תלמוד על סוטה 5:8

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments¹⁰³In Lev. 4:13, R. Hizqiah reads דָּבָר וְנֶעֱלַם as וְנֶעֱלַם מִדָּבָר, presupposing a script which does not differentiate between regular and final mem. R. Hila’s comment is really unnecessary since מִכָּל־מִצְוֹת already means “of any commandments” but not entire commandments. In all situations, prefix mem is read as partitive, some but not all; cf. Nazir 5:4 Note 105.. ¹⁰⁴The following text also is found in Sotah 5:1, explained in Notes 8–10, Nazir5:1 Note 56. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring¹⁰⁵Sifra Wayyiqra 1 Pereq 12 on Lev.2:6. The ms. text follows the argument of Sifra while B reproduces the text of Sotah and Nazir. The argument of Sifra has no connection with the theories of RR. Johanan and Jeremiah; it is a straightforward reading of the verse. Since it is stated that one has to pour oil on the bread crumbs because it is a flour-offering, it follows that a flour-offering requires pouring oil over it unless it be explicitly excluded as in the purification offering of v. 5:11..

¹²⁵This text is from Soṭah 5:5, explained in detail in Notes 120–123 and Makkot 2:7 (Notes 141–142). Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: One strip-measures (only in mountains but)¹²⁶With the other two sources read: :Not for Levitic cities. not for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There¹⁹⁶Mishnah Ahilut 1:1., we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening¹⁹⁷As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁸Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:2: An object touching the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself (Sifry Num. 130). A second object touches the first; it becomes a source of original impurity; both need the ritual of Num. 19. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁹Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:3: An object which touches the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself. A human touches the first object, becoming a source of original impurity; a second object touches the human, also becoming a source of original impurity. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave²⁰⁰Not only for heave but also for sacrifices: anything with a status of sanctity. But for profane food, humans, or objects, anything touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity; the person touching it or him becomes impure in the first degree. In biblical law, no human can become impure by derivative impurity. No person touching anything more than once removed from the corpse can become biblically impure., but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself²⁰¹Num. 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second²⁰²A person who touched objects which touched objects which touched the corpse is a third in line who is impure by biblical standards and guilty if he enters the Sanctuary unpurified.? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person²⁰³The statement of R. Joḥanan refers to impurity of a person induced by a person., not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty²⁰⁴Anybody needing the ritual of Num. 19 but entering the Sanctuary without it is guilty of a deadly sin, as stated in Num. 19:20. The person only impure in the first degree, not subject to this ritual, is guilty of a sin but not a deadly one. As explained in Note 199, if the impurity is transmitted by an object, the human may be the second in the sequence.. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water²⁰⁵The person impure in the first degree may still commit a deadly sin by entering the Sanctuary (Lev. 22:3) without immersing himself in water. But if he enters (or eats sanctified food) between immersion and sundown, he commits a minor sin (Lev. 22:7)..

HALAKHAH: But needs profane food intention¹⁹⁵Since profane food does not require pure bodies there should be no requirement for immersion and therefore no possibility of intention. Babli 19a.? He is informing you of more: even if he immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food he is prohibited tithe. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the count for profane food is the count for tithe¹⁹⁶Profane food only can become impure in the first degree and disqualify in the second. The same holds for Second Tithe.? Here it is for eating, there for touching¹⁹⁷Eating Second Tithe needs a body pure by intention but not handling it.. He who immerses himself without specification is pure for all of them¹⁹⁸Tosephta 3:2; Babli 19a. For R. Joḥanan if at the moment of immersion it was impossible for the person to eat tithe, heave, or sancta, the immersion cannot be valid for one of these.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had relationship with all of them. As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses¹⁹⁹Since water is considered one body, the person standing in the water in this respect is like one immersed and still has the choice of the degree of impurity imparted by the immersion..

HALAKHAH: ⁹⁹This paragraph is copied from Sotah5:6, Notes 138–141. it is written¹⁰⁰Jud. 5:2.: When retribution is retributed for Israel, when the people volunteered, praise the Eternal; the heads of the people volunteered. When the Holy One, praise to Him, does wonders for Israel, they should sing a song. They objected: There is the redemption from Egypt¹⁰¹Meaning that the Song of the Sea also covers the Exodus, since the latter was confirmed only at the Sea. In the Babli and midrashic literature, Ps. 113 is the song of the Israelites during Passover night [Pesaḥim 117a, Midrash Tehillim 113; cf. Cant. rabba 1(37), Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Shirah 1; deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 71]. Cf. The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 314–319.! That is something else since it was the beginning of their redemption. They objected. There is redemption of Mardocai and Esther! That is something else since they were outside the Land; some want to say that Mardocai and Esther were freed of their enemies, they were not freed from [Gentile] government.

HALAKHAH: 7¹⁹⁰It seems that in this tradition the statement of R. Aqiba in Mishnah 7 was a separate Mishnah.: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there¹⁹¹“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He¹⁹²R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah. comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there¹⁹¹“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish¹⁹³This is unlikely.. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical¹⁹⁴In the interpretation of Bar Qappara, the rabbinic impurity mentioned by R. Ḥananiah is secondary or tertiary impurity derived from biblical original impurity whereas R. Aqiba adds rabbinic impurity which has no biblical source.. 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..