Komentarz do Kelim 26:8
עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּזְלָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חִלּוּף הַדְּבָרִים, שֶׁל גַּזְלָן, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים:
Skóry gospodarza są [podatne na stanie się] nieczyste przez umyślne myśli, ale skóry garbarza nie są [podatne] na nieczyste przez umyślne myślenie. Osoby złodzieja stają się nieczyste przez umyślną myśl; ale osoby złodzieja nie stają się nieczyste przez celową myśl. Rabin Szimon mówi: sprawa powinna zostać odwrócona: sprawy złodzieja stają się nieczyste przez umyślną myśl; ale te złodzieja nie są nieczyste przez celowe myślenie, ponieważ [w tym drugim przypadku] właściciele nie porzucili nadziei [na wyzdrowienie].
Bartenura on Mishnah Kelim
של בעל הבית – that are not made to sell them (i.e., the hides), and he makes from them beds and delphicas and tablets [for writing]. He intended for them for something that are appropriate for hm without the loss of work, they are susceptible to receive ritual impurity immediately.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim
The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. If a householder, a non-professional, owns a hide, as soon as he decides that it is ready for use it is susceptible to impurity (providing it is usable in its current state). However, the same is not true of a tanner. Even if he decides to use a hide before its processing is fully completed, it is still not susceptible to impurity for he is likely to change his mind and go back and finish the hide's processing. In other words, since the tanner is a professional, he is less likely to be satisfied with less than perfect results. Therefore, his intention is less final.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kelim
ושל עבדן (that belonging to a tanner) – that is made to sell, intention does not defile them, for he makes and in tends to sell them and the purchaser will make shoes from them, but their work had not yet been completed for this.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim
Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. A "thief" is a person who surreptitiously steals something. His identity will not be known to those from whom he stole. A "robber" is someone who violently takes something in broad daylight. His identity will be known. According to the first opinion, if a thief steals something, the owners' will lose all hope of getting it back because they don't know who stole it. Therefore, the thief's intentions determine whether the article is susceptible to impurity. But if a robber robs something, they will have hope of recovering the item, and therefore his intention is not determinative.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kelim
של גנב מחשבה מטמאתן – that he acquired them through despair. For he (i.e., the first Tanna) holds that mere theft is despair of the honors, for they do not know from whom to make a claim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kelim
Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery. Rabbi Shimon reverses the reasoning expressed by the previous opinion. When a thief steals something, the owner hopes to get it back, because all he must do is discover who the thief is and he will be able to recover his item. But when a robber robs a person, right in front of their eyes and there was nothing they could do to stop it, the owner loses hope of recovering the item. [Note there is little faith in any form of law enforcement]. Therefore, a robber's intentions are determinative, and a thief's are not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kelim
ושל גזלן מחשבה מטמאתן (but of a robber, intention does not make them susceptible to uncleanness) – for even though he thought of them (i.e., the hides) for something where there is no loss of work, for a mere robbery there is no despair of the owners, for since he knew who stole from him, he goes and makes a claim against him in court.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kelim
חילוף הדברים – (see also Talmud Bava Kamma 114a) – there is despair for a mere robbery. For according to his viewpoint, he (i.e., the robber) took from and it is fit and proper for he (i.e., the robber) is a strong/violent man and he despairs, but a mere theft, he (i.e., the owner) holds that the item I is found with the thief and he will make a claim against him in court and will not despair. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy