Talmud do Tohorot 4:9

סְפֵק מַשְׁקִין לִטָּמֵא, טָמֵא. כֵּיצַד. טָמֵא שֶׁפָּשַׁט אֶת רַגְלוֹ לְבֵין מַשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין, סָפֵק נָגַע סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע, סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא. הָיְתָה כִכָּר טְמֵאָה בְּיָדוֹ וּזְרָקָהּ לְבֵין מַשְׁקִין טְהוֹרִין, סָפֵק נָגַע סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע, סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא. וּלְטַמֵּא, טָהוֹר. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה מַקֵּל בְּיָדוֹ וּבְרֹאשָׁהּ מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין וּזְרָקָהּ לְבֵין כִּכָּרוֹת טְהוֹרִין, סָפֵק נָגַע סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע, סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר:

Jaki jest przypadek niepewności płynów, jeśli chodzi o to, czy same stały się nieczyste - i gdzie takie [płyny] są nieczyste? Jeśli nieczysta osoba wyciągnęła stopę wśród czystych płynów i nie jest pewne, czy ich dotknął, czy nie, jej niepewność jest nieczysta [tj. Stan czystości wód jest niepewny, a zatem nieczysty]. Jeśli trzymał w ręku nieczysty bochenek i wrzucał go do czystych płynów i nie jest pewne, czy dotknęli, czy nie, to niepewność jest nieczysta [tj. Stan czystości wód jest niepewny, a zatem nieczysty]. A jaki jest przypadek [niepewności] co do tego, czy [ciecze] uczyniły [coś innego] nieczystym - gdzie takie [przedmioty] są czyste? Jeśli w jego dłoni trzymał kij, na końcu którego znajdowały się nieczyste płyny, a on rzucił go między czyste bochenki i nie jest pewne, czy dotknęły, czy nie, to jego niepewność jest czysta [tj. Stan czystości bochenków jest niepewny , a zatem czysty].

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah

HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon²⁰⁰While the expression “sprinkled upon” refers to water with the ashes of the Red Cow needed to purify the impurity of the dead, clearly here it cannot refer to a procedure that extends for a week but is taken as general expression for purifying biblical impurity. However, if the immersion is for biblical impurity, the vessel returns to a status of purity only after the following sundown. Then the question arises, how was the Temple service performed for the remainder of the day of immersion if there were no pure vessels available? The answer is given in the Mishnah, that there were reserve vessels available which had not been used during the holiday.. Then should we not suspect all of them²⁰¹The answer given in the preceding Note seems to be invalid since one refers to pre-existing biblical impurity. Then the second and third vessels should also be immersed and not only after a holiday but every day of the year. While the second objection may answered that daily immersion clearly is impractical, the first objection remains unanswered.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure²⁰²A woman after childbirth or after an extended period of menstrual impurity regains her right to participate in sacra only by a sacrifice of a couple of birds, a “nest”. These sacrifices have to be brought after the woman was purified by immersion in a way which shields the Cohanim (Mishnah Šeqalim 6:8), here one refers to a Cohen who counsels a woman still impure as zavah, whose body fluids are primary sources of biblical impurities, on the ways of purification.. Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status²⁰³Which are impure in the first degree by rabbinical convention only. Then it is reasonable to restrict the general immersion to holidays since at all other days precautions can be taken that such a case does not occur in the Temple.. There we have stated²⁰⁴Mishnah Taharot4:9. The Mishnah seems to imply that the case envisaged by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya cannot occur since possible rabbinic impurity does not cause certain impurity of implements known to be pure.: “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure²⁰⁵Tosephta 3:35..” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset