A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 11: Tohorot: Commentary (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) [Reprint ed.] 9781597529358, 1597529354

Citation preview

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART ELEVEN

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART ELEVEN

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER University Professor Professor of Religious Studies The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies Brown University

PART ELEVEN

TOHOROT COMMENTARY

Wipf_ & Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene,Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 11 Tohorot: Commentary By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1976 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-935-8 ISBN 10: 1-59752-935-4 Publication date 3/19/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1976

For Jakob andElizabeth Petuchowski inf riendship

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

IX

Abbreviations and Bibliography .

XIII

Transliterations .

xvu 1

Introduction I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot Tohorot

Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter

One Two Three Four Five Six . Seven Eight Nine Ten

Appendix. MORTON SMITH,Observations on M. Ohalot 2:1 . The index of Parts XI and XII is at the end of Part XII

17 39 71 91 126 144 158 181 203 226 245

PREFACE The tractate Tohorot is to be compared to cEduyyot in the diversity of its legal themes, four principal ones in all. But it is redacted in accord with the prevailing organizing principle of our order, that is, in terms of its subject-matter-dean foods, removes of uncleanness affecting foods, unconsecrated food, heave-offering, and Holy Things in particular; contamination effected in public and private domain, now involving not only food but also clothing and utensils; the !;aver and the cam ha'"aref; and the cleanness of the olive-vat and wine-press. cEduyyot, by contrast, is organized not by legal themes but by entirely other criteria. What makes the two tractates comparable is that neither deals systematically and in depth with a single theme or unfolding set of cumulative and interrelated legal-logical themes. Rather, Tohorot consists of four major subtractates, as I shall explain in the Introduction. A fair amount of redactional and even tradental work has been done to link the several subtractates, to mark them off from one another and at the same time to tie them together. In some ways the tractate poses special difficulties. Some of its chapters, e.g., Chapter Two, are among the most difficult of our order, presenting complexities as subtle as those at Kelim Chapters Eight through Ten and Ohalot Chapters Nine and Ten, not to mention Parah Chapter Seven (M. Par. 7:1-4, T. Par. 6:4-8). But those of Chapter Two are susceptible of solution through form-critical approaches to exegesis, and that is not the case in the former tractates. As always, when I offer fresh solutions to classic problems, I also report the established ones, generated within the conception of unitary law and literature. Tosefet Rishonim continues to provide the definitive text and exegesis of Tosefta. The true intent of that work becomes increasingly clear. It is not solely to provide an exegesis of each pericope, all the more so to establish "the" reading of Tosefta, though both of these are handsomely accomplished. It is not even to present a dazzling exercise of erudition through the citation of all pertinent parallels to each passage; or a stunning example of exegetical ingenuity through the successful solution of nearly all problems of explanation and meaning, though these too are done. I think what Lieberman has in mind is to achieve something more. He proposes to teach us what is

X

PREFACE

meant by a "critical text," by showing that one cannot approach the problems of textual variants outside of the disciplines of exegesis, and that one cannot undertake the exegetical work outside of the framework of variations of textual tradition represented by both manuscript evidence and also the versions of a passage available in, or to be reconstructed from the comments of, rishonim, and aharonim too. Modestly, his title promises only the latter-- a collection of variants gathered from the citations and explanations of Tosefta in the great classical commentaries. But we arc given much more, as I said: the reciprocal process of exegesis and the construction of a "critical"that is, credible and reliable-text, at one and the same time. In doing the work, Lieberman shows that the "modern" scholars' conception of a critical text is partial and impoverished, neglecting as it does what the text actually purports to tell us. But he also indicates the limitations of those more recent "traditional" commentaries which rely solely or primarily on the available printed texts and pay slight attention to MSS variation. In fact, Tosefet Risho11im dcmon~trates the indispensability of the methods of both the modern Semitists and the classical commentators to Mishnah, beginning with lhosc of the Talmud itself. What is of enduring importance in the approaches of each is synthesized and transcended in this work. My impression is that the methodological contribution of the classical commentators is by far the greater of the two. Interest in variant readings and traditions begins in the earliest stratum of Mishnahcommentary, in the Talmuds; the Semitists did not innovate, except by their interest in MSS variants at a time at which the classical scholars, in yeshivot, had lost interest in the matter and tended to pay slight attention to the sophisticated and critical methods of their own intellectual forefathers. Even the modernists' attention to philological problems, for instance the interpretation of Mishnaic terms in the light of Greek words, will not have surprised some of the established commentators. But, as I think is clear, it was Lieberman who drew upon the best of both scholarly traditions, and, in so doing, answered the ciuestion, \"Xlhatdo we mean by a critical text of a rabbinic document (here: Tosefta)? before it had been systematically asked. One of the pleasures of this work is the opportunity to go over and over T osef et Rishonim on successive tractates, three, four, five and more times, beginning to end. And another is the totally unmerited, unearned privilege of knowing the man and his wife. His acts of kindness and sheer human grace, grace in the exact theological sense, can never be

PREFACE

XI

told. But it may be said, his Torah is equalled by his macasim.I think there are apt to be many, in centuries to come, who, approaching Tosefta with his guidance and confessing due thanks for his genius, will envy our generation-as we must envy the generation of Rambam, Rashi, the third-century Judah, and Abbaye and Rava-for knowing not only the work but also the man. It remains to thank those who have helped me in the present part of the work. My students, Rabbi Tzvee Zahavy and Rabbi Richard Sarason, read the manuscript and checked it against the text and commentaries. They contributed many valuable corrections and comments. My other students of the present time discussed with me various problems of interpretation and continue to share in the unfolding of the work. They too are to be thanked by name: Mr. Joel Gereboff, Mr. Jack Lightstone, Rabbi David Eisenman, Mr. Irving Mandelbaum, Dr. Charles Primus, no;;. at the University of Notre Dame, and Mr. Spencer Ackerman, now continuing his education in Jerusalem. Others mentioned in earlier parts of the work continue to share in the project. Brown University paid the cost of typing the manuscript for Parts Eleven and Twelve. Dr. Jacquelyn A. Mattfeld, Dean of the faculty of Brown University, dealt with my application in this connection not only generously and promptly, but also with exceptional courtesy. I do not take for granted either material support, extended in a time of financial difficulty for universities, or personal consideration. Provost Merton Stoltz and others in the Brown administration and faculty continue to create, for me and many others, a context in which the exacting work of learning is encouraged, both for faculty and for students. My first contact with Jakob Petuchowski came more than twentyfive years ago, when, while in high school, I applied to Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, as a pre-rabbinical student, and he directed my preliminary studies. Over the years, I systematically saved copies of his articles, since he was, and is, one of the few theologians of Judaism who with clarity, grace, and philosophical care addresses himself in a reasonable way to reasonable questions. It was only much later that I came to know the man behind the theology and scholarship and so to enjoy the benefits of the friendship of a dear and kindly gentleman, his wife, and children. Still later, he prepared for graduate work at Brown and sent to me an outstanding young man of the coming generation, Rabbi Richard Sarason, a student-in-common to us both, and bearer of what I hope is the best in what each of us has to offer.

XII

PREFACE

In the areas in which Jakob Petuchowski labors, for me his word is definitive. This book is a token of thanks to him and his wife for a friendship, over distances of space and time, which endures all things; yet, what my wife and I admire most in the achievements of Jakob and Elizabeth Petuchowski is the way in which they have succeeded in transmitting their heritage of humanity and decency to their three sons. So I intend, too, a token of admiration.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY AE

Ah. Albeck Ar. A.Z. b. B.B. B.M. B.Q. Ber. Bes. Bik. Blackman C

Cohn Dan. Danby Dem. Deut. Ed. EG Eruv. Epstein, Nufah Epstein, Tan. Ex. Git. GRA

HA Hag. Hai Hal. Hoffmann

Hor. Hul.

ID IT

CAqiva Egger, 1761-1837. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). Ahilot I;I. Albeck, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958). C.Arakhin CAvodah Zarah Bavli, Babylonian Talmud BavaJ Batra• BavaJ Me~ica, BavaJ QammaJ Berakhot Be~ah Bikkurim Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. VI. Order Taharoth (London, 1955). H. Loewe, The Mishnah of the Palestinian Talmud (HaMishnah catpi Ketav-Y ad Cambridge) (Jerusalem, 1967). See Hoffmann. Daniel Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London, 1933). Dema•i Deuteronomy CEduyyot Hiddushe Etiyyahu MiGreiditz. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). CEruvin See Nufah See Tan. Exodus Gigin Elijah hen Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), for M., and from standard text of Tosefta Seder 'f ohorot in Babylonian Talmud, for T. Hon CAshir. Emanuel I;Iai b. Abraham Riqi. In QeVUfat Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962), Vol. VI. I;Iagigah Hai Gaon, Perush catSeder Tohorot (Berlin, 1856) I;Iallah David Hoffmann, Mischnajot. VI. Ordnung Toharot. Punktiert, ins Deutsche iibersetzt, und erklart (Third edition: Basel, 1969). From M. Negaim 3:7: John Cohn. Horayot 1;Iullin •Imre DaCat, Nathan Lieberman. In Qevufat Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. •Imrot Tohorot. Samuel Freind. Source: As at Sens.

XIV

Jastrow

K Katsh

Kel. Ker. Kil. KM

Lev.

Levine

Lieberman, TR

Lieberman, YK M

MA Ma. Ma. Er. Maharam Maimonides Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness Maimonides, Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean Maimonides, Uncleanness·of Foodstuffs Mak. Me. Melamed Men. Miq. ML

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, etc. (Reprint N.Y., 1950). Georg Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1968). Abraham I. Katsh, Ginze Mishnah. One Hundred and FiftyNine Fragments from the Cairo Geniza in the SaltykovSchedrin Library in Leningrad (Jerusalem, 1970). Plates 115-127. Kelim Keritot Kila=>yim Kesef Mishnah. Joseph Karo. Commentary to Maimonides, Mishnah Torah. Published in Venice, 1574-5. Text used: Standard version of Maimonides, Mishnah Torah. Leviticus Lee I. Levine, Roman Caesarea. An Archaeological Topographical Study (Jerusalem, 1975: Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of ferusalem), p. 46, n. 345, re M. Oh. 18:9, "East of Caesarea«. are graves." Saul Lieberman, Tosefeth Rishonim. A Commentary. Based on Manuscripts of the Tosefta and Works of the Rishonim and Midrashim and Rare Editions. III. Ke/im-Niddah. IV. Mikwaoth-Uktzin (Jerusalem, 1939). Used: IV, pp. 49-106. Saul Lieberman[n], HaYerushalmi Kifshuto (Jerusalem, 1934). Babylonian Talmud Codex Munich (95). (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). Misbnah Al;aronah. Ephraim Isaac of Premysla. Published in 1882. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Macaserot Mishnayot Macaseh 3 Ereg-Pene Zaqqen. By Yi~9aq Yehudah Safrin (Levov-Leroberg, 1862). Vol. VI. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg (1215-1293). For source, see Sens. Mishnab c;m Perush Rabbenu Moshe ben Maiman. Trans. Joseph David QappaQ. VI. Seder 'f ohorot (Jerusalem, 1968). The Code of Maimonides. Book Ten. The Book of Cleanness. Translated by Herbert Danby (New Haven, 1954), pp. 253-330. ibid., pp. 205-252. ibid., pp. 331-394. Makhshirin MeCilah E. Z. Melamed, Hayyal;as sheben midrashe halakhah lamishnah velatosefta (Jerusalem, 1967). MenaQot Miqva=>ot Mishnah LaMelekh. Commentary to Maimonides, Mishnah Torah. Judah Rosannes 1657-1727. For source see KM.

ABBREVIATIONS

M.Q. M.S. MT

N Naz. Nid. Num. Nusaf/ Oh. p Pa Par. PB Pes. PZ Qid. QS

QZ Rabad R.H. Rosh RSS Schereschewsky San. Sens

Shah. Shav. Shev. Slotki

Sot. Strashun Suk.

T

T. Ta. Tan.

AND. BIBLIOGRAPHY

xv

MoCed Qafan Melekhet Shelomo. Shelomo bar Joshua Adeni, 1567-1625. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Mayyim T ohorim. Judah Leh Edel Halevi of Bialystok, 5577 [ = 1817]. From reprint of Mishnah in Babylonian Talmud. Mishnah c;m Perush HaRambam. Defus Rishon Napoli [5]252 (1492) (Jerusalem, 1970). Nazir. Niddah Numbers Y. N. Epstein, Mavo leNusal; haMishnah (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 19542). Ohalot Shishah Sidre Mishnah. Ketav Y ad Parma DeRossi 138 (Jerusalem, 1970). Mishnah Ketav Y ad Paris. Paris 328-329 (Jerusalem, 1973). Parah Mishnah Codex Parma "B" De Rossi 497, Seder Teharoth. Introduction by M. Bar Asher (Jerusalem, 1971). Pe~ahim Pene Zaqqen. For source, see Ma. Er. Qiddushin Qol Sofer. I;Iaim Sofer. From Qevu 1at Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. Qol Haramaz. Moshe Zakhuta. From Qevu1at Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. Supercommentary to Maimonides, Code. Rosh Hashanah Asher hen YeJ:iiel, ca. 1250-1327. For source, see Sens. See Strashun. See Tos. Reng. Sanhedrin Samson hen Abraham of Sens, ca. 1150-1230. From reprint of Mishnah Seder T ohorot in Babylonian Talmud, ed. Romm. (Vilna, 1887). Shabbat Shavucot SheviCit Israel W. Slotki, Tohoroth. Translated into English with Notes, in I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Tohoroth (London, 1948: The Soncino Press) pp. 357-415. Sotah Samuel hen Joseph Strashun, 1794-1872. From reprint of Misnnah, ed. Romm, as at Sens. Sukkah Sidre Mishnah. Neziqin, Qodoshim, Tohorot. Ketav Yad Yerushalayim, 1336. Ketav Yav beniqud lefi Massoret Teman. (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1970). Introduction by S. Morag. Tosefta Tacanit Y. N. Epstein, MevoJot LeSifrut HaTannaJim. Mishnah, Tosefta uMidrashe Halakhah. Edited by E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957).

XVI

Tem. Ter. Tif. Jacob Toh. Tos. Reng.

Tos. Zuck.

TR T.Y. TYB TYT TYY

Uqs.

V y. Y.T. Yad. Yev. ZA

Zab. Zev.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Temurah Terumot Tiferet Yacaqov. Jacob ~evi Shapira. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tohorot Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., Rabbinische Texte. Erste Reihe. Die Tosefta. Text. Vbersetzung, Erklarung. Herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel and Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Band 6. Seder Toharot. Text, Obersetzung, Erklarung. Kelim, Ahilot. Edited by Walter Windfuhr. Toharot-Uksin, edited by Gerhard Lisowsky, Gunter Mayer, Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, and Emanuel Schereschewsky. (Stuttgart, 1953-1967). T. Toh. is the work of Emanuel Schereschewsky. T. + page and linereferences are to this edition, followed throughout. Tosephta. Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices, with parallels and variants, by M. S. Zuckermandel (Reprint Jerusalem, 1963). See Lieberman, TR. Tevul Yom Tiferet Yisra'el, Boaz. See TYY. Tosafot Yom 'Tov. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, 1579-1654. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tiferet Yisra"Jel, Yakhin. Israel hen Gedaliah Lipschutz, 1782-1860. (With supercommentary of Baruch Isaac Lipschutz = TYB). From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. cuq~in Seder Tohorot c;m Perush... Moshe bar Maimon. Nidpas ca/ yede Daniel Bomberg Bishenat 5282 [= 1522]. Venezia. (Venice, 1522. Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). Yerushalmi. Palestinian Talmud. Yom Tov Yadayim Yevamot Zerac Avraham. Seder Tohorot. Yacaqov Binyamin Ze'ev Kahana Yakimovsky (Vilna, 191.3). Zabim Zev~im

TRANSLITERATIONS ~

-

:l l

,

- B - G - D

n

=

t

n

- w - z - I:I

t,

-

, :, = -

?

