Комментарий к Техарот 3:13

הרוטב והגריסין שהן משקה טופח (the broth/juice/jelly of meats, and the pounded beans which moisture dripping on them/running liquid) – they are so moist when they have on them enough to moisten other objects.

Introduction We have learned previously that impure liquids always have impurity in the first degree. Only food can have second and third degree impurity. Our mishnah deals with liquids that then become solids.

הרי הן תחילה -that they are considered as a liquid.

Sauce, bean-mash and milk, when in a condition of fluidity, are unclean in the first degree. While they are in their liquid state, these liquids, if they are defiled, have first degree impurity.

קרשו הרי אלו שניים (if they became congealed, they are second-degree [of ritual impurity]) – for since they congealed they are considered like edibles that came in contact with liquids.

If they turned solid they become unclean in the second degree. When they turn into solids, they lose their first degree impurity but they still retain second degree impurity. This is because as it solidified, the solid part was touching the liquid part and the liquid conveyed second degree impurity to the solid.

חזרו ונמוחו כביצה מכוון טהור (if they once again dissolved – if they are the volume of an egg exactly, it is pure) – that the status of food left from them and the status of liquid descended upon them, and their defilement blossomed when they were changed, but there isn’t to this liquid anything that will defile it, for when the first drop departed, the food was reduced from that of the size of an egg’s bulk, and less than an egg’s bulk it doesn’t defile others, but more than an egg’s bulk it is impure, as the reason is explained [in the Mishnah] , for when the first drop departed , that drop was defiled with an egg’s bulk of impure food, and when all of it dissolved afterwards, the drop returned and defiled everything.

If they again melted: If their bulk was exactly that of an egg, they are clean. But if it was more than the bulk of an egg they remain unclean, for as soon as the first drop issued forth it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If they melt again, they are now no longer food, but they have lost their original liquid impurity. If there is exactly an egg's worth then it is pure. This is because as soon as one drop melted the solid part was less than an egg, and food needs to be the size of an egg to convey impurity. So the drop remains pure, as does the rest. However, if there is more than an egg, then when the first drop melts it is defiled by the solid part. That drop will subsequently defile all the following drops and the whole thing will be impure.

השמן תחילה לעולם – and even though it congealed it doesn’t depart from the status of liquid.

Rabbi Meir says: oil always remains unclean in the first degree. And the sages say: honey also. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: also wine. Rabbi Meir says that unclean oil retains its first degree of impurity even if it becomes solid and then melts again and there is exactly the volume of an egg (see yesterday's mishnah, which discussed sauce, barley-mash, and milk). This is because when it became solid it was neither a liquid nor was it considered food. Therefore, when it turned back into a liquid, it is considered as never having lost its status as liquid. The sages add that the same is true of honey. This refers to honey directly flowing from the hive. R. Shimon Shezuri adds in wine as well.

ר' שמעון שזורי אומר אף היין – [wine] that congealed does not depart from the status of liquid. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

A mass of olives that fell into an oven that was heated: If [the olives] were exactly the size of an egg it [the oven] remains pure; But if it was more than that of an egg the oven becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the olives were separated even if there was a se'ah of them, it remains clean. A mass of olives that are stuck together and are impure falls into a hot oven. As food, the olives do not defile the oven because food does not defile vessels. But if liquid comes out of the olives and is impure it will defile the oven because liquid can defile vessels. If the olive mass is only exactly the amount of an egg, it won't defile the oven. Even if liquid begins to flow from the mass when it hits the oven, the remainder of the mass is less than an olive, so it doesn't defile. But if it was more than an egg, then as soon as the first drop comes out, the food will defile the liquid and the liquid will then defile the oven. If the olives fall separately into the oven, then each is less than the size of an egg, and even if liquid comes out of the olive, the oven will remain pure.

וגוש של זיתים (lump/clod of olives) – many olives that are attached together. And we are speaking about an impure lump/clod.

בביצה מכוון טהור – the oven [is pure], for food does not defile a vessel. But liquid that comes out from the clod/lump on account of heating, it has nothing for what that it defiles, for since the first drop [of liquid] departed [upon heating], it is missing from an egg’s bulk, but when there is in the clod/lump more than an egg’s bulk, when the first drop exudes there still remained in the clod/lump the equivalent of an egg’s bulk, and when the drop in the clod/lump is defiled, and it returned to being first-degree [of ritual impurity], the drop defiled the oven, for liquids defile a vessel.

אם היו פירודים – if the olives were separate that they are not a lump/clod.

