Talmud do Edujot 8:13

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant⁷Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta⁸If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it⁹The permission for eaters of heave to immerse a smaller vessel inside a larger one holds only if the smaller vessel weighs less than one Roman pound. Cf. Babli 21a.. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket¹⁰Greek γύργαθος.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there¹¹Mishnah Miqwaot 8:5., “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure¹²If his hands block the access of the water in the miqweh to even the smallest part of the surface area, the immersion is ineffective. According to R. Simeon it is possible to hold something in the miqweh without obstructing the access of the water.. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon¹³Abba Shaul holds that joint immersion is possible only if the outer vessel is permeable; hands are not permeable.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior¹⁴Finger-holes while cavities cannot be used to store anything since they have no bottom; they are irrelevant by biblical standards. But it is agreed in the Mishnah that for vessels used for sancta, rabbinic impurity is treated as biblical..

⁶The text was copied more or less in Chapter 3:2, Notes 40 ff. The full explanation is given in Šabbat8, Notes 51–62. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, ⁷Deut. 28:66.your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.⁸Mishnah Idiut8:1.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,⁹Mishnah Makhširin6:5.” in the amount needed for impurity but its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who said “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant said to him, this is correct. Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it²¹Cleanly people hold the cup on the outside, so that their fingers do not touch the drink. The problem with finger-holes is that they are cavities, and as such potential subjects of biblical impurity, but since the cavities are horizontal, not vertical, they are not containers and therefore impervious to biblical impurity. Babli 22b.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry²²Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra 3:9. Since unwashed hands rabbinically are impure in the second degree, when dry they have no influence on the status of vessels. (By touching they still disqualify heave and make sacrificial food impure.). In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure²³In this case it is certain that the fluid touched the hand. By rabbinic tradition any such fluid is impure in the first degree and so is the vessel containing it.. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid²⁴In the case of isolated spots of fluids one cannot say that the fluids merge; the rules of the Mishnah are reasonable if applied to this situation..” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place²⁵Mishnah Idiut 8:4; Kelim 15:6. Even though water and blood are the essential agents of biblical impurity, water used at the slaughtering place in the Temple and blood spilled there are pure, i. e., impervious to impurity and do not act to prepare food to possible impurity.. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place²⁶Outside of the Temple they just are regular fluids subject to all their rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17a., [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned²⁷If they somehow re-entered the Temple domain while pure by outside standards, they regain their immunity from the rules of impurity.. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure²⁸The slaughtering place is in the place of the Cohanim, the highest in the Temple domain. The question is the definition of the domain in which the fluids are exempt from the rules of impurity. In one opinion it only is the Cohanim’s courtyard, in the other it is the entire space inside the enclosure of the Temple, including the courtyards accessible to Israel men and women..