-

)

H

Cl

~=

M

1

l=

N

- s 31 !:I 9 - p

0

l" p

,

~=

s

- Q - R

r

tt.i

- s

y

iV

-

s

K

n

-

T

L

INTRODUCTION The problem facing the ultimate redactor of our tractate and his solution of it present the most interesting aspect of the present work. Mishnah-tractate Tohorot, bearing the title of the Order as a whole, analyzes not a single problem of law but many, not a limited agendum of topics distinctive to matters of cleanness but a range of principles, which, expressed in diverse details, affect other tractates and orders as well. We have, in fact, four small units, or subtractates, skillfully woven together into one: ( 1) the uncleanness of food and liquid ( units I and II of the following outline), including the proem, 1:1-3:4; (2) how to resolve matters of doubt affecting cleanness and uncleanness, 3:5-6:9 (III); (3) the relationship of the cam hcrareJ and the baverl in respect to cleanness and uncleanness, 7:1-8:S (IV); and ( 4) rules on olive-oil and wine, 9:1-10:8 (VI). A unit of miscellanies, 8:6-9 (V), links the fourth group to the first three. Of these four sets of problems, the major conceptions of at least two, ( 2) matters of doubts, and ( 3) the relationship of the baver and the cam hcrareJ, are by no means distinctive to the Order of Purities. Indeed, M. 4:7-13 makes that fact clear in respect to the former, including as it does data of sacrifices and firstlings; M.-T. Demai devote major studies to the questions raised in the latter. I do not know why Rabbi 2 chooses to give us a single, sizable 1 I prefer not to translate };aver and cam ha,aref. The reader will readily induce that, for the present tractate, the former is one who keeps certain laws of cleanness not observed by the latter. But the larger meanings and contexts of these words are still by no means fully worked out. The translation of Herbert Danby, common person and Associate, is the best English equivalent. (May I be forgiven an obiter dictum. I wonder when the achievement of Danby as translator of, therefore commentator on, rabbinical legal texts-Mishnah, Maimonides' Book of Cleanness, to name the two before us-will be fully appreciated. If I do not reproduce the former, it is because the present work requires a much more literal and stylized translation. In the tractates done to date, I found exactly one passage in which the translation is an out-and-out error, and that of a minor order. Danby had to invent a whole vocabulary and develop a fresh style for the work. The greatness of his work on the legal texts-its imagination, creativity, painstaking care, obvious love of the texts themselves-is unsurpassed and places upon us a permanent debt of gratitude.) 2 Obviously, for a vezy long time, we shall continue to attribute to Judah the Patriarch, Our Holy Rabbi, the redaction of Mishnah. Differentiation among the diverse strata of the construction of chapters out of available pericopae, discernment of tradental work, even the creative formulation of pericopae or the revision of I

2

INTRODUCTION

tractate, rather than four small ones. But the choice he makes presents him with a fascinating redactional problem, namely, how to weave together his several units of material, and his solution produces impressive evidence of ingenuity and creative work, not only in redactional, but also in tradental, processes. Beginning with work on the first three major subtractates, setting forth the logical principles and developing the data of law distinctive to each, Rabbi takes the route of uniting the three by constructing a fourth, that on wine and oil, as a reprise of the earlier legal principles and an exercise in their application to a still further principle, one deriving from Makhshirin, and theme of law, wine and oil. In that way he leads us into a major exercise in the principles established, in the main autonomously, in the first three parts, and at the same time he introduces variables applicable solely to the fourth, an elegant way of weaving together his strands of logic and fact into a new, yet connected fabric. Since the matter of size alone elsewhere does not prevent him from taking the alternative route, the presentation of three distinct tractates, one on the uncleanness of foods and liquids, two and a half chapters, one on doubts in matters of cleanness, three and a half chapters, and one on the relationship of the cam ha'aref and the !;aver, another two chapters, I am inclined to think he has in mind to do precisely what he does. That is, he asks himself, how do these matters, discrete and autonomous of one another, fit together? Clearly, the second and third units form a logical progression. For the issue of the cam ha'aref and !;aver is none other than a special case of doubts in matters of cleanness. We do not know what the cam ha'aref actually has done in respect to clean things belonging to the !;aver. How do we resolve our doubt? And the first and second also flow from unit into another. For the doubts to which we devote ourselves in the second unit in fact pertain primarily to whether the processes of contamination of foods, examined in the first unit, have taken place. The fourth unit is Rabbi's finest hour. He systematically picks up the principles established in existing materials in accord with the formal and literary preferences for given sorts of legal themes, detection of various stages and hands in the redactional work-all of this will allow us to dissect "Rabbi" into many parts. Yet, our historical and literary-critical work to date has shown us that the traditions of the rabbinical circles about the history of the rabbinical tradition, when we are able to test and verify them, are unerringly accurate. Or, to put it differently, the tradition presents its own best history. Accordingly, I am inclined to remain contented to speak of Rabbi and to work in accord with the hypothesis that the penultimate and ultimate stages in redaction express the thought of a single extraordinary mind, Rabbi's.

INTRODUCTION

3

the first three and applies them to the special problems of wine and oil: how are these contaminated, as in the first unit, how do camme ha~are! treat them, as in the third, and how do we deal with matters of doubt in respect to them, as in the second. That these three matters are secondary in Chapters Nine and Ten is fairly clear, because the primary theme of those chapters has nothing to do with the principles of Chapters One through Eight, except as it is intertwined with them. That principal conception-that liquid which is not desired does not render something susceptible to uncleanness--of course belongs to tractate Makhshirin, so the linkage is still clearer. Tosefta's arrangement of the order, placing Makhshirin after Tohorot, certainly depends upon the logic of the law common to Chapters Nine and Ten and to Makhshirin. Yet, if the Mishnah tractate concludes with discussion of the principle of desired and undesired liquids (in respect to grapes and olives), then following it with another on other problems or kinds of liquids entirely-Miqvaot-is, if less felicitous, still not without its sense. We also cannot persuade ourselves that Maimonides' alternative treatment of the tractate, its dissection into its component themes, is unsatisfactory. He simply gives part of the law in Those Who Render C01-1chand Seat Unclean, part in Other Fathers of Uncleanness, and part in The Uncleanness of Foodstuffs, in succession. Thus he underlines the discrete nature of the laws of the tractate, declining to follow Rabbi's solution to the problem of their organization and interrelationship, that is, rejecting a tradental and redactional solution in favor of a thematic one. Clearly, Rabbi's approach is the more daring and imaginative of the two. Concommitantly, his choice generates the innovative work of actually creating pericopae to serve as links between one part and the next; or selecting existing pericopae, as at M. 8 :6-9, to accomplish the work of transition-conclusion of one part, introduction of the next. In behalf of Maimonides' preference it must be said that grouping laws by themes and principles intimate to those themes vastly facilitates mastering the details of the law. Rabbi's redaction is artful and subtle; Maimonides' is serviceable, economical, and logical. I appreciate the latter, but admire and am moved by the genius of the former. Let us now turn to the outline of the tractate, so that the sequence of topics and principles and the organization of the whole may be fully spelled out. The redactional facts just now alluded to will become abundantly clear.

4

INTRODUCTION

I. Proems. 1:1-8 1:1-3 Thirteen rules on the carrion of the clean bird; the carrion of the unclean bird. 1:4 And with regard to cattle ... 1:5-6 Food made unclean by a Father of uncleanness and food made unclean by an Offspring of uncleanness join together [to make up the prescribed volume of an egg's bulk} in accord with the Variations. lighter degree of uncleanness of the two. 1:7-8 Pieces of heave-offering stuck together share in uncleanness affecting one of them. If separated from one another, they continue in that remove of uncleanness. If one stuck to a piece of dough unclean in the first remove other pieces, they all are in the first remove. If one separated them, the other pieces fall into the second remove.

+

The first of the three proems on the surface looks as if it is meant to introduce some other tractate than this one. For its stated subject, carrion of clean and unclean birds and rules on cattle, bears slight relationship to a tractate on cleanness of foods in general. In fact, however, M. 1: 1-4 form a subtle, highly serviceable introduction, both to their own chapter and to the larger subtractate. One principal interest is in whether inedible parts of the animals and birds join together to make up the volume or bulk of food necessary to impart uncleanness, a dominant theme in the remainder of the chapter and important thereafter. The set further asks about whether intention to ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

which can impart food-uncleanness; and it defines the necessary volume for that purpose-an egg's bulk. To be sure, the catalogues include matters not referred to in our tractate, e.g., whether one who eats such unclean food and immerses requires waiting until sunset, is liable for entering the sanctuary, is smitten with forty stripes, and other extraneous rules. So the set is autonomous of our tractate, but has been given its place at the head because of the matter of joining together to form the requisite bulk to convey uncleanness. M. 1 :4A-D are clearest on this point: parts of a cow which join together to convey uncleanness of foods but not to convey the uncleanness of carrion. The second proem, M. 1 :5-6, again deals with rules of joining together, but now from a different angle. The issue is how we deal with foods of varying removes of uncleanness which join together. If we have food in the first remove and food in the second remove, which remove of uncleanness do we impute to the mixture? This set

INTRODUCTION

5

presents an elegant and lavish exposition of that matter. It has a parallel, in principle, at M. Kel. 27:3. And M. 1: 7-8 give us a third beautiful construction, this time on the effects of connection. If pieces of food are joined together and one of them is made unclean, all of them fall into the same remove of uncleanness; when the pieces are separated, they remain in that same remove. But if we have an unclean piece of food and join others to it, while, when joined, all fall into the same remove of uncleanness as affects the original, when separated, the pieces are unclean only by virtue of their former contact with that original piece and fall into a diminished remove of uncleanness. This differentiation between contamination when objects are connected and contamination through posterior connection with an unclean object is fundamental ( and familiar, e.g., from M. Kelim 18:5-6, 8; 19:5; 26:4, 27:7-8, 9-10). The proems, therefore, tell us three most basic rules about the contamination of foods: 1. the requisite bulk for imparting uncleanness and how it is made up in the case of meat; 2. combining foods unclean in different removes; 3. differentiating between contamination after and before connection. It would be difficult to imagine a more appropriate proem to a tractate: general rules stated in the guise of discrete, detailed cases, yet lucidly conveyed so that the principles emerge with clarity. The redactors' exquisite care in construction of the whole is revealed by M. 1 :9, which both follows the tradental theory of Chapter One and forms a thematic and conceptual bridge to Chapter Two; and by M. 8:6, which returns to the concern of M. 1 :1-4, intention in the status of food and imparting food-uncleanness.

II.

Susceptibility t.o Uncleanness of Holy Things, Heave-offering, and Unconsecrated Food. 1:9, 2:1-8, 3:1-4 l:9

2: 1

Variations of removes of uncleanness affecting Holy Things and heave-offering ( = 2:6): Holy Things are made unclean at three removes and unfit at a fourth; heave-offering is made unclean at two removes and unfit at a third. Liquid made unclean at whatever remove always falls into the first remove. A woman pickling vegetables in the pot who touched a leaf (with unclean hands)-even if the leaf is an egg's bulk, if the spot which was touched is dry, the leaf alone is unclean. If she touched liquid on the leaf, the whole is unclean. If the leaf is less than an egg's bulk, only the leaf is unclean. If she was in the first remove, whether or not the leaf is wet, the whole is unclean, if the leaf is of requisite bulk. If she had immersed on the same day, etc.

6

INTRODUCTION

2:2

Affect of eating unclean food on the one who eats it. Eliezer vs. Joshua + C-D: Eating unconsecrated food prepared as if it were heave-offering. 2:3-6 Capacity of unconsecrated food, heave-offering and Holy Things to impart uncleanness at the several removes from the Father of uncleanness. 2:7 Eleazar: The three are the same in regard to differentiation as to imparting uncleanness. They are differentiated in receiving uncleanness, i.e., as to the susceptibility of that to which uncleanness is imparted. That is, only food in a higher level of holiness ( excluding heave-offering) has the concommitant capacity to receive uncleanness at several removes. Issue: Do we gauge contamination in accord with that which imparts uncleanness or with that to which uncleanness is imparted? 2:8 He who eats food in the second remove should not work in the olive-press. Unconsecrated food prepared as if it were Holy Things is still unconsecrated food. Eleazar b. R. ~adoq: Like heave-offering. 3:1 When food is a solid, it imparts uncleanness as food; when liquid, it imparts uncleanness as liquid ( = is in the first remove). We require the volume of an egg. If solid food is an egg's bulk exactly and begins to melt, the drops of fluid are not contaminated, there being nothing of sufficient volume to impart contamination. 3:2 Oil, honey, wine always in first remove-congealed or fluid. 3:3 Reprise of M. 3:l's concern with the affect of exactly an egg's bulk of food when it begins to liquify. + Variation. 3:4 Egg's bulk of food left in the sun, which shrank, no longer imparts uncleanness. If it swelled up in the rain, it imparts uncleanness.

The second uait, introduced by the set of proems, focuses upon the capacity of food in varying degrees of sanctification-unconsecrated food, heave-offering, and Holy Things-to receive and to impart uncleanness. It is a complex unit, because at a number of points several distinct issues are under discussion. The main point throughout is that Holy Things are affected or produce affects at several removes of uncleanness, heave-offering at fewer, and unconsecrated food at fewest of all. Thus if a Father of uncleanness touches a quantity of food requisite to impart uncleanness, and that food touches other food, and other food touches still other food, and so for a fourth contact, or remove, from the original source of uncleanness, the results will vary. In accord with what considerations will the variation be decided? Two conceptions conflict. One is that we gauge contamination in accord with the status of that which receives the contamination, the other,

INTRODUCTION

7

in accord with that which imparts the contamination. M. 2: 3-6 are clear that our interest is in that which imparts contamination. Unconsecrated food in the first remove has the capacity to render something unclean at one further remove; heave-offering at the second, Holy Things at the third. Thus, as I said, the point of differentiation is the capacity of the food to impart uncleanness to other food. Eleazar, M. 2: 7, by contrast, stresses the capacity of food to receive uncleanness. That which is at the first remove of uncleanness in Holy Things, heave-offering, and unconsecrated food produces equivalent affects. The point of differentiation is the capacity of food at the several removes to receive uncleanness. The three sorts of contaminated food render Holy Things unclean at two removes and unfit at one, render heave-offering unclean at one and unfit at one, and render unconsecrated food unfit, and so throughout; M. 2:2 has Joshua and Eliezer debate the affect of eating unclean food on the person who eats the food. Does eating what is unclean in the first remove make the person who eats it unclean in the first remove or in the second? The issue is, as noted, glossed by concerns important to the dispute of M. 2:3-6 vs. M. 2:7. The simple rule of M. 2 :8 is augmented in the same way. M. 3: 1-4 make a further, interesting distinction, already adumbrated, between solid or congealed and liquid states of the same food. M. 3: 1 begins by differentiating the obvious: when food is solid, it imparts uncleanness in accord with the rules of solid food, when in liquid state, in accord with those of liquid. That is, in the latter instance, it is always deemed unclean in the first remove. The real problem is a much more subtle one: what if we have food of exactly an egg's bulk? When it is congealed, self-evidently, it has the capacity to impart uncleanness. What happens when it begins to liquify? When the drop of liquid which exudes diminishes the solid food, formerly exactly of the bulk of an egg, to less than the bulk of an egg requisite for imparting uncleanness, then is the drop of liquid unclean? Of course not. For the solid ( from which it has flowed) no longer is of the volume requisite for imparting uncleanness. This same problem recurs at M. 3:3 and 4. Now we see how artfully M. 1:1-8 have introduced the whole. What turn out to be the principles generative of major theoretical problems-the size of the bulk of food requisite for imparting uncleanness, the nature of connection, the removes of uncleanness-are those to begin with spelled out in their simplest and most fundamental forms. At this point, the opening subtractate is concluded.

8

III.