אפילו הן מאה – meaning to say even if they are the measurement of one-hundred eggs, they do not combine to be an egg’s bulk to defile the oil that exudes to become first-degree [of ritual defilement].

ובלבד שלא יגע במשקין – as for example, that he pressed them with flat wooden implements that do not become defiled , for now there is nothing here that would defile the liquids other than the husk/pomace of grapes that someone defiled by a corpse had touched , for he was not careful regarding their contact other than when liquid exudes, and when the liquids come in contact with the husks/pomace of grapes there is already missing the measurement of an egg’s bulk. But food does not defile with less than an egg’s bulk.

Introduction Today's mishnah continues to deal with cases where one drop comes out of something, becomes impure through contact with the food from which it came and then conveys uncleanness back to the food.

יותר מכביצה טמא - that since the first drop had exuded, it became defiled with the equivalent of an egg’s bulk, for even though the liquid that is absorbed in the food is not susceptible to receive ritual defilement with it, it completes its measurement. For like it, we find adjacent (in the next Mishnah) regarding an olive’s bulk from a corpse or from a carrion that had been reduced/shrank in the sun and he placed them in the rain and they swelled up, for the rains that are absorbed/swallowed up complete to make up the measurement.

A man who had corpse uncleanness who pressed olives or grapes: If its bulk was exactly that of an egg, the juice remains clean provided he does not touch the place on which the liquid is; But [if the bulk was] more than that of an egg, the juice becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out, it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. The impure person is pressing olives or grapes, and we need to know whether he conveys his impurity to the grape juice or olive oil. If the amount of juice or oil is exactly the volume of an egg, then the juice or oil remains pure, for the same reason we learned in the first two mishnayot of our chapter. Once the first drop is removed, there is less than an egg's worth of food and less than an egg's worth of food is not susceptible to impurity. However, the mishnah notes, if the person with corpse impurity touches the liquid then the liquid is impure and all subsequent drops will be impure as well. But if there is more than an egg's worth of liquid then all of the juice (or oil) will be unclean because the first drop is defiled by contact with the impure olives or grapes.

If the person was a zav or a zavah [the juice] becomes unclean even if only one berry [was pressed out], for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by carrying. The difference between a zav (person with abnormal genital discharge) and a person who has corpse impurity is that a zav or zavah defiles through carrying, even if they don't touch that which they are carrying. So in this case, it doesn't matter how many berries (of grapes or olives, both are called "berries") the juice will be impure by virtue of its being carried by a zav or zavah.

If a zav milked a goat, the milk becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop comes out it becomes unclean by carrying. Similarly, if a zav milks a goat (notice, goat and not cow) the milk will immediately be defiled even if the zav doesn't touch it because a zav conveys impurity by carrying.

הרי אלו טהורים – an egg’s bulk they consume and it is referring to an olives’ bulk from a corpse and an olive’s bulk from a carrion and a lentil’s bulk from the a creeping insect/reptile.

Introduction This mishnah deals with food that originally was large enough to be impure (or to have some other rule apply to it) and then became smaller because it was left out in the sun.

הניחן בגשמים ונתפחו טמאין – for all of the measurement that we follow are after their size/greatness. And from here, we hold that there is no suspension/removal of an object from its purpose regarding prohibitions.

If an egg's bulk of food was left in the sun and it was lessened, and so also in the case of an olive's bulk of corpse, an olive's bulk of carrion, a lentil's bulk of a sheretz, an olive's bulk of piggul, an olive's bulk of notar, or an olive's bulk of forbidden fat they become clean; In all of these cases something was the requisite size to convey impurity or to be impure. It was then left in the sun and it dried out and thereby lost the requisite size. Since the object is no longer large enough, it becomes clean. I will explain what each of these items is: Food: needs to be the size of an egg to become impure. Pieces of corpse, carrion (an animal that was not properly slaughtered) and a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing): needs to the size of an olive to transmit impurity. Piggul: is sacrificial meat slaughtered by a priest who had the intent to eat the meat in the wrong place or at a time when it couldn't be eaten. Notar: sacrificial meat left over beyond the time when it should have been eaten. Forbidden fat: helev, the forbidden fat of a permitted animal.

Nor is one liable on account of these for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat. Just as the piggul, notar and forbidden fat do not convey impurity if their bulk becomes less than an olive, so too one who eats them is not liable for karet, which is the usual punishment for eating one of these substances.

