Комментарий к Твуль йом 3:13

כל ידות האוכלים (all [stalks serving as] handles for produce) – the stalks that the food is hung/suspended on them, when they want to suspend them, and a person holds it when he wants to eat the fruit/produce.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. The mishnah refers here to food that is picked up by using a "handle," a piece of the food. We will explain this more when we learn Tractate Oktzin 1:3. If this part is touched by a "father of uncleanness" the entire piece of food is defiled. Similarly, if the food was touched by a tevul yom, the entire thing is defiled.

שהם חיבור באב הטומאה (and it is deemed connected by a primary source of ritual uncleanness) – that if the primary source of ritual uncleanness/defilement touched the fruit/produce itself.

If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. The mishnah now begins to discuss pieces of food that have been broken into two, and yet are still slightly connected. The question is if one touches part of the disconnected piece, is the entire thing defiled? Rabbi Meir says that for the two parts to be connected all that must occur is that the smaller part would be picked up with the larger part. This would mean that it would be quite to consider the two parts connected. Rabbi Judah rules more leniently. Unless the larger part can be lifted with the smaller part, then the two are not considered connected.

חיבור בטבול יום – if it is a handle for produce of priest’s due/heave-offering and the person who had immersed himself that day/Tevul Yom touched that handle, all of the produce/fruit of heave-offering is invalidated.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. Rabbi Nehemiah and the sages say that it doesn't matter which part is large or small, what matters is which part was pure and which part was impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, we examine the part not touched by the tevul yom. If a person picks up the pure part and the impure part that was touched by the tevul yom comes up with it, it is considered connected. . According to the sages, we examine the part that was touched by the tevul yom. If when one picks up the impure part the pure part comes up with it, then it too is impure.

שנפרס (that is broken off/divided) – the language of a piece/half. But there are those who have the reading שנפרם/that it is torn open/exposed. It is the language of (Leviticus 21;10): “or rend his vestments.”

In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk. For other types of food, such as vegetables and fruit, the test is performed by holding the part usually held. If the vegetable/fruit is usually held by the leaf then if he picks it up by the leaf and the vegetable/fruit is lifted up as well, then it is all connected. The same is true if the fruit is usually held by the stalk.

מעורה (intertwined/interwoven) – attached [somewhat].

אם אוחז בגדול – the large piece, and the small piece goes up with it and is not broken off from everything.

הרי הוא כמוהו – and if a person who had immersed himself that day/Tevul Yom touched one of them and the second [piece] is invalidated.

ר' נחמיה אומר בטהור – meaning to say, in that which the person who had immersed himself that day did not touch we estimate/measure, whether it is large or whether it is small. If he grabs hold of it, and the impure part is with him, both of them are impure.

וחכמים אומרים בטמא – we estimate/measure, if he grabs hold of the impure piece and the ritually pure piece goes up with it. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

ושאר כל האוכלים – as for example kinds/species of vegetables.

את שדרכו לאחוז – when he comes to carry it, he holds it by its leaf, but if the green/vegetable breaks and falls when he holds it by the leaf, it is a connection/junction, but if not, it is not a connection, whether if the Tevul Yom/person who had immersed himself that day had touched the leaf or whether he touch the green/vegetable itself.

ירק של תרומה שנתנו בקערה או באלפס וביצה טרופה (a vegetable of heave-offering that was placed in a bowl or in a tightly covered pot

If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer. The mishnah discusses an egg that was fried and put on top of some terumah vegetables. If the tevul yom touches the egg, he doesn't disqualify all of the vegetables just the stalk that was directly below the part of the egg he touched. Rabbi Yose says that he disqualifies the entire upper layer of vegetables which touch the egg.

and a beaten egg) – in a dish, that the white of the egg and the yolk/yellow of the egg were mixed together and placed on top of the vegetable.