INTRODUCTION

Doubts in Matters of Uncleanness. 3:5-8, 4:1-13, 5:1-9, 6:1-9 3:5

All unclean things [are adjudged in accord with their condition] at the moment they are found. 3:6 Deaf-mute, imbecile, minor found in alley in which something unclean is located are deemed clean. But a person of sound senses is deemed unclean. [ = Whoever can be interrogated is assumed unclean.] 3:7 Child beside a graveyard, with lilies in his hand, and lilies are in the graveyard-child is deemed clean. 3:8 Child at the side of dough, and dough is in his hand-dispute of Meir and sages. Dough with marks of hens' beaks, unclean liquid is in house-dough is clean if the hens can have dried beaks by pecking in the dirt. 4:1 A doubt about what is thrown is deemed clean. If an unclean thing has a resting place, doubts concerning it are deemed unclean. 4:2 Creeping thing in the mouth of weasel, which walks on loaves of heave-offering-doubt is clean. 4:3 Unclean things which have no abiding place-doubts concerning them are deemed clean. 4:4 Olive's bulk of corpse-matter in the mouth of a raven-doubt whether or not it overshadowed man and utensils in private domain-man unclean, utensils clean [ = interrogation J. He who draws ten buckets, and creeping thing is found in one of them-it alone is unclean { = doubts resolved in terms of the situation when it is discovered]. 4:5 Six matters of doubt produce burning of heave-offering [ = certain contact, dubious uncleannessJ. 4:6 Two drops of spit-one unclean, one clean-re (1) heaveoffering; (2) touching, carrying, moving; (3) public vs. private domain; ( 4) wet or dry. 12 items: 1. drawn 4:7 Matters of doubt declared clean by sages water; 2. uncleanness floating on surface of water; 3. liquids; 4. hands; 5. public domain; 6. ruling of scribes; 7. unconsecrated food; 8. creeping things; 9. plagues; 10. Naziriteship; 11. firstlings; 12. sacrifices. 4:8~13 Explanatory matter for M. 4:7. 5:1 cAqiva: Doubts in public domain are not always deemed clean. An individual's action in public domain, when there is doubt, is deemed unclean. 5:2 cAqiva again. Yose: Doubt in public domain is deemed clean when it involves walking. 5:3-4 Two paths, one clean, one unclean; one walked in one of them and prepared clean things, which were eaten; man sprinkled and immersed, then walked in other path-second set of food is deemed clean. The condition of the first, which has been treated as if it is unclean, establishes the presumptive cleanness of the second.

+

9

INTRODUCTION

5:5-6 Same case, new apodosis: If two people are in doubt and are interrogated together, doubt is deemed unclean. If interrogated seriatim, both deemed clean, so Judah. Yose: Both unclean (= M. 5:2). 5:7 He who sat down in public domain and someone stepped on his clothes-they follow the majority. If someone slept in public domain; if someone touched someone touched someone at night, and in the morning it was discovered to be a corpse, etc. 5 :8 If there is one female idiot in a village, all drops of spit are deemed unclean. If a woman stepped on one's garments but knows he eats heave-offering, the garments are deemed clean. 5:9 Conflicting testimony of witnesses on a person's uncleanness. Point: conflict in re private domain is resolved in favor of uncleanness; if conflict is about public domain, it is deemed clean. 6: 1 A place which was private domain and became public domain. 6:2 Joshua holds that if we have a doubt encompassing private and public domain, it is treated as subject to the rule of private domain and deemed unclean [ = a doubt about two domains J. 6:3 Tree in public domain; shop open to public domain. 6:4 Any case in which we can multiply doubts and doubts about doubts-in private domain, unclean; in public domain, clean. dispute. 6:5 Canyon in rainy season [ = private domain] 6:6 Doubt re private domain is unclean until one testifies, "I did not touch it"; one in public domain is clean until one testifies, "I did touch it." 6:7 Canyon in dry season is private domain re Sabbath, public domain re uncleanness. In rainy season, it is private domain for both. 6:8 Basilica. 6:9 Forum, colonnades, etc.

+

The large subtractate on how we resolve doubts which pertain to matters of cleanness and uncleanness in principle does not concern only food and so must be regarded as autonomous of what has gone before. Yet many of the cases specify that the issue is food, e.g., dough, heaveoffering loaves, and so on. The arrangement of the tractate is entirely logical. That is, we first introduce rules of contamination of food, we then treat matters of doubt about contamination, with persistent interest in food. The subtractate which follows, doubts about the contamination of food effected by the cam ha"are1,then deals with still a further subset of problems, building on the theme of the foregoing. The last unit, doubts about the contamination, effected by the cam ha,aref, of olive-oil and wine, stands in relationship to the second, fourth, and third units as the fourth does to the third, a reprise of the whole with important, distinctive conceptions as well.

10

INTRODUCTION

The subtractate before us introduces a considerable number of principles, not wholly harmonious with one another, about how we resolve doubts in matters of uncleanness. M. 3:5 thinks that the governing principle is the state of the situation when it is uncovered, with stress, therefore, upon the hour of the actual discovery of the condition of uncleanness. T. complicates this principle by adding that we go by the condition of matters as they are revealed both at the time of discovery and in the place in which the problem is uncovered. M. 3 :6 distinguishes between those who can be interrogated, a matter of doubt concerning whom is deemed unclean, and those who cannot be interrogated, a matter of doubt concerning whom is deemed clean. The two principles are brought into conflict through disputes at M. 3:8. M. 4:1 presents two further, conflicting principles: matters of doubt concerning things which are thrown are deemed clean, and matters of doubt concerning something unclean are deemed unclean if the unclean object has a place in which to come to rest, complementary notions. M. 4:2-3 work out these matters. M. 4:4 marks a conclusion to this unit, spelling out the conflict of the several principles: interrogation, time of discovery, and so on. M. 4:5 deals with a different kind of doubt. We know that heaveoffering has touched something, but are not sure whether what it has touched is unclean or not. We burn the heave-offering-thus a matter of doubt deemed unclean. M. 4:6 mixes a whole set of variables. M. 4:7-13 is a conglomerate, in which M. 4:7, a list of twelve items, is spelled out by secondary materials, M. 4:8-13. The list at M. 4:7 itself is artificial. It concerns matters of doubt, to be sure, but not all the items on the list deal with doubt in respect to cleanness or uncleanness. M. 5: 1 then turns to the distinction between public and private domain, which forms the center of interest of the remainder of the subtractate. cAqiva's thinking on doubts in matters of uncleanness affecting the public domain is complex; he does not agree that all such matters are deemed clean. The interpretation of his position is not easily settled. M. 5 :3-4 deal with doubt in public domain, now complicating the matter by attending to the uncleanness of two items, when we have already dealt with one of the two as if it were certainly unclean. The main point is that the imposed status of uncleanness of one clefinitively proves the status of the other to be dean. M. 5 :5-6 teturn us to the matter of interrogation, now distinguishing between interrogating two people together, and doing so for one, then for the

INTRODUCTION

11

other, conceptually parallel to M. 5:3-4. M. 5:7 returns us to the main point, public domain. But now the point is that we follow the status of the majority of the people. M. 5 :8 has a different, and conflicting, principle: the status of the majority is not definitive. If one drop of spit is unclean, then all drops of spit found in the village are deemed unclean. There is no way to harmonize M. 5:7 and M. 5:8. M. 5:9 gives us a simple rule, that, in the case of conflicting testimony of equal weight, we invoke the principle that matters of doubt in the public domain are deemed clean, in the private domain are deemed unclean. M. 6:1 brings us to a new set of problems on the way we deal with the distinction between public and private domain when we have a mixture of domains. That is to say, what if the object itself is moved from one domain to another? M. 6:2-3 deals with the same theme, but from a different angle. Joshua says that if a matter of doubt encompasses both private and public domain, we subject it to the rule of the private domain. He and cAqiva certainly do not concede that matters of doubt in public domain under all circumstances are declared clean. M. 6:4 concludes the subtractate with a handsome generalization. M. 6:5-9 form an appendix in which we work out the matter begun at M. 6: 1, an area which may at one time be private, at another public domain. This set further introduces the variable in respect to Sabbath law. An area may be treated as private domain in regard to the Sabbath, so that people may carry in that area, but as public domain in regard to uncleanness, so that matters of doubt are deemed clean. At this point the subtractate concludes, a massive, complex, and beautifully worked out unit. IV.

The }Javer and the cAm HaJarer 7:1-9, 8:1-5

7:1 7:2

7:3 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7

The potter who left his pots and went down to drink. He who gives his key to the cam haJare,r-the cam haJare,ris deemed to have charge only over the key. He who leaves an cam ha~are,rinside his house-awake, asleep, etc. He who leaves workers inside his house. The wife of a /;aver who left the wife of an cam haJare; inside the house, grinding grain. He who leaves an cam haJare;inside his house to guard it. The tax-collectors who entered the house ... the thieves who entered the house .... He who leaves his clothes in a locker in the bath house. He who leaves his utensils from one vintage to the next.

12

INTRODUCTION

7:8 7:9 8:1 8:2

8:3 8:4 8:5

He who was clean and changed his mind about eating heaveoffering-do others take care to avoid contamination of the heave-offering ( or of the man) ? The woman who went into the house to get something for a beggar-do we assume the beggar will touch heave-offering she has left outside? He who lives in the same courtyard with an cam ha,aref and left utensils in the courtyard .... He who deposits utensils with an cam ha'aref ... will the cam ha;aref or his wife make the utensils unclean? He who loses something and finds it on the same day, etc.how we resolve doubts about lost objects. He who spreads out utensils to dry: in public domain, clean; in private, unclean. He who leaves house open and finds it open, etc. The wife of an cam ha;aref who entered the house of a raver to get his son, etc.

As noted, from doubts in general, we turn to matters of doubt about what an cam ha,ttr-ef may be expected to do. The main tendency of the law is to assume that, if an cam ha'Jaref knows that something should not be made unclean, he will not deliberately contaminate it. But the cam ha;aref does not know all the details of the cleanness rules, and therefore he or his wife may make something unclean entirely without intention. At the end, M. 8:3-4, the unit is nicely joined through thematic reversion to the foregoing; M. 8:3-4 leave the matter of the cam ha;aref entirely and talk about public and private domain or about leaving a house open and finding it open, and so on. The primary interest of M. 7:lff. is what the cam ha,aref may be expected to do if we give him charge of guarding something. If we give him a key, he will not use it to go into the house. If we leave him asleep in the house and find him asleep, we assume he will not contaminate the house in the meanwhile, in accord with M. 3:5. If we leave workers inside the house, however, they will make things unclean. M. 7:4, 5, and 6 deal with parallel matters: leaving the wife of an cam ha'JareJ inside the house; leaving an cam ha,aref as a guard inside the house; tax collectors and thieves who go into a house, and what all these types of people may be expected to touch or to leave untouched. M. 7:7 gives a special case, clothing in the bath-house. M. 7:8 is another special case: do we assume common folk take pains to avoid contaminating heave-offering food or a person who is expected to eat it? M. 7:9 returns to the theme of M. 7:4-6: leaving an cam ha'aref with heave-offering, thus combining the problem of M. 7:8 with the concerns of M. 7:4-7. M. 8:1-2 conclude the primary

INTRODUCTION

13

unit. First we ask about sharing a courtyard with an cam ha'aref. The issue is the same as the foregoing. Do we assume the cam ha''aref will take care not to contaminate objects in the courtyard? M. 8:2 asks about utensils left in the domain of an cam ha'aref, a refinement of the foregoing. That is, first we deal with space shared by both sorts of people, then we ask about objects belonging to the one and located in the domain of the other. At M. 8:3-4, as I said, we speak in more general terms, without reference to the cam ha'aref in particular. M. 8:5 concludes the section, but makes no effort at a generalization. It is simply a reprise of the issues of M. 7: 1-6. V.

Concluding Miscellanies. Uncleanness of Foods and Liquids. Connection. 8:6-9 8:6

Whatever is edible by man is susceptible until it is unfit for a dog. Whatever is inedible is insusceptible until designated for man.+ Case.

The first of the miscellaneous items brings us back to M. 1: 1, the susceptibility of various sorts of food to uncleanness. 8: 7

The outer side of utensils which were made unclean by liquidsEliezer vs. Joshua: Render liquids unclean but do + /- not spoil food. Simeon brother of cAzariah: Liquids made unclean by outer sides of utensils render unclean at one remove and unfit at one = are in the first remove of uncleanness.

The second of the miscellaneous items bears no relationship to anything else in context. Yet, if I had to account for its inclusion, I should point to Simeon's saying. For his main point is that liquid which is made unclean falls, without regard to the remove of the uncleanness which contaminates it, into the first remove of uncleanness. That once more returns us to the agendum of the first subtractate. It may be, therefore, that the redactor proposes to give us a reprise, at the very end of his work, of the opening units, uncleanness of foods, then removes of uncleanness in respect to liquid. 8:8

8:9

A kneading trough on an incline-bits of [unclean dough], with liquid running beneath them-do the bits of dough join together to form the requisite volume to impart uncleanness to the water? Jet of liquid, water on an incline, flowing liquid do not constitute connectors. A rut of water does.

14

INTRODUCTION

Now the picture becomes completely dear. We conclude the matter with the issue of connection, and this in two parts. First of all, do bits of dough join together to form the requisite volume? Second, does liquid join them together? The latter issue joins M. 8:8 to M. 8:9, and the main point is that flowing liquid does not connect that from. which it flows to that to which it is flowing. Once more we find ourselves in the midst of the issues of the opening units, so that the major set, III-IV, on matters of doubt in general and in respect to the cam ha,aref, in particular, concludes with attention to problems of the inaugural units, I-II, uncleanness of foods and of liquids and connection effected among foods of insufficient bulk, a masterful piece of penultimate redaction. Not only so, but, as we shall now see, the final subtractate is devoted to problems of olive-oil and wine, that is, a subset in the matter of liquids, their contaminability, removes of uncleanness affecting them, and the like. So the effect of the miscellanies is not only to mark a conclusion to the subtractates which have preceded, but also to link the whole to the final subtractate. VI.

Special Liquids: Olive-Oil and Wine. Reprise of II-IV. 9:1-9, 10:1-8 9:1 9:2 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:7

9:8 9:9 10:1

When do olives become susceptible to receive uncleanness? Olives remain insusceptible until the work of preparing them is completed. Sap [ or slime] which exudes is clean [ since it is not desired]. When preparation is done, olives are susceptible. As to the sap-dispute. He who completes olives but leaves aside one basket gives it in the presence of a priest. He who leaves olives in the press to grow soft for facilitating pressing-they are susceptible. For salting-dispute. He who leaves olives on roof-they are insusceptible. If they are left to putrify in the house, they are susceptible. If one wanted to take out of a batch of olives enough for one pressing or two-Houses' dispute. All agree the setting apart does not require cleanness, for the batch is not fully prepared. What do we do with the part which is for the press ? The dead creeping thing in the millstones-unclean is the place it touches. If it touched liquid, all is unclean, etc. Dead creeping thing on top of broken-off blocks of olives, vs. on top of broken-off blocks which are on top of broken-off blocks, etc. = Connection. He who locks workers who were camme ha,aref in the pressaffect on utensils.

15

INTRODUCTION

10:2 10: 3 10:4 10:5

Workers entering and leaving press-what do they make unclean? Do we accept their testimony? Workers and immersion pool. Grapes/wine: He who places grapes into press from what was Houses. Issue: stored in baskets or spread out on ground Point at which susceptibility begins. He who eats, grapes from baskets or from what is spread on gr0und-the juice is not preserved and wanted, therefore insusceptible. From what is in grape-baskets or on leaves-the Issue of juice is preserved, so it is wanted and susceptible. requisite quantity for contamination (M. 3: 1-3). cAm haJare.[ who spit near cistern-matter of doubt. Doubt in re emptying out cistern. Public domain and private domain in re grape-vat, etc.