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass⁵¹A different version of the entire paragraph is in the Babli Menaḥot 103b/104a. It will be explained later what the problem is.. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not answer him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure⁵²A carcass of a non-kosher animal is the source of original impurity, Lev. 11:24–28. The question can only refer to blood separate from the carcass. The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi seems to contradict the previous statement. Carcass flesh is the source of impurity only in pieces of at least one olive size. It was stated in the previous paragraph that fluids which congeal form solid material in the size of an olive only if the original volume was at least one quartarius. Therefore for impurity carcass blood is not treated differently from flesh.. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Cahana asked him, it is pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqan asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, ⁵³Deut. 28:66.your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen⁵⁴Following I. Löw, reading סירקי for סידקי., and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store⁵⁵The explanations of this word vary from πρατήρ (Buxtorf), πωλητήρ (Krauss) “seller”, to panetarius (Kohut)., and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.⁵⁶Mishnah Idiut 8:1.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare⁵⁷Agricultural produce cannot become impure until it is “prepared” for impurity by contact with water (Lev. 11:38) or fluids which traditionally are compared with water: human body fluids, grape juice or wine, olive oil, and date honey; cf. Demay2:3, Note 143. It now is asserted that the blood of non-kosher animals cannot be compared with human blood and is inactive in preparing for impurity. This was decided when Rebbi’s mule died., but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated⁵⁸Mishnah Makhširin 6:5. “The blood of a crawling animal (in) [is like]⁵⁹With all Mishnah mss. and the parallel in Šeqalim read כִּבְשָׂרוֹ. its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this.” Nothing else is like this in the amount needed for its impurity⁶⁰Carcasses of the animals (mostly reptiles) enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30 generate impurity already in parts in the volume of a lentil.. But its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah⁶¹He states in Mishnah Idiut 4:1 that the House of Shammai declare all blood of carcasses which is separate from the flesh as impervious to impurity while the House of Hillel declare it impure in amounts larger than a quartarius. In his interpretation, R. Joshua ben Bathyra follows the House of Shammai in R. Jehudah’s interpretation. For the latter, all blood of Rebbi’s mule separate from the body was declared pure.; he who says “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant told him, this is correct; Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch⁶²We stay with our first interpretation, that the mule’s blood was only declared not to prepare agricultural produce for impurity but that otherwise it follows the rules of impurity of carcass flesh. R. Jehudah cannot have been the kashrut supervisor of Rebbi’s court, it must have been that of his father, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; but the tradition of his rulings was continued..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not investigate a family in which a family disqualification²⁰⁴Either a disqualification of bastardy or a disqualification for the priesthood. has disappeared. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a Mishnah says so: “There was a family in Bet Ṣerifa in Transjordan who was forcibly distanced by Ben Ṣion. Another [family] was there who was forcibly integrated by Ben Ṣion.²⁰⁵Mishnah Idiut 8:7. It is not known who this Ben Ṣion was. The text states that one family was deemed unworthy of marrying into priesthood against the will of the rabbis and one was declared worthy also against the will of the rabbis. Cf. Babli Qiddushin 70a.” Nevertheless, the Sages did not want to make their names public²⁰⁶This proves R. Joḥanan’s point that one may not investigate accepted families for disqualifications.. But the Sages transmit them to their sons and students two times in a Week²⁰⁷A sabbatical period of 7 years.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the Temple service, I know them²⁰⁸Reading אני for the ms. איני; following the editio princeps. Another formulation of the same statement in the Babli, Qiddushin 70a. and the leading personalities of the generation have disappeared in them. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Pashḥur ben Immer the priest had 5000 slaves²⁰⁹4000 in the Babli, Qiddushin 70a. Cf. Jer. 20:1., and their traces have disappeared in the high priesthood. These are the insolent in the priesthood. Rebbi Eleazar said, their main training²¹⁰In modern Hebrew טִירוֹנוּת, from Latin tiro “recruit”, cf. Ma‘aser Šeni p. 214. The verse, Hos. 4:4, proves that priest were quarrelsome long before Jeremiah’s time and strong-armed behavior is ingrained in Cohanim even without any admixture of slaves. The same argument by R. Eleazar in the Bablim Qiddushin 69b.: “Your people is like quarrelsome priests.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Samaritans²¹¹Who might be bastards in the rabbinic view; cf. Chapter 4, Note 82. disappeared in thirteen villages in the times of persecution. They said, the village of Moshhan²¹²The village and the time of persecution are not identified. is one of them.