But if it was arranged like a cap it does not serve as a connective. If the egg was arranged like a hat over the vegetables, and the egg did not touch them, then touching the egg doesn’t count as touching the vegetable. They remain pure. I think I'm going to go make myself an egg (I'm writing this on Pesah, and there really isn't much else to eat).

ונגע טבול יום בביצה – even though it is not consecrated. For heave-offering does not belong in an egg, and a person who had immersed himself that day/Tevul Yom does not invalidate something that is not consecrated. Nevertheless, there is a connection/junction, and the vegetable is invalidated as if he had touched it. But however, he did not invalidate ought other than the stalk/stem that is corresponding to/over against the touch of his hand. But all of the rest of the stalks/stems are ritually pure.

כל הסדר העליון (all the entire upper row) – the upper stems/stalks that the egg is upon them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

ואם היה כמין כובע – that on account of the cooking, the egg became swollen and became like the hat of a vegetable and it is hollow underneath it.

לפס – like a tightly covered pot, like a kind of a pan that they make a cooked dish in. And this egg is cooked with the heave-offering that is invalidated by a person who had immersed himself that day/Tevul Yom.

The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective. The streak of an egg is the white of an egg that trailed behind when cracking the egg. It is congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touches it. If he touches the streak that is in the pot, then all of the contents in the pot are disqualified (if they are of terumah). But if the streak is outside the pot, the contents of the pot remain pure.

מן השפה – [from the rim] of tightly covered pot and inward, the streak of the egg is considered as a connection, and if the person who had immersed himself that day/Tevul Yom had touched there, everything is ritually defiled. But if the streak [of the egg] that goes from the rim of the tightly covered pot and outward, it is not concerned to be a connection.

Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective]. Rabbi Yose says that if the tevul yom touched the streak within the pot, only the parts of the dish that would be picked up with the streak are disqualified. The rest is not considered connected. And if the tevul yom touches the streak outside of the pot, it is never considered connected.

וכל שנקלף עמו – that is what goes up with the streak, it is a connection and not more. Rabbi Yossi is [judged as] lenient and such is proven in the Tosefta (see Tractate Tevul Yom, Chapter 2, Halakha 10). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot. Beans congealed on the rim of the pot have the same rule as does the streak of egg.

וכן בקטניות – its law is like that of the egg.

אינה נפסלת בטבול יום – we follow after the started dough and not after the leavened dough, even though it is prohibited to non-priests (i.e., literally, “foreigners”).

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. This section refers to hullin dough (non-sacred dough) that had been mixed up with some terumah dough or terumah yeast (starter dough). According to the first opinion, this dough is treated as if it were hullin dough and it is not disqualified if a tevul yom touches it. This is another leniency with regard to the rules governing a tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that since there is terumah mixed in with this dough, it is disqualified.

שהוכשרה במשקה – that placed the wheat in water.

Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Barthotha says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched. The dough was originally made susceptible to impurity by contact with a liquid. Then the dough was kneaded together with fruit juice, which does not cause produce susceptible to impurity. The question is: is all of the dough considered to be connected? According to Rabbi Joshua, this dough is all considered connected and if the tevul yom touches one part, it is all disqualified. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. He holds that just as fruit juice does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity, it does not cause the dough to be connected. The only part that tevul yom disqualifies is the actual part that he touches.

ונילושה במי פירות – but fruit juice does not make susceptible [to ritual uncleanness] and the started dough that was kneaded in them , if it was not made susceptible [to ritual uncleanness] from the outset, it doesn’t receive ritual defilement.

פסל את כולה – for fruit juice makes the started dough a connection.

לא פסל אלא מקום מגעו – for Rabbi Akiva holds that since fruit juice does not make susceptible to ritual uncleanness and doesn’t bring it to a state of defilement, we see them as if they are not, and he did not defile anything other than the place of its contact. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

פסל את כולו – that he (Rabbi Eleazar ben Yehuda of Bartetota in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua) holds that oil makes susceptible for ritual defilement and connects.

Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched. This is a very similar mishnah to yesterday's similar debate, similar people arguing. Rabbi Elazar holds that since the oil spread onto each vegetable, they are all disqualified. The vegetables, covered with the oil, now have the status of the oil. Rabbi Akiva says that terumah oil that comes into contact with hullin vegetables does not give the vegetables the status of terumah. However, contact with the tevul yom does disqualify the vegetable that he touches because he might have touched oil. In other words, the oil and vegetables are not considered to have the same status but we do have to be concerned lest he actually touched terumah oil.

לא פסל אלא מקום מגעו – the oil does not make connection, but it refers to each and every stalk on its own.

שנגס (break off, bite off - who took a bite of some food, and something mixed with his saliva fell on his garments) – he turned the food over in his mouth (i.e., chewing). It is the language of stirring the pot.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with a person who is chewing food and the food falls out of his mouth. First it falls onto his clothes and then onto a terumah loaf of bread (and then my poor meatball, it rolled out the door!). The question is does the moisture on the food cause the loaf of terumah to be susceptible to impurity.

ונפל – the food [fell] with the moistness of the spittle that is upon it on his clothing and on the loaf of [bread of] heave-offering.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. The person did not want this food to end up on his clothes. Therefore, this is considered a case of liquids that are "not to his liking." For liquid to make food susceptible to impurity it generally has to be that he wanted the liquids to come into contact with his food (see introduction to Makhshirin). We should note that the mishnah describes a terumah loaf even though the same halakhah is true even if the loaf is hullin. As far as liquid causing susceptibility to impurity, it makes no difference whether the food is terumah or hullin. The reason the mishnah mentions a terumah loaf is that in section four the tevul yom is discussed and a tevul yom disqualifies terumah.

טהור – the loaf, meaning to say it is not susceptible to receive ritual defilement. And even though mere spittle makes it susceptible. It is different here, for he did not consider to spit and it isn’t on purpose/intentional, for it fell upon his garments and it is obvious that it was not satisfactory to him.

If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. In this case he gathered up a lot of spit in his mouth in order to get the pit out of the olives or dates. Thus the spit was originally something he wanted. Even though later he didn't want the food to fall on his clothes, since originally he did want this spit, it causes the loaf to be susceptible.

כל שהוא רוצה למוץ את גרעינתו (anything on the pit of which he wishes to suck) - if he intended to suck the moisture that is on the pit and the pit/seed fell with the spittle that is upon it on the loaf of heave-offering, the loaf is made susceptible [to receive ritual uncleanness] with the spittle that is on the pit, and that is what he intended.

If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. In this case, the dates or olives were dry and he didn't want to (or perhaps couldn't) suck out the pit. Since he didn't need the liquid of his own spittle it does not cause the loaf to be susceptible to impurity.

זיתים נגובים ומרים יבשות כל שאינו רוצה למוץ גרעינתו – he did not have an inappropriate intention regarding this liquid and it is not susceptible [to receive ritual defilement].

This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person. According to the first opinion, the above halakhot are true even if the person was a tevul yom. A tevul yom is not treated as if he were impure as we see in the sages' response to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says that a tevul yom is considered like an impure person, and an impure person who causes liquids to come into contact with produce causes the produce to be susceptible (and impure) regardless of whether it was to his liking. This halakhah was taught in Makshirin 1:1. While this debate is about one particular and obscure case, we see here a broad dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that a tevul yom, a person who went to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, is treated as if he was impure. The sages disagree.

אחד טהור ואחד טבול יום באלו – meaning to say that both of them are equivalent in this law.

טמאים בטבול יום – as he explains the reasoning, that liquids of an impure person make it susceptible and defile even unintentionally/not on purpose, and a person who had immersed himself that day/Tevul Yom is like an impure person with regard to this law. But the Rabbis consider the person who had immersed himself that day as ritually pure. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.