+

+

10:6 10:7 10:8

The amazing fact about our closing subtractate is that it summarizes the primary conceptual problems of all that has gone before, systematically bringing each major concept of units II, III, and IV to bear upon the special problems of grapes and olives. It is a kind of mirror of the first eight chapters, in that we simply say everything we have already said, but now say it about a quite new set of themes. Thus the opening sections, 9: 1- 7, run parallel to unit II, for they deal with the issue of the point at which food becomes susceptible to uncleanness, and 9:8-9 tell us about connection, contamination of liquid, and contamination of solid; M. 10:1-3, 6, run parallel to unit IV, for they tell us about the cam haJareJ and the press; and M. 10:7-8 introduce the interests of unit III, first, doubts in respect to matters of cleanness (here: the wine-vat) and then public and private domain in particular, that is, the same logical order followed at unit III. And yet, self-evidently, our set has its own predominant concern as well, and that may be summarized in a single point: liquid ( oliveoil, wine) which is not wanted does not make something susceptible to uncleanness, and liquid which is wanted does make something susceptible to uncleanness. That point plays no role anywhere else in our tractate. But it forms the dominant theme in much of the closing subtractate, on the one side, and the subdominant theme in those pericopae of the closing subtractate which go over ground familiar in units I-III, on the other, a truly astonishing achievement in uniting discrete materials and marking a conclusion to the whole.

CHAPTER ONE

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE The chapter is in two main parts, M. 1:1-4 and M. 1:5-9. The first unit presents materials only tangentially related to our tractate, rules on the carrion of the dean bird, the unclean bird, and cattle. These are unclean foods, to which our tractate in part is devoted. The first two sets, M. 1:1-2 and M. 1-3, are balanced against one another with some care, each containing ten rules. M. 1 :4 presents two additional rules, twelve in all. The issues of the first two groups are complex. We consider laws of the clean and unclean bird which do not deal with carrion, which do not deal with food-uncleanness, and which have nothing to do with our tractate. But the main point emerges at M. 1 :4: whether various inedible parts of the specified animals and birds may be added to make up the volume or bulk of material necessary to convey fooduncleanness, and that is what joins the nearly autonomous set to our tractate, which it serves as a kind of prolegomenon ( e.g., M. 3:3, 10 :5). Since the inclusion of these inedible parts, moreover, is for the conveying of food-uncleanness but not carrion-uncleanness (M. 1:4), the superscription, stressing that we deal ,with carrion-uncleanness, is inappropriate for the items subsumed within it. It is difficult in still another aspect, for M. 1 :IA promises thirteen items, and there is no way to reach those thirteen items, especially when the unadorned and unglossed counterpart at M. 1 :3 is adduced to reveal the generative form. The whole set therefore poses a number of formal and redactional problems, not to mention the difficulties presented by. the exegesis of the various laws joined together in the large construction; but only a few of these problems require our attention. The first unit bears Ushan attestations. The next major part, 1 :5-9, introducing removes of uncleanness in relation to food, is formed of three autonomous units, M. 1 :5-6, M. 1:7-8, and M. 1:9. Simeon at T. 1:1 cites M. l:5A, which certainly originates in Ushan times at the latest. M. 1 :5-6 present a beautifully formed set of balanced rules, which make the point that when particles of food, unclean at different removes of uncleanness, join together, they share in the uncleanness of the more lenient, or further removed, 2

18

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

of the two removes of uncleanness. That is the case when either part by itself does not form a sufficient bulk of food to be susceptible to, or to convey, uncleanness on its own. But when we have sufficient bulk of food-an egg's volume-to be susceptible to, or to convey, uncleanness on its own, then of course a mixture of two such bulks is deemed to convey uncleanness at the remove of the more stringent of the two. If we then divide such a quantity, so that we are no longer certain whether, in either part, we have a volume of food sufficient to convey uncleanness at the more stringent remove, we invoke the opening rule. This matter is fully worked out. M. 1 :7-8 exhibit the same careful attention to form and balance of detail. Now we discuss, first, pieces of dough which are stuck together and then made unclean. In this case the whole conglomerate is unclean at the same remove. We deal, second, with pieces of dough, one of which is unclean, and the others of which are then attached to the unclean one. In this case, while joined together, the whole shares in the uncleanness of the original, unclean piece, but, when separated, the parts attached after the original piece became unclean do not. Then the pieces made unclean only through their contact with the originally unclean piece now are unclean at one remove less than the originally unclean piece. This is worked out, as in M. 1 :5-6, in sequence, from the first, to the second, and finally to the third remove. M. 1:7 specifies sources of uncleanness at each remove, creeping thing, a Father of uncleanness, liquid, in the first remove, and hands, in the second remove. M. 1 :8 speaks only of the ordinals of remove, without giving in detail the already-specified sources of uncleanness. M. asks about heave-offering, so T. (T. 1 :5) adds the matter of Holy Things. M. 1 :9 is a singleton, not so carefully formulated as the foregoing, but its rule is equally cogent. It presents a paradox to stress the point that liquid made unclean even in the second or third removes ( in the case of Holy Things), that is, by something unclean in the first, or second removes, in any event falls into uncleanness in the first remove. This rule is worked out with reference to loaves of Holy Things touching one another; these contain water, preserved in cleanness fitting for Holy Things, in hollows of the loaves. If any one of them is made unclean by a Father of uncleanness, all are unclean. Why? Because even the loaf third in sequence contaminates the liquid in a hollow on it, the liquid falls into the first remove and forthwith renders its loaf unclean in the second remove, and the loaf fourth in sequence, because of its contact with the third loaf (which

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1 :1-3

19

is unclean in the second remove) , is in the third remove of uncleanness, and affects its liquid in the same way, and so on to infinity. This is so because we count four removes for Holy Things, so what is unclean in the third affects the fourth and thus conveys uncleanness, also, to the liquid which is on it, which liquid then falls into the first remove. In the case of heave-offering by contrast, that is not the case. To be sure, if loaves of heave-offering, which touch one another, are affected by liquid between the loaves, then the same infinite sequence is reenacted. T. 1 :7B states this same rule in still clearer language. In all, the chapter forms a fitting prologue to a tractate concerned, on the one hand, with the uncleanness of foods, and, on the other, with removes of uncleanness and how they affect foods. Attributions and attestations for our chapter are mainly Ushan: M. 1:1-3: Meir, Judah, Yose; M. 1:2 has Ishmael (!); and M. 1:5-6 are attested by Simeon at T. 1:1. Unattested are M. 1:4/T. Ah. 2:1; M. 1:7-8: M. 1:9/T. 1:7B. But at M. Hui. 9:1, Judah attests M. 1:4. 1:1-3 A. Thirteen matters (DBR) (M, K add: N~MRW) regarding the carrion [ meat of an animal which has died without slaughter] of the clean bird [ = hen, duck, goose, turkey, pigeon] : B. (1) It requires intention, and does not require preparation (HKSR) [to become susceptible to uncleanness]. C. And (2) it renders unclean with food-uncleanness [ = as food, subject to the laws by which food conveys uncleanness] when it is the size of an egg [ = makes clean food unclean in the second remove]. D. And (3) [it conveys food-uncleanness] when it is the size of an olive in the [eater's] gullet. [He becomes unclean as a Father and conveys first-remove-uncleanness to clothes and utensils which he touches]. E. And ( 4) he who eats it [ and immerses still] requires waiting [ = remains unclean] until sunset [Lev. 17: 15]. F. And (5) they are liable on its account for entering the sanctuary [before sunset]. G. And (6) they burn heave-offering on its account. H. And (7) he who eats a limb from the living [bird] from it is smitten with forty stripes. I. (8) (N, V, P, K lack W). "Slaughtering it [in the case of ordinary use] and wringing its neck [in the case of Holy Things] render it no longer unclean even if it is f erefah [ = it no longer defiles in the gullet]," the words of R. Meir. [b. Zev. 69b: "That which makes it fit for eating makes it clean, when ferefah, from its uncleanness."]

20

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1:1-3

J. R. Judah says, "They do not render it clean. [ = It nonetheless defiles in the gullet J." K. R. Yose says, "Slaughtering it renders clean, but not wringing its neck." [Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness 3:12: "If a clean bird that is ferefah is slaughtered by a valid slaughtering, it is freed from uncleanness.... "} M. 1:1 (I: b. Zev. 69a; A-C, K: 105b, A-B: Nid. 50b) L. (9) (K: ,BL.) The large feathers (Rosh, GRA) and the down [ of a clean bird} are susceptible to uncleanness and convey uncleanness, and they do not join together {to make up the quantity sufficient to convey uncleanness]. M. R. Ishmael says, "The down joins together" [GRA: Because it is consumed with the bird]. N. (10) The beak and the claws are susceptible to uncleanness and convey uncleanness and join together. 0. R. Yose says, "Also the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail join together, P. "for so they are allowed to remain on fattened birds." M. 1 :2 (M: b. Hui. 58b, Zev. 105b; A-B: Nid. 50b, Bekh. 10a; I: Zev. 69a) A. The carrion of the unclean bird (1) requires intention and preparation [to become susceptible to uncleannessJ. B. And (2) renders unclean with food-uncleanness when it is the size of an egg. C. And (3) in the size of a half-loaf's bulk of it to render the body unfit [ for one who would eat heave-offering]. D. And [the rule of} an olive's bulk in the gullet does not apply to it. E. And ( 4) the one who eats it does not require waiting for sunset. F. And (5) they are not liable on account of it for coming to the sanctuary [M. Par. 11:4]. G. But ( 6) on its account they burn the heave-offering. H. And (7) he who eats a limb from the living [bird} from it does not receive the forty stripes. I. And (8) slaughtering it does not render it clean. J. The (9) large feathers and the down are susceptible to uncleanness and convey uncleanness and join together [to form the egg's bulk or the half-loaf's bulk]. K. The (10) beak and the claws convey uncleanness and are susceptible to uncleanness and join together. M. 1 :3 (b. Hul. 102a, 121a, 58b)

The superscription poses a considerable problem, for while we are promised thirteen rules concerning the carrion of the dean bird, we

TOHOROT

CHAPTER ONE

1 :1· 3

21

are given ten, as enumerated in Arabic numerals-and some of them do not concern carrion at all. The primary structure is revealed in the unadorned version at M. 1 :3, which compares to M. 1 :1-2 as follows: M. 1. 2. 3.

1:1-2

Intention, not preparation Size of an egg Olive's bulk in gullet 4. Waiting for sunset 5. Coming to sanctuary 6. Heave-offering burned 7. Forty stripes 8. Slaughter/wring neck [dispute] 9. Large feathers and down 10. Beak and claws [ + Y ose, tips of wings]

M. 1:3 1. Intention, preparation 2. Size of an egg 3. Half-loaf [not olive's bulk] 4. Waiting for sunset 5. Coming to sanctuary 6. Heave-offering burned 7. Forty stripes 8. Slaughtering does not render it clean 9. Large feathers and down 10. Beak and claws

There is no way that M. 1:1-2 can yield thirteen items, if M. 1:1-2 are constructed in the same model-which certainly is the fact-as M. 1:3. And even the ten items common to the two constructions pose a problem, since Nos. 7 and 8 deal with eating a limb from the living bird and slaughtering the unclean/ clean bird, and here we speak of the living bird and not of carrion. M. 1:3 No. 8 is senseless except as a counterpart for M. 1:l's No. 8. Maimonides (Mishnahcommentary) counts as follows: Intention Preparation Egg's bulk Olive's bulk in gullet 5. Sanctuary 6. Heave-offering 7. Forty stripes 8. Slaughtering purifies it 9. Wringing neck purifies it 10. Feathers and down 11. Down does not join together 12. Beak and claws render unclean 13. Beak and claws join together in gullet. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Bertinoro 8. Slaughtering and wringing 9. Feathers 10. Down 11. Down not join 12.

Beak

13. Oaws

For M. 1:1-2 this enumeration is viable at L and N, treating each item as two rules. That gives us not thirteen but twelve. It is hardly

22

TOHO ROT CHAPTER ONE 1: 1- 3

likely that slaughtering and wringing the neck are two separate items, unless we treat the superscription as Meir's alone (which is possible but not likely). And M. 1:3 No. 8 does not know wringing the neck at all. The real criterion for evaluating Maimonides' enumeration is whether it gives us an equivalent number of items for M. 1 :3, which knows nothing of thirteen and, according to my count, yields the expected ten. Let us apply to M. 1:3 Maimonides' mode of counting: 1. 2.

Intention Preparation

3. Egg's bulk Half-loaf Sunset 6. Sanctuary 7. Forty stripes 8. Slaughtering 9. Feathers and down susceptible to uncleanness 10. Feathers and down join together 11. Beak and claws susceptible to uncleanness 12. Beak and claws join together. 4. 5.

As noted, there are only twelve, even treating the appropriate items as two. The matter of wringing the neck is therefore essential, however we count the other items, in reaching the desired number of thirteen. We faced this same problem at M. Neg. 13:1. I simply cannot understand how the glossator who added M. l:lA and ignored the equivalent trait of M. 1:3 counted his thirteen items; Maimonides is surely right in insisting that wringing the neck is a separate one, since we must reach thirteen somehow. But then the glossator ignores Judah, who does not distinguish slaughtering from wringing the neck, and Yose, who includes the one and not the other. That the "list" of ten/twelve/thirteen ( = M. 1: lA) is artificial and post facto is in any event self-evident, since, as I said, No. 7 has no place in a list of rules about carrion, and No. 8 is probably out of place as well. Other items, moreover, are not comparable to one another. What we have is a collection of rules on the same theme, not related in logic or tendency, put together into a catalogue only after the several rules had been formulated. It is not possible to maintain that the thirteen refers to M. 1:1-4, that is, thirteen things: clean bird ... unclean bird ... cattle... , because M. 1:4 contains two rules, which requires that M. 1:1-2 and M. 1:3 contain eleven. But M. 1:1-2 and M. 1:3 are so carefully balanced against one another, whether we

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1:1-3

23

count five or ten separate rules, that it is impossible to find or to group thirteen items among the three sets. Let us now consider the details of the law of the carrion of the clean and unclean bird. The carrion of the clean bird requires intention, meaning that the person has to give thought to eating it before it conveys food-uncleanness; then it conveys uncleanness like unclean foods. It is not common to ,eat carrion, which is why intention is required (Maimonides). It does not require wetting down to be made susceptible to uncleanness; subject to proper intention, it is unclean in the first remove already and conveys uncleanness on its own, even without touching a Father of uncleanness (TYY). The carrion of the unclean bird must be subject to intention to be eaten and also must be made wet to became susceptible to uncleanness. The requisite quantity of the clean bird's carrion and the unclean bird's carrion is the same, the bulk of an egg. Maimonides reminds us that the food itself can become unclean at any bulk, but conveys uncleanness to other food or liquid only if it is of the bulk of an egg. As to eating the carrion of the clean bird, however, less than an egg's bulk, but only an olive's bulk of the flesh, when in the gullet of the person, makes the person unclean. He moreover becomes a Father of uncleanness at that moment-so long as he has not swallowed the flesh-and conveys uncleanness in the first remove to clothing and utensils he then touches. In the case of the unclean bird's carrion, that rule does not apply (M. 1:3D). A person who eats the carrion of a clean bird which was made unclean renders his body unfit to eat heave-offering (M. l:3C). This rule at M. 1:3 certainly is out of place, since M. 1 :3A tells us we speak of the carrion of the unclean bird, and M. 1 :3C has a clean bird which was made unclean. M. 1:lE, F, G, and Hare exactly the counterpart of M. l:3E, F, G, and H, as we noticed. If a person is made unclean on account of the carrion of the clean bird, he does not suffice to return to cleanness merely through immersion, but also has to await sunset; the contrary is the case for the person who has eaten the carrion of the unclean bird. If a person ate carrion of a clean bird and inadvertently entered the sanctuary, he has to bring a purification-offering, which is not the case at M. 1 :3F. In both cases heave-offering is made unclean and is to be burned if an olive's bulk of the carrion, whether of clean or unclean birds, touches it. Or if a person ate carrion and, while unclean, touched heave-offering, the heave-offering is made unclean and is to be burned ( GRA).