If they were then left out in the rain and they swelled, they become unclean and guilt is incurred on account of them for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat. If any of these substances is left out in the rain, it returns to its original impurity and if one eats one of the latter substances (piggul, notar or forbidden fat) he is liable.

אם טמאות טמאות – like that which is taught further on in the Mishnah in the Chapter "השרץ והצרפדע" [Tractate Taharot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 7]: “If one touched someone at night, and it is not known if he is alive or dead, and in the morning he arose and found him dead,… the Sages declare unclean….for all unclean things [are adjudged] as they are at the time that they are found.” And specifically, in the place where they are found, to exclude if he touched someone at night in this corner and on the morrow found him dead in another corner and other things similar to it.

Introduction Today's mishnah begins a new subject which will be discussed until the end of chapter six cases of doubtful impurity. Our mishnah deals with a doubt concerning when something became impure or became susceptible or unsusceptible to impurity.

אם מכוסות מכוסות – as, for example, an earthenware vessel that is surrounded by an airtight lid , we don’t say that perhaps at the time that the corpse was in the tent, it was uncovered and now it is covered, or if they found it uncovered, we don’t say that perhaps at the time that the corpse (was in the tent) it was covered and surrounded by an airtight lid.

All cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found: If they were then unclean they are assumed to have been unclean [all the time]; And if clean they are assumed to have been clean [all the time]. This clause means that if a substance is found and it currently is large enough to convey impurity or to be impure, then it is assumed to have been unclean at an earlier time as well. For instance, if the food has an egg's bulk then any food that is known to have touched it earlier is assumed to be impure (if this is a case in which the food would convey impurity, such as to a liquid). The opposite is true as well. If the food is currently too small to be impure, we assume that it was always too small to be impure.

מחט שנמצאת מלאה חלודה (a needle that was found filled with mold/rust) – that prevents the sewing, for mold/rust like this purifies it from its defilement.

If they were then covered they are assumed to have been covered [all the time]; And if uncovered they are assumed to have been uncovered [all the time]. If a piece of corpse impurity is found in a tent (an ohel) that is covered in a way that would prevent the impurity from escaping, we do not have to be concerned lest the impurity was once uncovered and has defiled the vessels that were above or below it. If the corpse impurity is not covered, we must assume that vessels which had been above it or below it were defiled even if they are not there now.

או שבורה טהורה - and we don’t say that perhaps that it when it was whole it was defiled, and when he would repair it and it would return whole, it would return to its earlier/older defilement, and this is the explanation – that if they are pure, they are pure, as is taught above.

If a needle was found full of rust or broken it is clean, for all doubtful cases of uncleanness are determined according to their appearance at the time they are found. A needle is now found in an unusable state and therefore it is pure. Again, anything that touched it earlier is assumed to be pure because we judge doubtful cases as they are currently found, and not as they might have been earlier.

בחזקת טהרה – for even though that regarding doubtful ritual impurity in the private domain is considered as doubtfully impure and this alleyway is the private domain, nevertheless since the doubt is in a matter where it the temperament/disposition [of the participants] is lacking to be able to be asked, as for example, a deaf-mute, imbecile and/or a minor child, he is considered pure in his status of doubt, for this we derive from Scriptural verses, as it is written (Leviticus 7:19): “Flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten.” This implies that something that is definitely impure shall not be eaten; if it is doubtfully impure it may be eaten, as it is written (Leviticus 7:19): “Only he who is pure may eat such flesh.” Someone who is definitely pure may eat it, but if he is doubtfully impure/doubtfully pure, he shall not eat it. But is it not that we learn from it here that when he has awareness/understanding to be interrogated, [as opposed to] when he doesn’t have awareness/understanding to be interrogated.

If a deaf-mute, a person not of sound senses, or a minor was found in an alley way that contained something that was unclean, he is presumed to be clean. An alleyway is considered to be a private domain. In this alleyway there is something that is impure, but we are not sure if the person came into contact with it. The rule in section three will state that if someone or something cannot be asked if they came into contact with something impure, they are ruled to be pure. A deaf-mute, and a person not of sound senses and a minor are all considered to lack what we might call awareness or intelligence. One cannot legally ask them if they came into contact with the impure thing. Therefore, they are pure.

וכל הפקח – that he has awareness/understanding to be interrogated. If he does not know if he walked in a place of defilement or not, he is under the presumption of defilement. For someone of doubtful defilement in the private domain, his [presumption of] doubt is impure which we derive from [the case of] the Sotah/woman suspected by her husband of being unfaithful, and there is a doubt if she is defiled or not and this doubt is in a place of a married woman’s hiding with a man under suspicious circumstances, that is, in the private domain, and the All-Merciful stated (Numbers 5:13): “and she keeps secret the fat that she has defiled herself without being forced,” but a woman suspected by her husband of being unfaithful has awareness/understanding to be interrogated if she has been defiled or not.

