Komentarz do Machszirin 3:12

שק שהוא מלא. מעלות המערה – that is filled with water.

Introduction Chapter three (finally) returns to the subject of our tractate when does contact with liquid cause food to be susceptible to impurity?

כל ששאבו (all that absorbed) – the fruit from the moisture of the water, therefore, it is [under the law of] “when water is put on” (Leviticus 11:38), for it is satisfactory for him that the fruit absorbs from the water, and through this, they appear thick and swollen.

If a sack full of produce was put by the side of a river or by the side of the mouth of a cistern or on the steps of a cavern, and [the produce] absorbed water, all [the produce] which absorbed the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. A person put a sack of produce near a source of wetness, either a river, a cistern or a cavern in order for it to stay moist. The produce in the sack, even the side of the sack that didn't really get all that wet, has been made susceptible to impurity. This is because he wanted the produce to get wet.

רבי יהודה אומר כל שהוא כנגד המים וכו' (Rabbi Yehuda says: Whatever is over against the water) - But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Judah says: all [the produce] which faced the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but all [the produce] which did not face the water does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah limits the susceptibility to the side of the sack that actually faced the water. This side absorbed the water so it is susceptible. The other side didn't really absorb any water so it is not susceptible.

חבית (jar) – of earthenware or soft stone vessel that is like earthenware. But the rest of the vessels that did not observe so much until the fruit that are within them absorb.

A jar full of produce which was put into liquids, or a jar full of liquids was put into produce and [the produce] absorbed, all [the produce] which absorbed comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The jar is made of earthenware which will easily absorb water. It doesn't matter whether the jar has liquids and it is put into the produce or the jar has produce and it is put into liquids in all of these cases the produce that has absorbed any liquid is susceptible to impurity. This is true even of pulse (mostly beans) which is less absorbent than other produce such as grain.

שאבו – the fruit became moistened and liquid was dripping on them. This is our reading.

Concerning what liquids were they speaking? Water, wine and vinegar; but all the other liquids do not cause susceptibility to uncleanness. This halakhah is limited to two of the 7 liquids that cause susceptibility: water and wine (vinegar is made of wine). The other liquids (we will see the full list in 6:4 dew, oil, blood, milk and honey are the other five) are thicker and will not be as easily absorbed. Therefore, they won't cause the produce to be susceptible.

ושאר כל המשקין טהורים – the rest of the seven liquids (see Tractate Makhshirin, Chapter 6, Mishnah 4: milk, [olive] oil, honey, blood) that make something fit to become susceptible for receiving Levitical uncleanness, the fruits are ritually pure that are within the jar if they were moistened by them. For specifically water and wine and vinegar which are thin and clear, they are absorbed in the jar because of their thinness and the fruit absorbs [liquid] from them. But [olive]oil, honey, milk and blood and dew, are thick, and because of their thickness they are not able to be absorbed within the vessel so much until the fruit that is within the jar absorbs from them. Therefore, they are not [included] in “when water is put on” (Leviticus 11:38).

Rabbi Nehemiah says pulse is insusceptible, because pulse does not absorb [liquids]. Rabbi Nehemiah says that pulse put in such a jar is not susceptible to impurity because it is less likely to absorb the liquid. In other words, whereas the previous opinion only limited the thicker, less absorbable liquids, Rabbi Nehemiah adds that the thicker less absorbent produce doesn't become susceptible to impurity.

שאין הקטנית שואבת – as for example, split beans and beans and things like them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Nehemiah.

הרודה – that was kneaded in fruit juice but was not made susceptible to receive Levitical uncleanness.

One who drew hot bread off the side of an oven and put it upon the mouth of a jar of wine: The bread mentioned here must be bread that was mixed with fruit juice which does not cause flour to be susceptible to impurity. [If the bread was already susceptible because it had been mixed with water, then this mishnah is not an issue].

רבי מאיר מטמא – meaning to say, the bread is made fit to receive Levitical uncleanness on account of the wine that was absorbed in it. Alternatively, if the wine was impure/unclean, Rabbi Meir declares it impure on account of the impure wine that was absorbed in it (i.e., the bread).

Rabbi Meir declares it susceptible to uncleanness; Rabbi Meir says that the hot bread, no matter the kind, will draw wine out of the barrel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.