24

TOHO ROT CHAPTER ONE

1: 1-4

At M. 1:lH and M. 1:3H, we certainly speak of living birds, not carrion. If a person eats a limb from a living, clean bird, he is smitten with the thirty-nine stripes. If he eats a limb from a living, unclean bird, he is not smitten. Slaughtering a clean bird or, in the case of holy things, wringing its neck, means that if the slaughtered bird is found to be ferefah, it is not subject to the rule that the faref-carrion conveys uncleanness when in the gullet. This is the view of Meir. Judah says that in all cases, it remains subject to the rule of gullet, even properly slaughtered, and Yose takes a middle position. M. 1:31 states matters in accord with its context. Slaughtering the unclean bird does not make it clean; it still cannot be eaten. This is self-evident and is included only to match M. 1: 11, which proves that the two constructions are unitary and created to balance one another. The rules of M. 1:21 and M. 1:3J differ on the matter of adding the feathers and down to the quantities specified at B. We do so for unclean birds but do not do so for clean birds. Ishmael disputes the matter at M. 1 :2M. M. 1 :2N and M. 1 :3K are in accord with one another. These parts of the bird are regarded as part of the quantity specified at B. Y ose wishes to add two further items, about which M. 1 :3 knows nothing. Since the rules for the clean and unclean birds agree on the beak and the claws, presumably they will have agreed on the wings and tail, and Yose will have disagreed at M. 1 :3K as much as at M. 1 :2N. Note Epstein, Tan., p. 97: b. Hul. 105b does not know "the words of R. Meir" at M. 1:ll. 1:4 A. And with regard to cattle: B. (1) The hide [joined to a bit of flesh} and (2) the fat, and (3) the sediment, and (4) the flesh and (5) the bones [joined to a bit of flesh}, and (6) the tendons, and (7) and horns, and (8) the hoofs C. join together [with flesh to make up the egg's bulk that suffices} to convey the uncleanness of foods, D. but not [to make up the olive's bulk that suffices to convey} the uncleanness of carrion [that is, if the carrion does not add up ot an olive's bulk, these items do not join to complete the requisite bulk]. E. And similarly: F. He who slaughters an unclean beast for a gentile, and it jerks [its limbs}it conveysthe uncleanness of foods [ since an Israelite has slaughtered

TOHOROT

CHAPTER ONE

1 :4

25

it, the unclean beast falls into the category of food so far as conveying or contracting uncleanness is concerned], but not the uncleanness of carrionG. until it will die, H. or until one will cut off its head. I. [The law] has prescribed more [conditions] to convey uncleanness of foods than convey uncleanness of carrion. M. 1:4 ( = M. Hui. 9:1, B: M. Zev. 3:4)

We have two simple declarative sentences, B-D and F-H. The two rules are given an introduction, A, joining language, E, and a suitable conclusion, I, drawing out the obvious point that uncleanness of foods is conveyed under a greater number of circumstances, B-C, F-H, than the uncleanness of carrion, excluded at D and F. The point of the first list is that the named, inedible parts of the beast join together to form the requisite bulk, an egg's bulk, to convey food-uncleanness, but not to make up the olive's bulk needed to convey the uncleanness of carrion. The parallel is that the unclean beast slaughtered for a gentile while still jerking conveys uncleanness of foods but not uncleanness of carrion. That is, if the beast is made unclean, it renders food and liquid unclean, just as does a clean beast which is slaughtered for an Israelite and which, still writhes. But it does not convey uncleanness as carrion until it no longer is jerking. The point of I is that whatever conveys uncleanness because it is carrion also conveys uncleanness as food. But things which convey uncleanness of food do not convey uncleanness as carrion, because those things may be properly slaughtered and still convey fooduncleanness (Maimonides). This covers F. At M. Hul. 9:1, Judah attests the pericope.

A. An Israelite who slaughtered an unclean animal for a gentile and slaughtered in it two or the greater part of two [ organs of the throat], and it is still jerking-it contaminates with the uncleanness of foods but not with the uncleanness of carrion. B. A limb which separates from it is as if it separated from the living creature, and flesh which separates from it is as if it separated from a living creature. And it is prohibited to the children of Noah, and even if the beast died. If one killed it by stabbing, it does not contaminate through the uncleanness of foods. If he cut so much as renders it ferefah, there is no uncleanness pertaining to it at all. C. And a gentile who slaughtered a clean beast for an Israelite. and slaughtered in it two or the greater part of two [ organs of the throat], and it is still jerking-

26

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1 :4-6

it renders unclean as does food, but it does not render unclean as does carrion, and a limb which separates from it is as if it separates from a living creature, and flesh which separates from it is as if it separates from a living creature. And it is prohibited to the children of Noah, and even if the beast dies. If he killed it by stabbing, it does not render unclean as foods convey uncleanness. If he slaughtered in it one [ organ of the throat J or the greater part of one, no uncleanness pertains to it at all. If a gentile cut only so much as does not render ferefah, and an Israelite came and completed [the slaughtering], it is permitted for eating. D. If an Israelite slaughtered in it two or the greater part of two [ organs of the throat ]--the same rule applies to a gentile and to an Israelite: one chops flesh from it and waits until it dies, and it is permitted for eating. T. Ahilot 2:1 (Part IV, pp. 31-2) (b. Hui. 121b)

A expands M. 1:4F. The rest is not relevant to our M. Sens cites the pericope at M. 1 :4. See TR III, p. 97. Having worked out way through these rules, we now set them aside, for not a single pericope in the remainder of the tractate refers to them or depends upon their detailed laws. The only really important point is the distinction between rendering something unclean in accord with the rules by which food renders something unclean, and doing so in accord with the rules by which liquid does so-presently hardly a matter of much importance, and not articulated in the foregoing set.

1:5-6 A. The [solid] food which is made unclean by a Father of uncleanness and that which is made unclean by an Offspring of uncleanness join together with one another [to make up the prescribed volume] to convey the lighter degree [ removeJ of uncleanness of the two. '[P, Katsh #116, M, K, PB start 1:5 here:] How so? B. A half egg's bulk of food which is unclean in the first remove and a half egg's bulk of food which is unclean in the second remove which one mixed with one another[the consequent mixture is unclean in the J second [remove of uncleannessJ. C. A half egg's bulk of food unclean in the second remove of uncleanness and a half egg's of food unclean in the third remove of uncleanness which one mixed together with one another[ it is unclean in the] third [remove of uncleanness]. D. [But] an egg's bulk of food unclean in the first remove of uncleanness and an egg's bulk of food unclean in the second remove of uncleanness which one mixed together with one another-

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1:5-6

27

it is unclean in the first remove of uncleanness. E. [If} one divided them upthis is unclean in the second remove of uncleanness, and this is unclean in the second remove of uncleanness. F. This one fell by itself and this one by itself on (K: LTWK) a loaf of heave-offeringthey have rendered it unfit [ = in the third remove}. G. [If} the two of them fell on it simultaneously [at the same time, not necessarily on the same spot ( GRA) }-they have made it unclean in the second remove of uncleanness. M. 1:5 A. An egg's bulk of food unclean in the second remove and [V, K lack W} an egg's bulk of food unclean in the third remove which one mixed with one anotherit is unclean in the second remove. B. [If} one divided themthis is unclean in the third remove, and this is unclean in the third remove. C. [If} this one fell by itself and this by itself on (V, K: LTWK) a loaf of heave-offeringthey have not made it unfit. D. If the two of them fell simultaneouslythey put it into the third remove [ = render it unfit}. E. An egg's bulk of food unclean in the first remove [V lacks W} and an egg's bulk of food unclean in the third remove which he mixed with one anotherit is unclean in the first remove. F. [If} one divided themthis one is unclean in the second remove, and this is unclean in the second remove. G. For even that which is unclean in the third remove which touched something unclean in the first remove becomes unclean in the second remove. H. Two egg's bulks of food unclean in the first remove, two egg's bulks of food unclean in the second remove which one mixed with one anotherit is unclean in the first remove. I. [If} one divided themthis is unclean in the first remove and this one is unclean in the first remove. J. [If one divided them into} three or four parts-lo, these are unclean in the second remove. K. Two egg's bulks of food unclean in the second remove, two eggs bulks of food unclean in the third remove, which one mixed togetherit is unclean in the second remove. L. [If} one divided them-

28

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1 :5-6

this one is unclean in the second remove, and this one is unclean in the second remove. M. [If one divided them into} three or four parts, lo, these [all} are in the third remove. M. 1:6 (b. Zev. 31a)

This large and elegant unit is formulated in complete, declarative sentences, with only slight apocopation in the examples ( in no way comparable to that found at M. Oh. 6:1 and equivalent constructions). We have four major subdivisions in all, (1) 1:5A-C, (2) 1:5D-G, 1:6A-D, (3) l:6E-G, and (4) l:6H-M. The first opens with a generalization, 1 :5A, followed by two illustrations, B and C. The former illustration deals with the first and second remove, the latter, the second and third remove. The second subdivision requires but lacks an introductory generalization parallel to AL The important shift is that we now have food itself of a bulk sufficient to contract and convey uncleanness. It is mixed with another such quantity. The matter of joining together, to which A alludes, is no longer relevant and the consequent rule shifts. No longer do we assign the status of the consequent mixture to .the lighter degree of uncleanness of the two. Now we impose the more severe. D states that rule through its example. E, F, and G then deal with complications of the rule, to be explained below. M. 1 :6A-D are in exactly the same model. The first set thus presents food in the first remove mixed with food in the second, and the second, food unclean in the second remove mixed with food unclean in the third. The third division carries forward this same matter, quantities of food of requisite volume to convey uncleanness which have mixed together. But now the mixture is between food unclean in the first remove with food unclean in the third, thus completing the thought begun at M. 1 :5D. What distinguishes the third division is the generalization at G and the absence of the issue of heave-offering after F, that in two parts, each falling by itself, then the two falling simultaneously. The final division again presents two carefully paired rules, first/second remove, second/third remove, each spelled out in the same way as the other. H-I go over familiar ground, and what is new is J and its parallel at M. In all, it would be difficult to point to a more carefully constructed set of r.ules. There can be no doubt that the unit, while sizeable, is unitary and harmonious, the work of a single hand. Let us now turn to the substance of the problem. We deal first with the matter of removes, that is, sequences of

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1:5-6

29

contact with the primary source of uncleanness. A Father of uncleanness which touches something susceptible to uncleanness produces an Offspring of uncleanness. These are in four removes from the Father. That which touches the Father is unclean in the first remove. That which touches that which has touched the Father is unclean in the second remove. And so for the third and the fourth, which pertain solely to heave-offering, for the third, and Holy Things, for the fourth. Heave-offering which has touched something unclean in the second remove is rendered unfit; and Holy Things which touch something unclean in the third remove are rendered unfit, a matter resumed at M. 2:4. The problem before us is spelled out by Maimonides (Uncleanness of Foodstuffs 4:12) as follows: An equal quantity is prescribed for all unclean foodstuffs, since no unclean foodstuff conveys uncleanness unless it is an egg's bulk in quantity; and their uncleanness is alike, since no unclean foodstuff conveys uncleanness except by contact; and it conveys uncleanness neither to persons nor to utensils; therefore they can be combined to convey the lesser uncleanness of the two of them. Thus, if there is a half egg's bulk of foodstuff suffering first-grade uncleanness and a half egg's bulk of foodstuff suffering second-grade uncleanness, and they are combined, the whole suffers second-grade uncleanness; and if this touches heave-offering, it renders it invalid. If there is a half egg's bulk of foodstuff suffering second-grade uncleanness and a half egg's bulk suffering third-grade uncleanness and they are combined, the whole suffers third-grade uncleanness. And the same applies in every like case. Even if there is a half egg's bulk of foodstuff suffering first-grade uncleanness and a half egg's bulk suffering fourth-grade uncleanness, as a Hallowed Thing, and they are combined, the whole suffers only fourth-grade uncleanness.

With this in mind, the explanation of the first set, A-C, is simple. Since in our combination a half of the requisite quantity is unclean in the first remove, and a half in the second, the whole mixture is unclean in the second remove, and so with a mixture of second and third. When we come to D, however, our situation changes. Now we have a sufficient bulk to make up a contaminating quantity of food. That is, a whole egg's bulk is unclean in the first remove, and a whole in the second. Do we rule that they convey uncleanness in accord with the lesser or lighter degree? No, now we say the whole conveys uncleanness in accord with the more stringent remove, the first. Why?

30

TOHOROT

CHAPTER ONE

1 :5-6

Because in fact we have in the whole mixture a sufficient quantity to convey uncleanness in the first remove. There is no reason to impose only the lesser degree of remove of uncleanness. On the other hand, E says, if we take the mixture and divide it up, the rule of A does apply. We do not know that within either half is a sufficient quantity of unclean food in the first remove to convey uncleanness in that remove. So we rule that the two parts of the mixture, once divided, convey uncleanness in the lighter degree of uncleanness. It follows, F, that if one of the two parts fell on a loaf of heave-offering, since the part is in the second remove of uncleanness, the heave-offering is rendered unfit, that is, it is placed in the third remove. But, G points out, if the two parts simultaneously fall on heave-offering, then we invoke D, and the heave-offering, subject as it is to be food unclean in the first remove, then falls into the second. There is nothing difficult in this rule, which is simply repeated at M. 1:6A-D. Accordingly, M. 1:SC-G and 1:6A-D spell out the implications of M. 1 :5A and the unstated generalization serving IvL 1:5D. This brings us to M. 1 :6E-G. The important problem is at F. We have a mixture of food unclean in the first and third removes, each sufficient to convey uncleanness. E tells us what we know, which is that the whole is unclean at the first remove. But F explains how to deal with the division. Both parts are unclean in the second remove. Why? Because what was unclean in the third remove has touched something unclean in the first remove. In any event it is now unclean in the second remove. So we simply invoke the rule of M. 1 :5A, the whole, composed of two insufficient parts, is unclean in the lighter of the two removes, the second. This is a logical extension of the opening group. The expected reference to heave-offering is absent. \'vhy? Because it is obvious that if either of the two parts, unclean in the second remove, falls on heave-offering, it is rendered unfit, just as we have already stated at M. 1:5F, and if the two fell on it simultaneously, they make it unclean in the second remove, as M. 1 :SG has said, and for the same reason. H-J and K-M form the concluding set. Now we have two egg's bulks of food uncle,111in the first remove, two in the second. The reason for the specification of two egg's bulks is in J/M. The point of I and L is the same as given earlier. Since the four egg's bulks, when divided into two, still contain at least one egg's bulk unclean in the first remove, both of the divided parts, each with two egg's bulks, are unclean in the first remove. But, J asks, what if we divide the

TOHOROT

CHAPTER ONE

1 :5-8

31

four egg's bulks into three or four parts? Then we again invoke the rule of M. 1 :5A, ignoring what is spelled out at 1 :6G. That is, we take account of the fact that the lesser of the two degrees is second, for J. And for M we do the same. M. 1 :5A has empl:rasized that its rule applies when we have insufficient volume, so that either part by itself cannot convey uncleanness. While dividing the four eggs into four parts, we still have a sufficient volume to convey uncleanness, each of the three or four egg's bulks contains less than a whole egg's bulk of food unclean in the second remove, for K-M ( or first, for H-J). Therefore we hold that the divided part is unclean in the lower, or more lenient, of the two removes. Accordingly, the point that is illustrated is not M. 1 :5A, but M. 1 :5D-E. A. Said R. Simeon, "Why did they say, 'Food which is made unclean by a Father of uncleanness and that which is made unclean by an Offspring of uncleanness join together with one another?' B. "Because it is possible for that which is unclean in the third remove to be made unclean in the second remove. And it is possible [TR IV, p. 45] for that which is unclean in the second remove to be made unclean in ·the first remove. C. "And why did they say, 'The creeping thing and the carrion and the corpse do not join together with one another?' Because it is not possible for a creeping thing to become carrion, and carrion cannot become a corpse." T. 1:1 (p. 287, ls. 3-8)

Simeon refers to M. 1:5A, which gives us food unclean by a Father of uncleanness combined with food unclean by an Off spring of uncleanness. b. Me. 17a asks how something unclean in the second remove can become unclean in the first, since what it touches is unclean in the third remove. Rava explains, "This is what is meant: What caused the object to be rendered unclean in the second remove? It was something unclean in the first remove." Lieberman, TR IV, p. 49, explains more persuasively that something unclean in the second remove can be made unclean in the first remove by fresh contamination. But the creeping thing, carrion, and corpse-matter do not change their status as Fathers of uncleanness, that is, from one to another sort of Father. 1:7-8 of dough [ of heave-offering] stuck to-

A. Pieces (MQ~WT) gether, B. and loaves stuck together-

32

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE 1:7-8

C. [ if] one of them is made unclean by a dead creeping thing [a Father of uncleanness], D. they all are unclean in the first remove [as if all had touched the insect,,since they are deemed connected to one another]. E. [If] they were separated (K: PRSH = one separated it, and so throughout J [from one another J, they are all unclean in the first remove, [ since they originally were connected when contaminated, so they are all affected equally by the creeping thing]. F. (If they they were made unclean by] liquid [which is always unclean in the first remove], they all are unclean in the second remove. G. [If) they separated [ from one another], they all are unclean in the second remove. H. (If they were made unclean by] hands [in the second remove], they all are unclean in the third remove. I. [If] they separated [from one another], they all are unclean in the third remove. M. 1:7 A. A piece of dough [of heave-offering], which was unclean in the first remove, and one stuck others to it,-they all are unclean in the first remove. B. [If] they separated, it is unclean in the first remove, but all (the rest] are unclean in the second remove. C. [If] it was unclean in the second remove and one stuck others to it, they all are unclean in the second remove. D. (If] they separated, it is unclean in the second remove, but all (the rest] are unclean in the third remove. E. [If] it was unclean in the third remove, and one stuck others to it, it is unclean in the third remove, but all [ the rest J are clean, F. whether they separated or whether they did not separate. M. 1:8

Maimonides (Uncleanness of Foodstuffs 6:18-19) reverses the order of the rules: If a loaf of heave-offering suffering first-grade uncleanness is stuck to other loaves, all incur first grade uncleanness, if it is then separated from them, it still suffers first-grade uncleanness, but the rest bear only second-grade uncleanness... If loaves of heave-offering are stuck together and one of them is rendered unclean by a dead creeping thing, all suffer first-grade uncleanness, even though they are afterward separated ... since they were a single body when they incurred uncleanness.

