D. And what is the source of that assertion? Said R. Jonathan, “The Torah testified concerning an [unclean] earthenware vessel [25a] that even if it was filled with mustard seeds [and the inner ones do not touch the wall of the vessel, all of them become unclean by virtue of being in the air space of the vessel].”
E. Said to him R. Ada bar Ahava to Raba, “It ought to be the case that an earthenware vessel becomes unclean from contact [of an unclean object] with its outer surface based on the logic of a qal wahomer [as follows]. What is the case with regard to all other vessels? They do not become unclean through [an unclean object that enters] their air space, yet they do become unclean from contact [of an unclean object] with their outer surface. With regard to an earthenware vessel that does become unclean through [an unclean object that enters its] air space, is it not logical to deduce that it becomes unclean from contact [of an unclean object] with its outer surface?”
F. Said Scripture, “And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, [is unclean]” (Num 19:15). What kind of vessel is it whose uncleanness comes in through its opening? You must say this is an earthenware vessel. And if it has no cover fastened upon it, it is unclean. Lo, if it has a cover fastened upon it, it is clean.
G. And it ought to be the case that all [other kinds of] vessels become unclean through [entry of an unclean object into] their air space based on the logic of a qal wahomer [as follows]. What is the case with regard to an earthenware vessel? It does not become unclean [by contact of an unclean object with] its outer surface, yet it does become unclean [by the entry of an unclean object into its] air space. With regard to all [other kinds of] vessels that do become unclean when [an unclean object comes in contact with its] outer surface, is it not logical to deduce that they become unclean [by the entry of an unclean object into their] air space?
H. Said Scripture, “[And if any of them falls into any earthen vessel, all that is] in it [shall be unclean, and you shall break it]” (Lev. 11:33). [This limits the rule to] what is “In it” in this one [i.e., the earthenware vessel] and not what is “In it” in that one [i.e., all other types of vessels].
I. But this phrase “In it,” have we not already interpreted it for other purposes [as follows]? [It is as if] four times it is written, “In it.” [It writes] “In it” and not “in” [and again] “In it” and not “in.” [Cf. b. Zeb. 3b, following here the translation of Neusner, Zebaim, p. 18]: One serves to express the law itself; another for an argument by analogy; the third bears the implication, “the inside of this, but not the inside of another;” and the fourth teaches: its inside, but not the inside of its inside, and even a utensil that may be retrieved from a condition of uncleanness through being immersed [that is, other than a clay utensil] may serve the purpose of affording protection [to the clay utensil and its contents].
J. And it ought to be the case that all [other kinds of] vessels do not become unclean through contact with their outer surfaces, but only through contact with their inner surface, based on the logic of a qal wahomer [as follows]. What is the case with regard to an earthenware vessel? It does become unclean [by the entry of an unclean object into its] air space. It does not become unclean [by contact of an unclean object with] its outer surface. With regard to all [other kinds of] vessels that do not become unclean [by the entry of an unclean object into their] air space, is it not logical to deduce that they do not become unclean when [an unclean object comes in contact with its] outer surface?
K. Said Scripture, “And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean" (Num 19:15). This is unclean because it does not have a cover fastened upon it. Lo, if it does have a cover fastened upon it, it is clean. Lo, all [other kinds of] vessels, whether they have a cover fastened upon them or do not have a cover fastened upon them, they become unclean.
1:6 G-H
G. What is clean in the case of wooden utensils is unclean in the case of metal utensils.
H. What is clean in the case of metal utensils is unclean in the case of wooden utensils.
I.1
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority, Flat wooden utensils are insusceptible, and when in incomplete form, they are susceptible. Flat metal utensils are susceptible, but when in incomplete form, they are insusceptible.
B. You turn out to rule: What is clean in the case of wooden utensils is unclean in the case of metal utensils. What is clean in the case of metal utensils is unclean in the case of wooden utensils [T. ul. 1:21].