ר' יוסי מטהר בשל חטים – and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

But Rabbi Judah declares it insusceptible. Rabbi Judah says that the bread does not draw off the wine and therefore it is not susceptible.

Rabbi Yose declares it insusceptible in the case of wheat bread and susceptible in the case of barley bread, because barley absorbs [liquids]. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between wheat bread, which is less absorbent and barley bread which is more absorbent. Only the latter is susceptible to impurity.

המרבץ את ביתו (he sprinkles his house) – he sprinkles water in it in order that the dust should not rise up.

If one sprinkled [the floor of] his house [with water] and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] from the stones [on the floor], it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In mishnaic times people would sprinkle their floors with water in order to keep down the dust. A person did this and then put wheat on the floor (or it just got there somehow) and the wheat got moist. If the moisture came from the water he sprinkled on the floor then the wheat is susceptible to impurity because a person put the water there. If the moisture came from moisture that naturally accumulated on the floor then it is not susceptible to impurity because no one put that water there.

וטננו (and the wheat grew prepared for grinding) – it became moistened. It is the language of moist and fat soil, that its explanation is a moist field in the first chapter of [Tractate] Moed Katan [6b].

If one washed his garment in a tub and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] of itself, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The same rule basically applies to someone who puts wheat in a laundry trough (after he has completed the laundry). If the wheat became moist due to the water that he put there, the wheat is susceptible.

אם מחמת הסלע – a rock from the Six Days of Creation, and it is the floor of the house and through this, the wheat became moistened.

If one put [produce] in sand for it to become moist, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. It happened with the men of Mahoz that they used to moisten [their produce] with sand, and the sages said to them: if you have always acted in this manner, you have never prepared your food in purity. In this case, although no one put the water into the sand, since he intended the produce to become wet, it is susceptible. In other words, from this mishnah we can see two possibilities for when liquid causes susceptibility to impurity. 1) If a person put the liquid where it currently is. 2) If he wanted the produce to come into contact with the liquid. As long as one of these is true, the produce is susceptible. Evidently, the people of Mahoz, a sandy region (see Mishnah Arakhin 3:2), were doing this their whole lives without knowing that this would cause their food to be susceptible. Poor guys!

המטנן בחול (one who prepares [fruit] by mixing with sand) – he who prepares fruit in sand in order that he can moisten it, that is to say, that they will be moistened, that they will receive from the moisture of the sand.

הרי זה בכי יותן – for there is no sand without water.

נגוב – dry.

If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the produce is susceptible only if the drying clay is sufficiently wet that it actually drips. If not, it is not susceptible.

אינו חושש שמא נתן בה חטים וטננו (and he does not scruple lest he put it in grains of wheat and they grow damp) – this is what he said: If he placed on it is wheat, he does not feel pain lest they were moistened.

If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. The assumption is that by the time he puts wheat down on his threshing floor it will already be dry enough such that the wheat will not become moist and susceptible to impurity. This is probably because a threshing floor is outside, while the house is obviously inside.

כשהטל עליהם – as for example, that he would lease it for his work and he harvested the grasses with the dew that was upon them. But he did not intend because of the dew.

If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The intention here was to moisten the produce with the moisture from the grass. The dew was incidental to his intentions so it doesn't cause the produce to be susceptible. However, if he intended to use the dew to make the produce moist, it does become susceptible.

להטן בהם חטים – to hide with wheat with them in order that they can be moistened.

If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way]. In this case the produce is only susceptible if he was happy that the rainwater came down upon it. The produce is not automatically susceptible because he didn't put it there actively. Rabbi Judah says that there is simply no way a person won't be happy if the rainwater comes down on his wheat. I'm assuming this makes it easier to mill. Therefore, we can't gauge its susceptibility by whether he is happy. Rather, in order for it to be susceptible he must actively do something to make it susceptible, such as stop walking so that more rain can come down upon the wheat before he brings it to the mill.

אם נתכוין לכך – for the dew that is upon them.

אי אפשר שלא לשמוח – for he would be delayed there in order that rain should fall upon them.

פקק הצנור (he stopped up the waterspout) – he closed up the waterspout in order that the water would not come out.