The italicized words contain Maimonides' differentiation between the two cases (followed by MS, TYY, etc.). At M. 1:7, the contamination occurred when all were a single body of dough; at M. 1 :8, it affected

TOHOROT

CHAPTER ONE

1 :7-8

33

the first, to which only thereafter the others were attached. This certainly is the force of the description of the cases at M. 1 :7A and SA, shtck together ... if one is made unclean ... vs. uncle(m in the first remove and one [then] stuck others to it ... . The point of M. 1 :SF is that the third remove does not cause a fourth in the case of heave-offering, and this gloss is what necessitates our interpreting the whole as a matter of heave-offering. T. gives us Holy Things and a fourth remove, the link to M. 1 :9. The perfection of the formal articulation ( except for the minor interpolation at M. 1: 7B) requires little comment. Each clause is modeled in the form of the foregoing, and the whole is exquisitely balanced in form just as it is in substance. M. 1 :8 clearly is harmonious with M. 1 :7. The latter speaks in general terms-first remove, second, third-while the former specifies the source of uncleanness. Accordingly, the operative difference between M. 1 :7 and M. 1 :8 is simply the contrast between stuck together (NWSKH 7 T) vs. one stuck others ( HSY K) to it. The point of the difference expressed at M. 1 :8 is that the original piece remains in the uncleanness to ,vhich it was originally subject, but the others, once removed, are unclean only by virtue of their (past) contact with it. In M. l. by contrast, the pieces ,;vhen made unclean are a unified mass. If made unclean by a Father of uncleanness, they are all in the first remove of uncleanness and remain so. It remains to observe that the real issue before us is the nature of connection. The principle is that what is connected at the point of contamination shares in the contamination of the whole. What is added only thereafter shares in the contamination of the whole so long as it is part of the whole, but, once it is separated, it remains unclean only by virtue of its former condition. This same point is made at M. Kcl. 18:7 (Part II, pp. 133ff.) with reference to the leg of a bed. The leg of the bed is unclean with midrcts-uncleanness and attached to a bed. The whole bed is now unclean with midrcts-uncleanness. When one removes the leg, the leg remains unclean with midras-uncleanness, but the bed falls into the lower remove, unclean through the uncleanness imparted by contact with midras-uncleanness. M. Kel. 18:8 goes over the same ground, now with reference to a phylactery which is in four parts. T. Kel. B.M. 8:7 repeats the same process. None of these pericopae is attested or contains attributions. Since the several autonomous items in fact are meant to illustrate the same rule, it is difficult to see any one of them as other than an effort to spell out, with 3

34

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE

1:7-8

reference to the thematic materials of a given tractate, what in fact are general principles formulated separately from the particular subjectmatter of any one tractate. A. A piece of dough which was unclean in the third remove, and one stuck others to itB. they all are unclean in the third remove so far as Holy Things are concerned. C. {If} that which is unclean in the third remove separated, all [the others} are dean. D. And what is the [case of} one which sticks? (And) the one which removes anything at all from it. E. But if they mashed together, F. for example, the ring of pressed figs and the dates and the figs and the raisinsG. lo, these are not connected. H. Why did they say concerning olives that it is a matter of connection? I. For in the first place one placed them only so that they should suck [ draw moisture] from one another. T. 1:2 (p. 287, ls. 9-15)

A-C are parallel to M. 1:8E-F. But M. speaks of heave-offering, and T. now supplements M. by adding the obvious-the case of Holy Things ( = M. 1 :9). The rule of that which is unclean in the third remove for Holy Things follows what is unclean in the second for heave-offering and in the first for unconsecrated food (TR IV, p. 49). D brings us back to M. 1:7A, defining that which sticks together. The point is that if, when we remove one part, bits of another are removed as well, we have a case of 'sticking together.' But the point of M. 1 :7 in the context of M. 1 :8 is not that we differentiate what is stuck together, M. 1 :7, from what is separable without remnants, M. 1 :8. Rather the difference is between the masses of dough at the moment at which the contamination is effected, as Maimonides stresses. Maimonides thus has interpreted M. in the context of M. alone, without reference to T. Maimonides ( Cleannessof Foodstuffs 6:14) at E reads McK, mashed together thus: If fruits are mashed together and turned into a lump, for example,

fig cake, dates, or raisins, which are made unto a lump and form a single mass, they are not deemed to be connectives;therefore if unclean liquid falls on part of a round cake of figs, only that part on which the liquid falls need be removed, and the rest remains dean.

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE 1 :7-9

35

For H-I, he gives (Uncleanness of Foodstuffs 6:16): If olives are mashed together ( cTN) and turned into a single lump, they are deemed to be connected, since from the beginning they are put into the olive vat in order to draw moisture from one another ....

For E, Sens, however, reads McKB, that is, the dates or raisins adhere to one another but separate without leaving any shreds. Olives differ, then, because, even though they do not stick together but are mashed together and retain their autonomous character, nonetheless they are meant reciprocally to lubricate the mass of olives. What is the force of the question of H? We regard olives as connected to one another even though they do not actually 'bite into' one another but are merely crushed together. Why is this so? Because our intent in mashing them together is to allow them to draw moisture from one another ( TR IV, p. 50). 1:9 A. Loaves of Holy Things [touching one another}, in the hollows of which is water preserved in cleanness fitting for Holy ThingsB. [if} one of them was made unclean by a creeping thing, they all are unclean. {Since even the loaf third in sequence contaminates the liquid in a hollow on it, the liquid is in the first remove and goes and renders the loaf unclean in the second remove. The loaf fourth in sequence is therefore in the third remove of uncleanness, affects its liquid, and so on. Thus all, however many in sequence, are made unclean}. C. In the case of heave-offering, it [the creeping thing] renders unclean at two removes and renders unfit [but not unclean] at one [third remove]. [ And liquid on the third is not unclean, so is not in the first remove, and the fourth loaf in sequence is unaffected.] D. If there is between them dripping liquid, even in the case of heave-offering, the whole is unclean. [The liquid is made unclean and all loaves are in the second remove.] M. 1:9 (y. Hag. 3:2) A. Pieces of dough touching one another and loaves in contact with one anotherB. and in them are holes full of liquidsC. [ if] a dead creeping thing touched one of themD. it is made unclean and renders all of them unclean. E. Lo, this one says, "The things that made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you made me unclean." Sifre Zutta to Num. 19: 11 (Horovitz, p. 306, ls. 3-4)

36

TOHOROT

Maimonides follows:

CHAPTER ONE 1 :9

(Uncleanness of Foodstuffs 9:l0B)

gives the rule as

If there are loaves of hallowed produce having on them hollows, and in the hollows liquid that is hallowed, and a dead creeping thing touches one of them and the first touches the second and the second the third, even if they are a hundred in number, they all suffer firstgrade uncleanness; by reason of the liquid in the hollows and the reverence due to Hallowed Things, it counts as a liquid respecting which no count is made of grades of uncleanness. But if they are loaves of heave-offering, the third loaf is rendered invalid, and from the third onward they remain clean. Yet if there is dripping moisture on all the loaves, even though they are heave-offering, they all become unclean and they all suffer second-grade uncleanness except the first, which the creeping thing has touched, which suffers first grade uncleanness. The case is parallel to the foregoing. Now we have loaves of Holy Things. In the hollows of the loaves is water which is preserved in cleanness fitting for Holy Things ("sanctified water"). We take for granted we have many loaves touching one another. If a creeping thing, a Father of uncleanness, touches one of the loaves, all are made unclean. Why is this so? We cannot improve on Slotki's explanation (p. 367,

n. 4): Since the first loaf that was touched by the creeping thing contracted a first grade of uncleanness; the second loaf contracted from the first one a second grade of uncleanness; the third loaf contracts from the second a third grade of uncleanness, and, since in the case of holy things a third grade may cause a fourth grade of uncleanness, it also imparts uncleanness to the water on it which ( in accordance with the uncleanness of liquids) becomes unclean in the first grade and causes the [next] loaf to contract second grade of uncleanness and so impart to the next loaf third grade of uncleanness. The next loaf, for the same reason, imparts second grade of uncleanness to the one next to it, and so on ad infinitum.

In other words, the water on a loaf raises the degree of uncleanness affecting that loaf, once the water is made unclean, and so each loaf in succession affects the next. Heave-offering, however, is subject to a different rule. The dead creeping thing makes the first loaf unclean in the first remove, and the loaf unclean in the first remove makes the next loaf unclean

TOHOROT

CHAPTER

ONE

1 :9

37

in the second, and the one unclean in the second remove makes the third loaf unfit as heave-offering. Here Slotki explains (p. 367, no. 7): Since in heave-offering a third cannot make a fourth it becomes only invalid but not unclean. As the loaf in the third grade cannot convey uncleanness, the water on it remains clean, so that neither it nor the water can convey uncleanness to the next loaf that touched it, which (like the next loaf that touched it and the one that touched the next, and so on) consequently remains clean.

If we have dripping water between the loaves of heave-offering (D), however, all become unclean. Again Slotki: The liquid between the first loaf and second becomes, in accordance with the law of unclean liquids, unclean in the first grade and consequently conveys uncleanness of the second grade to the second loaf that touched it. Similarly the water between the second and the third loaves becomes unclean in the first grade and causes the third loaf to be unclean in the second grade, and so on ad infinitum.

In other words, the difference between the first case, A-B, and the second, C, is negligible, since the presence of liquid on heave-offering, D, imposes on heave-offering exactly the same rule as we had for A-B. However, if we had dry loaves at A, then B would read, renders unclean at three removes and unfit at one ( the fourth), or some such language. Accordingly, A-Band C by no means contrast to one another. If C had matched A, loaves of heave-offering between which is water preserved in cleanness fitting for heave-offering ( or, all the more so, for Holy Things), then we should have the same rule as in B-they all are unclean. And the point of the rule would have been exactly as at B, which is, liquid made unclean in the second remove is unclean in the first remove and conveys uncleanness accordingly, without limit. This is, therefore, an exceedingly complex way of expressing the simple rule governing contamination of liquid: whatever remove of uncleanness affects water, water, once made unclean, is always unclean in the first remove. GRA points out that the point is the same as M. 2:6: that which is unclean in the second remove in unconsecrated food renders liquid of unconsecrated food unclean and spoils heave-offering foods; that which is unclean in the third remove in heave-offering renders unclean liquid of Holy Things and spoils food of Holy Things. The liquid, made unclean, always falls into the first remove of uncleanness, so far as its effects are concerned.

TOHOROT CHAPTER ONE 1 :9

38

Loaves of Holy Things in their holes [is liquid] C. and the liquid of Holy Things is made unclean in the case of one of them D. by a [ dead] creeping thingE. they all are in the first remove [of uncleanness]. T. 1:7B (p. 289, ls. 3-4) A. B.

T. = M. 1:9A-B. T. supplements at E, by specifying the remove of uncleanness.

CHAPTER TWO

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO Our chapter consists of four distinct units: M. 2:1; 2:2, which leads directly into the third, M. 2:3-6+M. 2:7; and M. 2:8. The first unit presents an exercise in the rules of removes of uncleanness, with particular application to the hands, liquids, and the fevul yom, the one who has immersed on the selfsame day and awaits sunset for the completion of the process of purification. These three set the vertical lines of the grid; the horizontals are unconsecrated food and heave-offering. T. (T. 1 :3ff.) suggests that the conundrum derives from Usha, which is commonly the case for problems set up for solution in accord with established rules. M. 2 :2 introduces the removes of uncleanness once again, but for a separate purpose. Our interest now is in the contaminating affect, upon a person, of eating unclean food. Does the food make the person unclean in the same remove of uncleanness as is borne by the food itself? Thus if one eats food unclean in the first remove, is he unclean in that same remove? This is the view of Eliezer. Joshua says he is unclean in the second remove. The dispute, M. 2:2A-B, at M. 2:2C-D is significantly glossed. The further consideration is introduced as to the sort of food under discussion. Joshua is made to say that there is a difference between the contaminating affects upon the one who eats heave-offering, on the one side, and unconsecrated food prepared in conditions of heave-offering, on the other. This matter, the status of unconsecrated food prepared as if it were heave-offering, or as if it were Holy Things, and heave-offering prepared as if it were Holy Things, forms a substratum of our chapter, added to several primary items and complicating their exegesis. T. 2: 1 confirms, however, that primary to the dispute between Eliezer and Joshua is simply the matter of the affects of food unclean in the first remove upon the person who eats such food. The gloss, M. 2:2C-D, forms a redactionalthematic link between Joshua's opinion and the large construction at M. 2:3-7. M. 2:3-5, expanded and glossed by M. 2:6, follow a single rather tight form, which also occurs at T. 1 :6A. The issues are treated and attested by Ushans. The sequence differentiates unconsecrated food,

40

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

heave-offering, and tithe, each at the several removes. Eleazar, M. 2:7, then insists that, at a given remove, all three are subject to the same rule. The contrary view, M. 2:3-6, is that unconsecrated food in the first remove makes heave-offering unclean and at the second remove spoils heave-offering; it does not enter a third remove and therefore has no affect upon Holy Things. Heave-offering at the first two removes may produce contaminating effects, and at the third remove spoils Holy Things, but is of no effect at the fourth. Holy Things in the first three removes produce uncleanness, and at the fourth impart unfitness to other Holy Things. M. 2 :6 then goes over the ground of unconsecrated food at the second remove, and heave-offering at the third. The explanation of M. 2 :6C is various; the simplest view is that the clause glosses M. 2:6B by insisting that the heave-offering to which we refer is prepared as if it were Holy Things, on which account, at the third remove, it can spoil Holy Things. At M. 2:7, as I said, Eleazar restates matters, treating all threeHoly Things, heave-offering, and unconsecrated food-as equivalent to one another at the first, second, and third removes, with the necessary qualification for unconsecrated food that it is like the other, consecrated foods in producing effects at the second and even the third removes. Some commentators read Eliezer and set the pericope up against Joshua's view at M. 2:2, assigning to Joshua M. 2:3ff. as well. Our picture of the matter is significantly different from the established exegesis. M. 2:8 is a singleton. First, we go over the matter on which Joshua and Eliezer agree at M. 2:2, which is that one who eats food unclean in the second remove is unclean in that same remove. Accordingly, he can make liquid unclean, and it is unclean in the first remove. Therefore he should not work in the olive press, since he will make the oil unclean; T. adds that he also will make the press unclean. Then we raise the issue which, as we have seen, recurs in the earlier pericopae but never is wholly spelled out in one place as an integrated problem: What is the rule if we prepare unconsecrated food as if it were Holy Things? M. 2 :8B says it remains in the status of unconsecrated food. Eleazar b. R. ~adoq says it is like heave-offering. Our chapter does not contain the view that it indeed is like Holy Things. Yet one way of harmonizing M. 2:7 with M. 2:3-6 would be to assert that Eleazar holds the unconsecrated food of which he speaks has, in fact, been prepared as if it were Holy Things, which accounts for 'the fact that it produces the same effects as do Holy Things.

