Commento su 'Eduyyot 7:7
הֵם הֵעִידוּ עַל אֲרוּכוֹת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים, שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאוֹת. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. הֵם הֵעִידוּ עַל תַּנּוּר שֶׁחִתְּכוֹ חֻלְיוֹת וְנָתַן חֹל בֵּין חֻלְיָא לְחֻלְיָא, שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. הֵם הֵעִידוּ שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בְּכָל אֲדָר. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עַד הַפּוּרִים. הֵם הֵעִידוּ שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִים אֶת הַשָּׁנָה עַל תְּנָאי. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָלַךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מֵהֶגְמוֹן בְּסוּרְיָא וְשָׁהָה לָבֹא, וְעִבְּרוּ אֶת הַשָּׁנָה עַל תְּנַאי לִכְשֶׁיִּרְצֶה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וּכְשֶׁבָּא אָמַר רוֹצֶה אָנִי, וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה מְעֻבָּרֶת:
Hanno testimoniato che l'aruchoth [(le lunghe e piatte assi di legno dei fornai su cui poggiano pagnotte di pane per cuocere), "a (aleph) ruchoth" ("board") come "a (ayin) ruchoth" (" rangeed ")] sono tamei [suscettibili, rabbinicamente, di acquisire tumah. Infatti, secondo la Torah, le tavole piatte non sono così suscettibili, i rabbini hanno decretato che lo sono (vale a dire Kelim, capitolo II)]. Perché R. Eliezer li ha giudicati puliti, [sostenendo che non sono affatto considerati vasi, nemmeno come vasi di legno piatti. L'halachah non è conforme a R. Eliezer.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ארוכות של נחתומים (this section of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Kelim, Chapter 15, Mishnah 2) – flat wooden utensils that bakers arrange there loaves of bread at the time when they make bread. Long-ranging boards like to work the dough.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction
This mishnah contains four more testimonies given by Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias. Note that on the first two Rabbi Eliezer expresses a dissenting opinion, the same format we saw in the previous two mishnayoth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שהן טמאות – According to the Rabbis, for assuming that from the Torah, flat wooden utensils do not receive defilement,, the Rabbis decreed upon them, as is brought in Tractate Kelim, Chapter 2 (Mishnah 1).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive, whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive. The “boards of bakers” under discussion in this section are planks upon which the baker organizes his dough and puts it into the shape of loaves. If these planks are considered “vessels” than they can receive impurity, as can all “vessels”. If however, they are considered closer to raw material, less-shaped, then they cannot receive impurity. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias since these boards are specially made to have dough put on them, they can receive impurity. Rabbi Eliezer holds that they cannot.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שר' אליעזר מטהר (see Tractate Kelim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 5) – that he held that they are not considered utensils at all, and even if they are not like flat wooden utensils. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive, whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive. The oven under discussion is one made of bricks. Sand has been placed between each brick and then a layer of plaster was put on the outside to seal the oven. The sand would prevent the bricks from being stuck together and therefore make this oven easy to take apart. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, since the oven was plastered from the outside, it is considered a proper oven and can receive impurity. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since each part is separate, it is not considered an oven, but a broken oven. Since broken vessels cannot receive impurity, this oven cannot be made impure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שחתכו חוליות – they cut up the burned clay of the oven by its width into tiles and placed one tile on top of another, and placed sand in-between each tile, and plastered it with plaster/mud and made of it a paste of plaster surrounding its matting to guard its heat in the manner that people do for ovens.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. The Jewish year is based on both a lunar and solar model. It is lunar in that the length of a month is determined by the moon. It is solar in that the year is occasionally adjusted so that months and holidays will fall consistently in the same season. (The concept of a year exists only in a solar calendar; the concept of a month exists only in a lunar calendar). In today’s fixed calendar the year receives an extra month seven out of nineteen years. The extra month comes after Adar, the month in which we celebrate Purim. This extra month is called Adar Bet (second Adar). During the time of the Mishnah they did not have a fixed calendar. Each year a court would have to decide whether or not to “intercalate” the year, meaning add another month. They would do so depending on the weather outside. According to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias, the court has until the end of Adar to intercalate the year. This means that they can do so at the last possible moment. The older halakhah was that it could only be intercalated before Purim, which falls on the 14th of Adar.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שרבי אליעזר מטהר – for since there is sand between the cracks, it is similar to as if it’s broken. And the Sages defile it for the plaster makes it all as one, and attaches the slits, even though there is sand between each tile. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer (Note: This dispute is the source text for the famous debate of the Oven of Akhnai found in Tractate Bava Metzia 59a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated. The final testimony of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias is about conditionally intercalating the year. As we can see from the example in the story, this means that a court would decide to intercalate the year in the absence of the Patriarch, in this case Rabban Gamaliel, who evidently had the ultimate decision in whether or not to intercalate. When the Patriarch returned and agreed to the intercalation it becomes retroactively valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שמעברין את השנה בכל אדר – until the twenty-ninth of Adar, there is time for the Jewish court to state that it is a leap year, and that the next month is the Second Adar, but on the thirtieth day of Adar, one cannot intercalate the year, since it is appropriate to establish [the month of] Nisan, in the chapter of Tractate Pesahim 56a – “In the place where the practice existed” (chapter 4).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
על תנאי – if the President [of the Sanhedrin} wishes that it would be intercalated and if not, it would not be intercalated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy