Miszna
Miszna

Talmud do Tohorot 7:4

אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר שֶׁהִנִּיחָה לְאֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ טוֹחֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ, פָּסְקָה הָרֵחַיִם, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. לֹא פָסְקָה הָרֵחַיִם, אֵין טָמֵא אֶלָּא עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לִפְשֹׁט אֶת יָדָהּ וְלִגָּע. הָיוּ שְׁתַּיִם, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, שֶׁאַחַת טוֹחֶנֶת וְאַחַת מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין טָמֵא אֶלָּא עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁהֵן יְכוֹלִין לִפְשֹׁט אֶת יָדָן וְלִגָּע:

Żona rozdrabniacza [skrupulatnie dbająca o czystość wszystkich potraw], która zostawiła żonę am ha'aretz mielącego w swoim domu [tj. W domu żony rozdrabniacza ], jeśli mielenie ustało, dom jest nieczysty. Gdyby mielenie się nie zatrzymało, rzeczy są nieczyste tylko na tyle, na ile mogłaby wyciągnąć rękę i dotknąć. Gdyby było ich dwie [tj. Dwie żony amei ha'aretz ], dom byłby nieczysty niezależnie od tego, ponieważ jedna kobieta mogłaby mleć , podczas gdy druga chodziła dookoła, dotykając [innych naczyń w domu], według rabina Meira. A Mędrcy mówią: [nawet gdy jest ich dwóch] rzeczy są nieczyste tylko na tyle, na ile mogliby wyciągnąć ręce i dotknąć.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?91Mishnah Tahorot7:4. Since an anonymous Mishnah is supposed to follow R. Meïr’s formulation, an apparent contradiction between two statements attributed to R. Meïr must be resolved.
Since the wine in the store is for sale, it is stored in open amphoras. The wine would become forbidden for usufruct if touched by the Gentile. In our Mishnah it seems that R. Meïr assumes that the Gentile will not touch the open amphoras. But in Mishnah Tahorot7:4 he holds that if a woman keeping all rules of ritual purity invites one careless in these matters to help her in her home all vessels in the home become impure since one must assume that the helper is impure and touches everything in sight.
” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall92The explanation is Rashi’s (70b, Bava batra 2b). The etymology is unknown; the word certainly is different from פְּסֵיפָס ψῆφος “pebble”., for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure93A courtyard (in the back of houses or walled in, not directly open to the street) has been divided by a low wall as a sign that each party has only the use of its own part. Even though it is easy to step over the partition, the fact that it is raised is enough to create the presumption that the parties will abide by the rules and not trespass. If the dwellers in one part are scrupulous in observing the rules of purity while the others are not (or are Gentiles), the vessels standing in the courtyard of the observant party remain pure. Similarly, if one party is Jewish and the other Gentile, wine amphoras stored in the the Jewish part remain permitted since the presumption is that the Gentile will not enter the Jewish part., since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine94While a store catering to customers observant in matters of purity certainly cannot have a Gentile employee, a grocery store for the general public can have such an employee. In the Babli, 70b, this is reported as the opinion of Rav, opposed by R. Joḥanan..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Poprzedni wersetCały rozdziałNastępny werset