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

41

One persistent problem in our chapter therefore is the introduction of the differentiation between unconsecrated food, on the one hand, and unconsecrated food prepared in accord with the rules of cleanness applicable to heave-offering, and, further, to Holy Things. The issue is intruded, in particular, at M. 2:2, 6, and 8. At M. 2:2, it is surely secondary to the dispute between Eliezer and Joshua, as shown both by form-critical considerations and by T.'s version of the problem under discussion. As to the former, Eliezer says that which is unclean in the first remove makes a person who eats it unclean in the first remove, and so with the second and third. Joshua's theory matches Eliezer's in formal articulation. If one eats something unclean in the first remove, he himself becomes unclean in the second. To be sure, he agrees that if one eats something unclean in the second remove, he too is unclean in the second remove. But, T. explains, that is because what is unclean in the second remove makes the spit in his mouthliquid-unclean in the first remove, and that in turn makes him unclean in the second. Then comes the intrusion, "in respect to unconsecrated food prepared in accord with the rules of cleanness applicable to heave-offering." MSS variants give, further, "heave-offering prepared in accord, etc.," that is, omitting unconsecrated food. On the face of it, this formal issue is secondary, as I said, and T. knows nothing of it. But reading it as part of Joshua's saying, we have then to interpret the whole pericope to deal with two problems, as is clear. The second of these problems is the preparation of food in accord with rules of cleanness not applicable to it, unconsecrated food as heave-offering, M. 2:6; heave-offering prepared as Holy Things; and, M. 2:8, unconsecrated food prepared as Holy Things--the three possibilities. The three are not assembled in a single pericope, rather, added as a layer to the several primary rulings and disputes. Naturally, the further exegetical problem will be raised, in the Talmuds, about whether we regard the unconsecrated food prepared as it were heave-offering, or the heave-offering prepared as if it were Holy Things, as wholly subject to the rules applicable to the higher degree of sanctity, or as only partially subject to those rules. It remains to ask, Is it possible that the issue of unconsecrated food prepared in conditions of cleanness required for heave-offering, and heave-offering prepared in conditions of cleanness required for Holy Things, has been intruded because of some sort of difficulty in the process of transmission of the primary pericopae to which it is attached? Let us compare the pericopae, M. 2:2, 2:6:

42

'110HOROT CHAPTER TWO

M. 2:2B-D: B3: WL) SNY LTRWMH C: BI;ILYN D: sNcsw LTHRT TRWMH M. 2:6C-D (HSLYSY sBTRWMH ... PWSL L'WKLY QDs) C: sNcsw L'fHRT HQDs D: )BL 0M Ncsw LTHRT TRWMH (MTM 0 sNYM WPWSL 0 HD BQDS) Accordingly, the relationships are unmistakeable, and each item means what it says. That is, M. 2:2C-D speaks of unconsecratedfood (I:ILYN) prepared under the conditions of cleanness required for heave-offering, and M. 2:6 clearly wishes to speak of heave-offering prepared under the rules of cleanness required for Holy Things. There is no repetition of the same words in the two pericopae, which might lead to the conclusion that they do not belong in one or the other unit. True, the issue is clearly secondary in both pericopae; but the intruded issue is formulated with precision. Absent from our chapter, moreover, is cA._qiva'sview, at M. Sot 5:2, that unconsecrated food produces not only a second, but also a third remove of uncleanness; this is dealt with rapidly by citing the passage. cAqiva cannot agree with either M. 2:3-6 or M. 2:7, Eleazar. It would be difficult to locate a more complicated chapter of Mishnah. To which strata shall we assign the several pericopae of the chapters? Let us begin with M. 2:2. Here Joshua and Eliezer debate a fundamental point, the affect of eating unclean food upon the person who eats the food. Is he in the same remove of uncleanness as is the food he eats? Shall we assign to that same stratum the issue of the rules for unconsecrated food prepared c1sif it were heave-offering? It is difficult to know. Since Eleazar b. R. $adoq treats the parallel food prepared as if it were Holy Thingsmatter-unconsecrated it is hardly a matter whose status was settled before Ushan times. Moreover, the issue is secondary to, and a logical development of, the matter under dispute between Joshua and Eliezer. Why? Once we ask about whether unclean food produces an equivalent, or a diminished, level of uncleanness upon the person who eats it, we have then to ask about the parallel question of unclean food which naturally belongs in one category (unconsecrated), but which has been placed into another, more sensitive category (heave-offering), by the owner's intent. Is this treated, for purposes of imparting contamination, as if

TOHO ROT CHAPTER TWO

2: 1

43

it were in the category into which it has been raised? So we ask first about how ordinary food imparts uncleanness, and then about how extraordinary food imparts uncleanness. The logical connection to the former issue is tight. What about the complex at M. 2: 3-6 + 7, that is, the removes of uncleanness applicable to unconsecrated food, heave-offering, and Holy Things? M. 2:3 allows two removes for unclean unconsecrated food, and M. 2:5 reenforces that rule; Eleazar rejects it, allowing for three removes of unclean unconsecrated food, saying it affects Holy Things. cAqiva, in a quite separate pericope, is explicit on the matter. While we cannot be sure which Eleazar is before us, not knowing whether it is a Yavnean or an Ushan Eleazar or Eliezer (b. Hyrcanus, as at M. 2:2), cAqiva tells us that the issue is live at Yavneh. He takes up a position contrary to that of M. 2: 3-6, and, it follows, the topic under dispute is to be assigned to Y avneh, in the theory that what we have are several opinions formed ( if not formulated) at the time that the issue was current. M. 2 :SA simply tells us that liquid contaminated by someone unclean in the second remove enters the first remove of uncleanness, a point important to M. 2: l as well, and one which, within our chapter, cannot be assigned to a stratum. The remainder of the disposition of M. 2 :8 is settled by Eleazar b. R. :;:,adoq, as I said, and the whole is apt to be Ushan. Accordingly, we have three major units, M. 2:1/2:SA, for which I see no evidence of a secure assignment except at T. 1:31, Ushan; M. 2:2, which is Yavnean; and M. 2 :3-7, which, as stated, concern rather basic questions about the removes of uncleanness for unconsecrated food, heave-offering, and Holy Things, evidently under discussion in the later Y avnean and U shan circles. Overall, the impression left by the chapter is that the diff erentiation among the several removes of uncleanness, as these pertain to various sorts of food to which uncleanness is imparted, as well as the differentiation of the contaminating affects 11pon such foods of various sources of uncleanness, was accomplished primarily at Yavneh and Usha, upon the basis of remarkably little tradition from the period before 70. 2:1

A. The woman who was pickling vegetablesin the pot and [ with unclean handsJ touched a leaf outside of the pot [V, N, PB, C: or; MA: if] on a dry spot-

44

TOHO ROT CHAPTER TWO

2: 1

B. even though it is an egg's bulk in size [and thus able to impart uncleannessJC. it is unclean [ unfit, in the third removeJ. But the whole is dean. D. [If) she touched a place on which there is liquid, E. if there is in it an egg's bulk, the whole is unclean. F. [Pa, V, N, PB lack:) [If] there is not an egg's bulk in it, it is unclean. But the whole is clean. G. [If] it [the wet leaf] returned to the pot, the whole is unclean. H. [If] she was [unclean because of] contact with [ something unclean with J corpse-uncleanness [ so was in the first removeJ and touched, I. whether a place which is wet or a place which is dry, J. if there is in it an egg's bulk, the whole is unclean. K. [If) there is not an egg's bulk, it is unclean, but the whole is dean. L. [If] a woman who had immersed on the self-same day [and was awaiting sunset for the completion of purification, so was in the second remove] was emptying the pot with unclean hands [ = in the second remove} and she saw liquid on her hands-M. there being doubt whether it [the liquid} had splashed from the pot, or whether the stalk had touched her hands [ and was made unclean thereby}N. the vegetable is unfit, but the pot is clean. M. 2:1 (b. Ber. 20a, Ta. 24a)

We have another exercise in the application of rules of removes of uncleanness, now with special reference to the uncleanness of hands, liquids, and the fevul yom. The pericope is in four parts, A-C, D-G, H-K, and L-N. The pericope is subject to two explanations. In accord with the first, the issue is heave-offering. The uncleanness derives from an Off spring of uncleanness, at the first remove. The second holds that the issue is unconsecrated food. But the uncleanness derives from a menstruating woman, a Father of uncleanness. The first view is spelled out by Albeck, following Rosh, Sens, Bert., TYT, TYY, and MA, and the second derives from Maimonides. The woman, who is clean, is pickling vegetables of heave-offering, so we have to take account of three removes of uncleanness. She makes use of vinegar or salt water. Before the pickling, the vegetable is not rendered susceptible to uncleanness through such liquid. The woman's hands are unclean, so are in the second remove of uncleanness. If she touches the leaf of a vegetable with her unclean hands, the leaf is rendered unfit, at the third remove, but it has no affect upon the pot

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO 2: 1

45

as a whole. Why not? Because the leaf touched by hands, unclean in the second remove, enters the third remove ( = unfit, not unclean). But whatever is in the pot is clean, affected as it is only by the leaf. Why? Because that which is in the third remove does not produce a fourth remove in the case of heave-offering ( = M. 1 :9) and also does not render the liquid in the pot unclean. This is the case, as A specifies, if we touch a leaf outside of the pot which is dry. But, D proceeds, if the woman touches a wet spot on the leaf, then the liquid she has touched with her hands, which are unclean in the second remove, itself enters the first remove. If we have a sufficient bulk of vegetable to convey uncleanness, the whole is made unclean by the liquid which is unclean in the first remove. If not, of course, the leaf nonetheless is unclean, since it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size, but the leaf does not convey uncleanness to the pot. MSS which omit F take the reverse of E's rule for granted . . What is the difference, then, between the first and the second cases? In the second case, the liquid is made unclean directly by the contact with the woman's hands, and so it falls into the first remove of uncleanness, because of its contact with something unclean at the second remove of uncleanness. But in the first case, the liquid is not touched directly by the woman. She has touched a leaf outside of the pot, which is dry. It is in the third, not the second remove of uncleanness. Does something unclean in the third remove of uncleanness render liquid unclean? Not in the case of heave-offering. G completes the second case. Obviously, once the wet leaf, unclean in the first remove, reenters the pot, everything in the pot is rendered unclean, since what is unclean in the first remove ( = the liquid) renders unclean in a second remove in the case of heave-offering ( and renders unfit at the third) . H goes back over the same problem, but has uncleanness not in the second remove, as in the case of the hands, but in the first remove. How so? The woman has had contact with corpse-uncleanness, so she is in the first remove of uncleanness. Now it does not matter whether she touches a place which is wet or dry. If she touches a piece of vegetable insufficient to convey uncleanness, of course it is unclean. If she touches a piece of vegetable which is sufficient in volume to convey uncleanness, then that vegetable, unclean as it is in the second remove, renders the whole unclean. Why unclean and not unfit? Because what is unclean in the second remove renders liquid involved in heave-offering unclean, and that liquid is unclean in the first remove.

46

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO 2:1

The liquid unclean in the first remove thereupon renders everything in the pot unclean-in the second remove. So the difference between the first two cases and the third is in the remove of uncleanness affecting the woman. In the final case, we have a woman who has immersed on the selfsame day. She is unclean in the second remove. She cleans the pot with unclean hands; they too are unclean in the second remove. She now sees liquid on her hands. We do not know whether the liquid has splashed from the pot, in which case what remains in the pot is clean, since what is in the pot has not been in contact with the woman, or whether she has touched a wet stalk with her hands, unclean in the second remove, and made it unclean. If so, the liquid on the stalk is unclean in the first remove, and by it what is in the pot is made unclean in the second remove. How do we settle the matter? The vegetable is unfit. Why? Because a matter of doubt concerns the person who has immersed on the selfsame day (M. T.Y. 2:2). We do not know whether she has touched the heave-offering. Accordingly, in any event, since the woman is in the second remove, the heave-offering is rendered unfit. But the pot is ruled to be clean. Why? Because one who has immersed on the self-same day does not render liquid unclean in the first remove (M. Par. 8:7). The hands, however, do have that affect upon the liquid. The pot is not declared unclean merely because of a matter of doubt, namely, whether the woman has touched the liquid in the pot with her hands, unclean in the second remove. Accordingly, the two conditions of L are important in establishing the matter of doubt, uncleanness deriving from a person who has immersed on the selfsame day, which will not render liquid unclean in the first remove, and uncleanness on account of unclean hands, which will render liquid unclean in the first remove. What is astonishing in this case is the absence of the "principle'' that matters of doubt which take place in private domain are held to be unclean. Since the clear presupposition of the case is that we do not know the source of the liquid, we should, in accord with that principle, deem the whole to be affected by the hands, therefore unclean. In fact, by declaring the pot to be clean, we rule that matters of doubt in the private domain are deemed to be clean. This fact underlines the separate and distinct character of the subtractates of our tractate, which produce cases and rulings in accord with general principles about which other subtractates know nothing. Or, to put it

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2: 1

47

differently, a considerable corpus of principles seems to have been available, each such principle to be worked out in accord with its own cases and problems: removes of uncleanness, doubt in private and public domain, doubts affecting the cam haJare/ and !;aver, and so on. This same curious fact affects Maimonides' interpretation of the pericope, to which we now turn. Maimonides (Mishnah-commentary 2:1) presents a different picture. The woman is preparing unconsecrated food, not heave-offering. But she is in her menstrual period, so she is a Father of uncleanness. Now, he says, we have a vegetable which already is pickled. The menstruating woman touches a leaf outside the pot. If the leaf is dry, even though the leaf is sufficiently large to convey uncleanness, it alone is unclean ( and unclean, not unfit, does suit Maimonides' approach). But what is in the pot is clean. The leaf outside the pot is regarded as wholly separate from what is in the pot, even though a small part is in the pot. Accordingly, Maimonides stresses the matter of the leaf's being outside the pot. If, however, the leaf was wet and she touched it, and it was of sufficient volume to convey uncleanness, since the leaf then renders the liquid on it unclean, and the liquid is connected to the liquid which is in the pot, that is, the liquid in which the pickled vegetables are contained, whatever is in the pot is made unclean. Unclean liquid renders utensils and food unclean. If the leaf is of insufficient volume, the liquid is not made unclean. If the leaf returns to the pot, everything is unclean. Now, obviously, the liquid in the pot is made unclean, and the rest follows. The next case has the woman unclean in the first remove, as we said. Now, however, she touches a vegetable in the pot. The vegetable may be wet or dry. So long as it can convey uncleanness, everything is made unclean. Why? Because the leaf is made unclean by the hands at the second remove, and, in contact with the liquid in the pot, makes the liquid unclean in the first remove. Maimonides at this point stresses that since the leaf is in the pot, whatever is in the pot is connected to the leaf. On this account the liquid in the pot is made unclean, for the second remove in the case of unconse· crated food renders unclean unconsecrated liquid. As to the case of the one who has immersed on the selfsame day, he points out that such a one does not render unconsecrated food unclean. But the unclean hands can do so. The inclusion of the immersion on the self-same day is to link our pericope to T. 1 :3. M. wishes to say that there is no distinction between the case in which the hands are

48

1'0HOROT

CHAPTER TWO

2:1

unclean or clean. The vegetable is unfit. The pot is clean because liquid made unclean because of unclean hanqs does not render utensils unclean at all. Maimonides' explanation is consistent throughout. I think he wishes to begin with the more, not the less severe remove of uncleanness (Father, then Offspring in the first remove), on the one hand, and take full account of the clause about the leaf's being outside the pot, on the other. Maimonides ( Uncleanness of Foodstuffs as follows:

9:3) gives the pericope

If a cooking pot is full of preserved vegetables that are common food, and leaves project beyond the cooking pot, and a Father of uncleanness or one suffering first-grade uncleanness touches a leaf outside the cooking pot on a part that is dry, even though there is an egg's bulk of the leaf, it alone becomes unclean, and all the rest remains clean. If it returns to the cooking pot, it renders the liquid therein unclean, and the cooking pot and all the preserved vegetables become unclean. If he touches a leaf outside the cooking pot, and there is liquid on it, if there is an egg's bulk of the leaf, the whole becomes unclean; for the leaf renders unclean the liquid on it, and the liquid renders unclean all the liquid in the cooking pot and renders the cooking pot unclean. If the cooking pot is full of preserved vegetables that are heave offering and a fevul yom stirs it and sees liquid on his hand and is in doubt whether it splashed from the cooking pot or whether a stalk of vegetable touched his hand, the vegetables become invalid, but the cooking pot remains clean.