But any one of sound senses is presumed to be unclean. The person of sound senses can be asked, but in this case he doesn't know if he had contact with the impure thing. Therefore, he is impure.

And anyone/anything that lacks understanding to be inquired of is in a case of doubtful uncleanness presumed to be clean. This is the general rule that explains section one.

ואין השושנים אלא במקום טומאה – for it is impossible that he (i.e., the young child) would take the lilies unless he entered into the cemetery.

A child who was found at the side of a graveyard with lilies in his hand, and the lilies grew only in a place of uncleanness, he is nevertheless clean, for I could say that another person gathered them and gave them to him. Although it seems quite likely that the child picked the lilies from a place that was unclean, and therefore the child is unclean, since the rule is that if a person cannot be asked if he touched an impurity he is pure, even this child is still considered pure. We can see here just how lenient the sages could be in matters of doubtful impurity.

טהור – since it is possible to be placed beside him by another [person], perhaps another child picked/gathered them and gave them to him, for a child lacks awareness/understanding to be interrogated and anything where there is suspicion] of doubt [concerning him] is ritually pure.

So also a donkey that was in a graveyard, his harness remains clean. Since you can't ask the donkey if he went over the graves (unless the donkey happens to be from Shrek), his harness or any other vessels that are on him, remains clean.

וכן חמור – that was standing in a place of ritual purity and we do no know if it entered into the place of defilement.

כליו טהורים – because it lacks awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

תינוק שנמצא בצד עיסה – a ritually impure child that is found at the side of started dough and a piece of this started dough was in his hand.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. A child can be assumed to have had contact with unclean things, such as a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) or something else that was unclean (children play with yucky stuff). If a child is found playing next to some dough and he has some dough in his hands, we would think that it is nearly certain that the dough came from there. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir rules leniently he says that it is possible that a pure person gave the dough to the kid. The other sages are not so lenient. They say that even if the child is not holding on to the dough, it is impure because children like to play with dough. Sort of like ancient play-doh!

ר' מאיר מטהר – Rabbi Meir according to his reasoning who took into consideration the minority (i.e., the possibility of the rarer cases) and held that the majority of small children slap the started dough, and perhaps he himself took the risen dough and defiled the started dough, but the minority [of young children] do not slap but perhaps a ritually pure person took it and gave it to him, this started dough remains in the presumption of ritual purity, for this minority is near to a presumption and the majority was impaired/weakened, and it was half-and-half and that is ritually pure regarding a young child who lacks the awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. The rest of the mishnah deals with dough that bears traces of an animal having pecked or licked it. Near the dough there is some liquid. We need to now figure out how likely it is that the animal licked the liquid and then brought it over to the dough before the dough dried. If the marking was made by a hen, then the dough is pure if the liquid is far enough away such that the hen could have dried its mouth on the ground. Evidently, hens do this. Who knew?

וחכמים מטמאים – according to their rationale that they are not concerned about a minority, for most young children slap [the dough]. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. If the mark was made by a dog or cow, then they must have had enough time for their tongue to dry out. Dogs and cows lick their lips this I knew.

נקירת – there are small incisions/pickings in the started dough on account of the hens that pecked in it.

And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. If it was made by any other animal, there must have been enough time for the liquid to dry off their mouths or tongues. In all of these cases, if the liquid can be assumed to have dried, the dough is pure.

שינגבו את פיהן בארץ – it is the manner of hens after they drank [water], they dry their mouths on the ground. Therefore, if there is land that forms a partition between the liquids to the loaves [of dough] in order that they can dry their mouths on it after they drank, the loaves [of dough] are ritually pure. But if not, they are impure, for they were defiled with impure liquids that were in the mouths of the hens. But even though that when the land forms a partition, we are doubtful if their mouths were dried or not, this is a doubtful defilement in a matter that there isn’t awareness/knowledge to be interrogated, and its doubt is [nevertheless deemed] ritually pure.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob appreciates that dogs are not stupid. Since there are water and food in the area, the dog would not be foolish enough to go for the water and not the food. Therefore the dough remains pure.

שהוא פיקח – for it is not his manner to drink all the time that he finds food [to consume]. For he (i.e., Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov) says that whenever liquids are found but food is not always found. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.