“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.”⁹³Tosephta 4:6, Babli 25b. The last sentence reads in the Babli: Our teachers testified that a sole [to be the source of birth impurity] needs the shape of a face. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court⁹⁴Šabbat 1:1 (3d 1.20), Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d 1.17), Avodah zarah 2:8 (41d 1.48); obliquely mentioned in the Babli Giṭṭin72b, 76b; Ketubot 2b, Avodah zarah37a.. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil^94aMishnah Avodah zarah 2:9. The Mishnah has a list of foods that cannot be taken from Gentiles without kosher supervision since one cannot be sure that no forbidden ingredients were used but which are not forbidden for usufruct. A first group contains milk, bread, and olive oil, with a note that “our teachers permitted olive oil” [to be used without supervision.] In the Babli, this permission is attributed to Rebbi, not his grandson R. Jehudah the Prince. (The chronology of the House of Hillel in the third cent. and the attribution of decrees between Rabbis Jehudah I, II, and III is in dispute.).” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there⁹⁵Mishnah Giṭṭin 7:3. From here on there exists a Geniza text; its readings are given by ג.: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything⁹⁶After his death, no person can perform any legal action. Therefore, a bill of divorce which shall be valid only after the husband’s death is invalid. If the husband is sick or goes on a trip overseas, and he wants to spare his wife (or prevent her from contracting) a levirate marriage to his brother, he can give her a bill of divorce stating “if I die then this shall be your bill of divorce valid from today.” But then he cannot live with her any longer without invalidating the divorce..” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce⁹⁷The Babli, Giṭṭin 72b, reports the same but in 76b refers the decision to Mishnah 7:9: “If he says, this is your bill of divorce if I do not return within 12 months; if he dies in the meantime, the bill of divorce is void.” In this case also, he did not specify from today. The Babli explains that in both cases they follow R. Yose who holds that “the date of a document is proof of its validity;” a bill of divorce executed before the husband’s death is valid. The same explanation is tentatively accepted in the Yerushalmi, Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d l. 25).. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.⁹⁸Mishnah Idiut 8:4, the oldest Mishnah on record.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth⁹⁹By freeing all miscarriages without a recognizable fetus from the rules of birth impurity.! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran¹⁰⁰One should read חוֹנְייָה מִבֵּית חַװְרָן, cf. Sevi‘it 1:7, Note 53.; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁰¹Rebbi Onias’s teacher. who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles,” etc. There, we have stated¹⁵⁴Mishnah Idiut 8:2; quoted in extenso in the Babli, 26b/27a. The argument is about the part of the Mishnah not quoted here, that the Sages forced the family to accept her as marriageable by a Cohen.: “Rebbi Yose the Cohen and Rebbi Zachariah the son of the butcher testified about a girl who was given as a pledge in Ascalon¹⁵⁵That she could be sold as a slave if her parents did not pay their debt. and her family excluded her¹⁵⁶Declared her unfit to be married by a Cohen., but her witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure.” Because the witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure; therefore, not if no witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure¹⁵⁷She was held for money, and according to the Mishnah should need no witnesses.! Rebbi Eleazar said, there is a difference about a pledge, because many treat her as permitted¹⁵⁸People assumed that ultimately she would be sold as a slave and, therefore, could be treated as such even beforehand. In the Babli, 27a, this explanation is offered by Rava (cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot, p. 6), but is rejected in that Talmud..

Rebbi Eleazar said to him: Is not the dough widow²⁴⁸As a dough is a mixture of several ingredients, so the dough widow is a mixture; she is a woman qualified for priesthood who was married to a husband with a questionable family background (one whose females are permitted to marry Israels but not Cohanim). The problem is that there is the knowledge that something was wrong in the marriages of that family but the exact nature of the defect is not known. qualified but her daughter is disqualified²⁴⁹She carries the possible disabilities of the father’s family.? He said to him, whoever declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified²⁵⁰If the daughter might be disqualified then the mother might be desecrated, i. e., her husband might have been the offspring many generations back of a union forbidden to Cohanim.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, did he not say “whoever declares her to be qualified”? This implies that there is another who disqualifies! Who declares qualified? Rebbi Meïr. Who disqualifies? The rabbis. As we have stated²⁵¹In the Tosephta (Qiddušin 5:2) and the Babli (14a; Qiddušin 4:4, 66a 1.29), there is no mention of the desecrated, but there is the added category of “king’s slaves”, who were used by the king to run the state and, by their influence and riches, were able to marry Jewish women even if not manumitted. In Jewish tradition (Rashi 14a), Herod was a slave of the Hasmoneans.
In the Babli tradition (cf. Otzar haGeonim 8, Ketubot, הפירושים p. 12), the dough widow was a woman who had married a man possibly descending from a desecrated woman. This definition is reproduced by Rashi, 14a. The difference between the Galilean and Babylonian traditions was already highlighted by Rabbenu Hananel (Otzar ha-Geonim l. c., לקוטי פירוש רבינו חננאל p. 12).: What is qualified dough, anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with one of these is qualified for thepriesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared²⁵²The nature of the disability was no longer known., Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers²⁵³These are really 8 mothers, spanning 3 to 4 generations, enumerated in Mishnah Qiddušin 4:4. and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever²⁵⁴Until he finds the source of the trouble..