commoner, the house is ritually impure – the exact reverse of what the Bartenura commentary is pointing out and which agrees with the view of the Sages): “He who gives over the key to a commoner, the house is ritually pure.

If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, "I have watched over them carefully." However, if he gives them to a regular Israelite to watch over, the Israelite must be able to declare that he watched over them carefully. If he is not sure, then the clothes must be treated as potentially having been defiled.

או עד שיעשה לו סימן – to recognize that no person touched there. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

המניח את כליו – vessels that he cut grapes with in ritual purity in this year, he leaves them to cut grapes with them in ritual purity in the following year.

בנכרי כליו טהורין – we have this reading, meaning to say, if he left them with a heathen, there is no prohibition of wine poured as a libation/יין נסך associated with them, for we are not concerned that perhaps a Canaanite took them without the knowledge of the Israelite to make [wine] with them in the vat for wine-pressing.

ובישראל – for he worries/is concerned about them because of defilement through contact, they are ritually impure if his attention was diverted from them, until he says: It was my intention (literally, in my heart) to guard them. But there are books in which we do not have the reading [of the word]: "בנכרי"/with a heathen, but rather a person who leaves a vessel from this vintage to the next vintage, his vessels are ritually pure, and we are dealing with a Kohen who purchases wine of heave-offering/priest’s due from a commoner/who is not careful in his observance of the laws of Levitical purity or tithes and leaves his vessels with him in order that he can purchase from him during the next vintage, for since the vessels belong to a Kohen, the commoner trembles and doesn’t touch them. But if the vessels are of an Israelite who desires to make his wine in a state of ritual purity, a commoner is not all that careful with them, and we are concerned that perhaps a ritually impure person touched them, if his attention was diverted from them, until he states: “it was my intention to guard them.”

מי שהיה טהור – a Kohen who was ritually pure to consume heave-offering and his mind was diverted/he was discarding from his mind to consume any more heave-offering.

One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean. The person described here is someone who usually eats his food while the food is pure (as he is). Then he decides to no longer eat in a state of purity. Rabbi Judah says that the food remains pure because people have grown accustomed to staying away from his food because they know that he wants it to be pure. The other sages disagree and say that once he decides to no longer eat pure food, we can't be sure that he preserved the purity of this food and it must be assumed to be impure.

שדרך טמאים פרושים ממנו – the ritually impure people that know of him that he is ritually pure, separate from him, therefore, we are not concerned that he came in contact with a ritually impure person and he defiled him.

If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, "I know that my hands have not become unclean," his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy. Once the person decides to no longer eat his food in a state of purity, he can't really be trusted to keep his hands pure. Hands are "busy" they constantly touch things. Therefore, even if he thinks he preserved their purity, his hands are unclean.

וחכמים מטמאין – for after his mind was diverted/he was discarding from his mind [to consume any more heave offering]. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

היו ידיו טהורות – in this Rabbi Yehuda agrees that even if he said: “I know that I was my hands were not ritually defiled.”

ידיו טמאות – and they ritually defile the heave-offering, for after he diverted his mind/discarded from his mind to eat [any more heave-offering], because the hands are busy/preoccupied and they touched [impure things] unintentionally.

גרגניות (unable to resist temptation/gluttonous) – they despise/disregard and are desirous for food. It is the Aramaic translation of (Lamentations 1:11): “How abject/what a glutton I have become.” I have become a glutton/bibber like a lion. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean. There are two situations in this section. In both a woman leaves an am haaretz near some terumah food. In both Rabbi Akiva says that the food must be reckoned unclean lest the am haaretz touched the food and the rabbis say that the food remains clean.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking. While it looks like Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila is explaining the dispute, he is really explaining Rabbi Akiva's position, specifically why should he rule so strictly that even the cooked dish is defiled? We might assume that the woman won't touch the inside of a hot dish and earthenware vessels are not susceptible to impurity from the outside. It would seem that the food should be safe from impurity. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila answers that women are gluttonous, which really means that they are exceedingly curious about what is being cooked in the pot. The woman will inevitably uncover the pot to see what's cooking. Once she touches it, the food is defiled. Perhaps this is the source for the phrase she is always sticking her nose in other people's pots?