If his olives were put on the roof and rain came down upon them and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to the first opinion the olives are susceptible to impurity as long as the person is happy that the rainwater came upon them. If he wanted them to stay dry, they are not susceptible. Again, his inner thoughts are what determine the susceptibility of the produce.

או אם חלחל לתוכו (or if he washed olives by rolling them in the rain water) – he shook and stirred the olives in the water that within the water spout. For Rabbi Yehuda holds that one’s intention does not have an effect to make it fit for Levitical uncleanness until he performs an act to reveal the thought that is in his heart. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he plugged up the gutter or if he shook the water [onto the olives]. As he did in yesterday's mishnah, Rabbi Judah says that a person will always be happy when rainwater comes upon his olives. Therefore, in order for them to be susceptible he must physically do something to get the rainwater on them. There are two possibilities. Either he stops up the gutter so that the roof fills up with water, or he shakes water onto the olives.

אם הפך השקים (if he turned over the sacks) – to one side, in order the water would hasten to enter from both sides, then they would be fit for Levitical uncleanness.

Introduction Today's mishnah continues to deal with situations in which Rabbi Judah says that one can't help but be happy about his produce getting wet.

אם עמד והדיח – if he stood in the water to rinse off the feet of his animal, then the water makes fit for Levitical uncleanness of [those animals] that ascend by their feet if [water] fell on the fruit.

If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks]. If the donkey drivers were happy about their produce getting wet, it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah responds that since they will obviously be happy about the produce getting wet, there must be something more. For the produce to be susceptible he must turn over the sack so it gets wet.

באדם ובבהמה טמאה – they make fit for Levitical uncleanness the waters that come upon their feet, whether he rinsed them or whether he did not rinse them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast. If he is happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting wet (and thereby cleaned off) by the river then the water that is on them will make produce susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that the water on his or his domesticated beast's feet does not make produce susceptible unless he stops in the river to wash off his feet.

But with an unclean [beast] it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. However, when it comes to unclean animals, it doesn't matter whether he stops to wash his feet or not. The water will in any case make produce susceptible because he will always be happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting cleaned by the river. I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. Albeck states that the difference between clean and unclean animals, and why one must wash off the feet of the former for the water to make produce susceptible, is not clear. The meaning of this mishnah has been lost.

המוריד את הגלגלים – wheel of His [Divine] Chariot (see Ezekiel, chapter 1), we translate in Aramaic, the wheels of the chariot with horses.

If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. The person brings some wooden wheels or oxen gear down to the river to soak them in water so that they will tighten (seems like this means to expand, thereby tightening the parts) because it is so dry outside. The water that clings to them when he removes them will cause susceptibility to impurity. This is because he intended to use this water.

בשעת הקדים - at the time of the heat, the eastern wind blows, and it is the manner of wooden vessels that they split/break because of the heat, and we bring them down to the water and the splits are attached. That is, they are tightened/wedged in, like squeezed in/pressed in, that is to say, in order that they can be pounded together and that the splits are attached to each other.

If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. In this case he intended the water to go into the mouth of his beast, so it does causes susceptibility. But if he didn't intend to wash off the animal's feet, then the water attached to the feet does not cause susceptibility. However, there are two occasions in which we assume that he wanted the feet to be washed off. First, if the animal has some affliction, "footsoreness," then he must have wanted its feet to be washed off. Alternatively, when he is using the animal for threshing, it can be assumed that he wanted to cool down its feet and the water causes susceptibility.

הרי זה בכי יותן – the waters that are raised in them make fit the seeds to receive ritual defilement, for it is satisfactory for it that these waters are suspended in a vessel to fasten the splits.

If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention. These three categories of people are not legally capable of having intent. Therefore, in order for them to make the water cause susceptibility they would have to actually do something to the water, like put it in a bucket and then use it to wash the animal's feet. Merely being happy that it washed off the animal's feet is not sufficient.

בשעת היחף (at the season of foot sores [of animals or of threshing]- that the animal is weary and tired from the trouble of the path. And similar at the time when it is threshing in the grain, the water that she brings up upon her feet always makes the seeds fit to receive ritual defilement because they are intentional, for the waters are good for her to cool her off and to make her cold. Another explanation: At the time of foot sores and the threshing, at the time of the harvest, he wants that the animal washes its feet in order that they will be clean to thresh the grain.