C. And these are incomplete wooden utensils: Any that still need to be smoothed, filigreed, planed, scored, polished with the [oily] skin of a fish. Any [utensil] that is missing [only] a base or a rim or a handle, it can become unclean. Any that lacks hollowing-out, it cannot become unclean.
D. [A utensil] that lacks hollowing-out obviously [cannot become unclean because it has no receptacle]. No [it is not obvious]. It is necessary [to teach this on account of the case of one] who partially hollowed out the wood [lit., he hollowed three logs in a piece of wood that was to be hollowed out to hold four logs].
E. And these are incomplete metal utensils: Any that still need [25b] to be smoothed, filigreed, planed, scored, hammered out. Any [utensil] that is missing [only] a base or a rim or a handle, it cannot become unclean. Any that lacks only a lid can become unclean.
F. What is the difference between these [metal ones that cannot become unclean] and the others [of wood that can become unclean]? R. Yohanan said, “Since they are made for respect [and not just for utility they must be more completely finished before they are deemed utensils].” R. Nahman said, “Since they are more expensive [and are also made to be displayed they must be more completely finished before they are deemed utensils].”
G. [These opinions appear to be nearly the same.] What is the difference between these views? The difference can be found in the case of a bone utensil. [They are expensive but not made for respect. According to Nahman they fall into the category of metal utensils. According to Yohanan they fall into the category of wooden utensils (Rashi).] And R. Nahman follows his own view. For said R. Nahman, “A bone utensil is like a metal utensil.”
H. Does this imply that a bone utensil can become unclean? Yes. As was taught on Tannaite authority, R. Ishmael the son of R. Yohanan b. Beroqa says, “What does the verse come to teach us, `You shall purify [every garment, every article of skin], all work of goats' hair, [and every article of wood]' (Num. 31:20)? This subsumes under the rule any product made from goats [even] from the horns or from the hooves.” And from where [do we derive that products made from horns or hooves of] other beasts or wild animals [are included in the rule]? From the words, “all work.” If that is the case why does it say, “of goats' [hair]”? To exclude [from the rule items made from the claws of] birds.
1:6 I-J
I. What is liable [for tithes] in the case of bitter almonds is exempt [from tithes] in the case of sweet [almonds].
J. What is liable in the case of sweet ones is exempt in the case of bitter ones.
I.1
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: Small bitter almonds are liable [to tithes], but large ones are exempt. Large sweet ones are liable, but small ones are exempt [T. ul. 1:24]. R. Ishmael b. R. Yosé says in the name of his father, “Both are exempt.” And some say [it was], “Both are liable.”
B. Said R. Ila, “R. Hanina taught in Sepphoris according to the version of the one who says it was, `Both are exempt.'” And according to the view, “Both are liable,”what function can be served by large ones [that they would be deemed liable]? Said R. Yohanan, “Since he can sweeten them by roasting them [they are liable].”
1:7 A-D
A. Grape skin wine: before it has fermented is not purchased with funds deriving from [second] tithe and invalidates the immersion pool.
B. After it has fermented, it is purchased with funds deriving from tithe and does not invalidate the immersion pool.
C. Brothers who are partners: when they are liable to surcharge, they are exempt from tithe of cattle.
D. When they are liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from surcharge.
I.1
A. Who is the authority behind our Mishnah? Not R. Judah and not the rabbis. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, One who steeps grape pulp in water [to form a beverage], and added a fixed measure of water, and [then] found the same measure [of liquid in the tub after pressing the water from the pulp] — [the liquid] is exempt [from the removal of tithes]. R. Judah declares [the liquid] liable [M. Ma`as. 5:6 A-E].
B. Who is the authority [behind our Mishnah]? If it is the rabbis then even though it fermented [as in M. 1:7 B, it still should not be purchased with funds deriving from tithe]. And if it is R. Judah then even though it did not ferment [as in M. 1:7 A, it should be purchased with funds deriving from tithe].
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.