Now Maimonides allows for one suffering uncleanness m the first remove. A. All the same is one who has immersed on the self-same day [ and awaits sunset for the completion of purification J on account of a stringent uncleanness and the one who has immersed on the selfsame day on account of a lenient uncleanness, B. and even one who has immersed on the self-same day because of the Zab and because of the Zabah and because of the rest of the sources of uncleanness which are mentioned in the TorahC. lo, they are like one who has immersed on the self-same day on account of being made unclean by the [ dead] creeping thing. D. One who has immersed on the self-same day and one who is made unclean through a corpse and one who has had intercourse with a menstruant-he works at the olive press, [TR IV, p. 50:) except for E. one who is made unclean because of the Zab and because of

TOHO ROT CHAPTER TWO

2: 1

49

the Zabah, (and even) on his seventh day [after being made unclean], lo, such a one should do nothing, F. and if he has done it [worked there], lo, this is suspended. G. And all the same is one who is clean, whose hands are unclean and one who is a fevul yom, whose hands are unclean [TR IV, p. 50)H. he renders unclean liquid of unconsecratedproduce and renders unfit heave-offering-foods. I. And R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "The rule governing the uncleanness of hands does not apply to the one who has immersed on the self-same day." T. 1:3 (p. 283, ls. 16-18, p. 284, ls. 1-5) At Other Fathers of Uncleanness ,10:1-2, Maimonides gives: Whosoever becomesunclean by any Father of uncleanness... suffers first grade uncleanness... until he immerses himself. When he has immersed himself, he still suffers second-grade uncleanness while he is awaiting sunset, for it is said, It must be put into water, and it shalt be unclean until the evening; then it shall be clean (Lev. 11:32). Scripturethus pronounceshim who has immersedthat day to be unclean. (10:2:) No matter whether he was a fevul yom because of a grave uncleanness... or whether he was a fevul yom because of the uncleanness of a dead creeping thing or the like, whatsoever needs to await sunset... is as one who suffers second grade uncleanness until he has awaited sunset. T. l:3A-C go over this matter, and C is the source for Maimonides'. statement at Other Fathers of Uncleanness 10:2. The point is clear. We do not differentiate among the sources of uncleanness which made it necessary for someone ( or something) to immerse and to await sunset. Whatever the source of uncleanness, once immersed, the person ( or thing) is unclean in the second remove and thus will spoil heave-offering which he touches. The point of D-F, with the text following Lieberman, TR IV, p. 50, is that the fevul yom may work at the olive press, because he does not place the oil in the first remove of uncleanness (M. Par. 8:7). But the {evul yom who has been made unclean by reason of being a Zab or Zabah should do nothing connected with clean foods, for we do not know that he will not see another flux and turn out to lose the original days which have passed in cleanness. The point of I (TR IV, p. 50) is that since the {ev11l yom has immersed, his hands too are clean, and, accordingly, are not regarded as unclean. He remains alert to preserving his cleanness until sunset. This view sets the stage for the problem of M. 2:lL-N. 4

50

TOHO ROT CHAPTER TWO 2: 1-2

A. Abba Saul says, "One who has immersed on the self-same day is in the first remove so far as Holy Things are concerned." B. R. Meir says, "One who has immersed on the self-same day renders Holy Things unclean and spoils Heave-offering [ = he is in the second remove]." C. And sages say, "Just as he renders unfit liquid of heaveoffering and foods of heave-offering, so he spoils liquid of Holy Things and foods of Holy Things." T. 1:4 (p. 288, ls. 6-9) (b. Me. 8a)

The tripartite pericope continues T. 1:3. T. 1:3G-H see the fevul yom as unclean in the second remove so far as unconsecrated produce and heave-offering is concerned. Meir concurs. Abba Saul rules on the separate issue of Holy Things. He says we here treat the tevul yom as unclean in the first remove. Sages say the fevul yom is in the second remove for heave-offering-and m the third for Holy Things, a view rejecting both A and B. 2:2 A. R. Eliezer [C: Leazar] says, "(1) He who eats [Sens: a halfloaf in bulk of] food unclean in the first remove is unclean in the first remove; "(2) [he who eats] food unclean in the second remove is unclean in the second remove; " ( 3) [he who eats] food unclean in the third remove is unclean in the third remove [ and unfit to eat heave-offering (Rosh)]." B. R. Joshua says, " ( 1) He who eats food unclean in the first remove and food unclean in the second remove is unclean in the second remove. "(2) [He who eats food] unclean in the third remove is unclean in the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned, "(3) and is not unclean in the second remove so far as heaveoffering is concerned. C. "[We speak of] the case of {N, Pa, P, K, Katsh #117, C, Maimonides' text lack:J unconsecrated food D. "which is prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to heave-offering." [b. Sot. 30a: "But not... Holy Things. What is unclean in the second remove does not produce a third remove in unconsecrated food"]. [PB: WL~ SNY LTRWMH SNcsw LTHRT HQDS. TYT, TYY, Sens: And not unconsecrated food prepared in accord with rules of cleanness of Holy Things, which food is not comparable to Holy Things. Compare b. Hul. 33b.J M. 2:2 (y. Hag. 3:2, on which see Albeck, p. 568; b. Shab. 14a, Sot. 30a. Hul. 33b)

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO 2 :2

51

The dispute is complete and balanced through B. C-D then introduce a complication to gloss the terms of the dispute. So far as Joshua and Eliezer are concerned, the issue is the affect, upon a person, of eating unclean food. Eliezer' s view is that the person enters the same remove of uncleanness as that of the food he has eaten. If he ate food unclean in the first remove, he too is unclean in the first remove and produces equivalent effects, so too second and third. · This simple ruling is rejected by Joshua. His view is that a person who eats food unclean in the first remove is not unclean in the same remove, but only in the second remove; he concurs as to eating food in the second remove. In both cases, the person makes heave-offering unfit if he touches it. Why not lower the person who eats unclean food in the second remove to the status of the third remove? Because, as Rosh and Sens say, following T. 2:1 = b. Hul. 33b, the food he eats makes the spit in his mouth unclean, and, as liquid, it is unclean in the first remove and makes him unclean in the second remove. Clearly, therefore, Joshua's ruling is based upon a somewhat more complex picture. This further affects his view of a person who eats food unclean in the third remove. Will he make the liquid in his mouth unclean, which food then is unclean in the first remove and places him into the second remove? With respect to Holy Things, he will. With respect to heave-offering, he will not. Why? Because in the former, the man unclean in the third remove produces a fourth remove, and, accordingly, the liquid too is affected ( GRA). But in the latter, there is no further remove of uncleanness, so the liquid too cannot be affected. What we have in Joshua's opinion, in other words, is a reprise of the case of M. 1 :9. C-D form a problem because of the MS variants which omit unconsecrated food. If we read C-D as given here, the point is that the foregoing dispute (B) about food unclean in the third remove concerns not heave-offering but unconsecrated food prepared within the discipline applying to heave-offering. The point of the gloss then is that a third remove now applies to unconsecrated food. If we do not read unconsecrated food, then C-D refer back to B's "is not unclean in the second remove so far as heave-offering is concerned." The point is that the third remove applies to Holy Things but not to heave-offering which is prepared in conditions of cleanness applying to heave-offering ( and not to Holy Things). But if the heave-offering is prepared in

52

TOHOROT CHAP1'ER TWO

2:2

conditions applying .to Holy Things, it is subject to the rules of Holy Things, and he who eats food unclean in the third remove places it into the third or fourth remove, as specified. In any event on the surface C-D qualify Joshua's saying only; since Eliezer makes reference neither to Holy Things nor to heave-offering, the qualification and the problem solved by it are not pertinent to his opinion. I am inclined to think C-D have to be introduced by Under what circumstances [do the words of R. f oshua pertain]? Slotki (p. 370) gives, All this applies to common foodstuffs that were prepared in conditions of cleanness that are appropriate for heave-offering [ n. 3: otherwise common food cannot rise to a third grade uncleanness; nor can it apply to actual heave-offering or to holy food which, if unclean, must not be eaten at all.] We return to this gloss, C-D, below, pp. 59-62. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 11:12) gives: If a man eats heave-offering, or common food prepared in conditions of cleanness befitting heave-offering, and they suffer third-grade uncleanness, although he is deemed clean as regards touching heaveoffering, he counts as suffering second-grade uncleanness as regards Hallowed Things [ = BJ, since the cleanness of heave-offering is uncleanness as regards Hallowed Things. But if he eats common food that has been prepared in conditions of cleanness befitting Hallowed Things and it suffers third-grade uncleanness, he remains clean. For there is nothing that can impart fourth-grade uncleanness to Hallowed Things save only that which has itself been hallowed [ = DJ.

That is, Joshua's view at B. How does he interpret M.? Let us now review the pericope through his eyes. Maimonides interprets Eliezer's position in the context of M. 1: 1-4, exactly as does b. Hui. 33b (below). The rule covering a person who eats something unclean is more strict than the rule covering that which is eaten. The carrion of the clean bird itself does not render man and utensils unclean through contact, but the person who eats it is made unclean. Therefore the person who consumes something unclean is surely at least as unclean as what he eats, and Eliezer' s rule follows. Joshua, he says, treats as exceptional the carrion of the clean bird. The rule for the man or utensils is less strict than the rule covering that unclean thing which is eaten. Unclean food, after all, renders unclean when it is the volume of an egg, while the person who eats unclean food is affected thereby only when he eats unclean food a half of loaf in volume. Joshua therefore puts a person at a level of

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2 :2

53

uncleanness one remove lower than that of the thing he eats. Why then does a person who eats something unclean in the second remove remain in the second remove? Because-as explained earlier-of the affect upon liquid of something unclean in the second remove. The liquid enters the first remove, and the person to which liquid imparts uncleanness is in the second. The one who eats food unclean in the second remove therefore spoils heave-offering. As to the next item, he who eats food unclean in the third remove enters the second remove in respect to Holy Things alone, the meaning is, as is readily surmised, the person puts the Holy Things into the third remove. Maimonides interprets C as follows: This one who eats food in the third remove, of whom we speak, who becomes unclean in the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned and in the third remove so far as heave-offering is concerned, has eaten unconsecrated food ( not in his text of M.), which has been prepared in accord with the conditions of cleanness required for heave-offering. Unconsecrated food does not produce a third remove. But wherever such food has been prepared in conditions of cleanness pertinent to Holy Things or heave-offering, we do treat unconsecrated food as if it were heave-offering so far as uncleanness and unfitness are concerned. Thus if a person ate something which is in the third remove as far as unconsecrated food is concerned, if we treat such food as heaveoff ering, it is in the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned. If, then, Holy Things were touched by said food, they enter the third remove. Thus, Maimonides summarizes: He who eats unconsecrated food in the third remove, if the food is prepared in conditions applying to the cleanness of heave-offering, places that food into the second remove so far as Holy Things are concerned, but not in the second remove so far as heave-offering is concerned ( = C). For heaveoffering, the food is in the third remove, thus producing no further affects. It cannot be eaten, to be sure, by the person who eats common food which is clean in accord with the rules affecting heave-offering. But if the food touches other heave-offering, it does not spoil it. A. Said R. Joshua to R. Eliezer, "Where do we find a form of uncleanness in the Torah which produces another uncleanness which is like it [ at the same remove, and not at one remove of diminished virulence], that you say, 'It produces '[uncleanness at] the first, remove?'" B. He said to him, "Also you say, 'It [that which is unclean in the second remove] produces something unclean in the second remove'!"

54

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2:2

C. He said to him, "We find that that which is unclean in the second remove renders liquid unclean to produce uncleanness at the first remove, and the liquid renders food unclean to produce uncleanness at the second remove. D. "But we do not find something unclean in the first remove which makes something else unclean in the first remove in any instance." T. 2:1 (p. 289, ls. 12-17)

T. treats only M. 2:2A-B, omitting reference to the third and fourth removes and to the matter of Holy Things and heave-offering. This strongly suggests that the essential dispute is at M. 2:2A-Bl-2. Eliezer does not answer Joshua's question. He simply points out that Joshua has to answer the same question. At C Joshua does, and it is in accord with T. that we interpreted M. D simply repeats Joshua's opinion in M., in more elaborate language. Let us now rapidly review the discussion of the same matter in b. We begin with b. Shah. 13b, which holds that the laws referred to at M. Shah. 1 :4, the eighteen measures enacted when the House of Sharrupai outnumbered the House of Hillel and took a count and made various laws, includes our rule: "The following render heaveoffering unfit: the one who eats food of the first or second remove or who drinks unclean liquid ... " Accordingly, Joshua's version of the law is now attributed to the House of Shammai. The following discussion explains the rule as does T.: "One may eat unclean food and take liquid of heave-offering and put it in his mouth and thus render it unfit." b. Hui. 23a-b (trans. E. Cashdan, pp. 183-185), spells out the grounds of argument between Eliezer and Joshua, showing us the basis for the later commentaries' interpretation: R. Eliezer said to R. Joshua, We find [in one instance] that the eater is more unclean than the unclean food [he has eaten), for the carcass of a clean bird does not defile by ordinary contact and yet whilst in the gullet it renders the clothes unclean. Should we not then generally regard the eater at least in the same degree of uncleanness as the unclean food [that he has eaten]? And R. Joshua, [ what would he reply to this] ? We must not draw any conclusions from the case of the carcass of a clean bird, for it is an anomaly. But argue thus: We find that the unclean food is more unclean than the eater thereof, for foodstuffs [ can become unclean] from an egg's bulk [of unclean food], whereas the eater [of unclean food does not become unclean] unless he has eaten the size of two eggs thereof. Surely, then, we cannot generally regard the eater as unclean as the food?

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2:2-7

55

And R. Eliezer? We must not draw any conclusions as to the degree of uncleanness from the specific quantities [ required in each case]. Furthermore, according to your own argument, you are consistent when you say that he who eats food unclean in the first degree becomes unclean in the second degree; but why should he who eats that which is unclean in the second degree become likewise unclean in the second degree? Said R. Joshua to him, Do we not find that foodstuffs unclean in the second degree can render other foodstuffs unclean in the second degree through the medium of a liquid? He [R. Eliezer] retorted, [Yes} but that liquid also becomes unclean in the first degree. For we have learnt: The [ degree of uncleannessJ which renders terumah invalid will [by contact} render liquids unclean in the first degree, with the exception of a tevul yom. Furthermore, why should he who eats that which is unclean in the third degree become unclean in the second degree? To this R. Joshua replied, I too only said so in the case of { common food kept in the cleanness proper to} terumah since [it has been taught that J whatsoever is considered clean for terumah is considered unclean for consecrated things.

2:3-7 Unconsecrated food: in the first remove is unclean and renders [heave-offering; TYY: other unconsecrated food] unclean. [GRA: Not unclean but renders other unconsecrated food unfit.] B. [Unconsecrated food] in the second remove is unfit [to be eaten by one who eats his unconsecrated food in cleanness (MA) . On unfit rather than renders unfit, Albeck, p. 569}, but does not convey uncleanness. {Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness ll:2B): "And whence do we learn that food stuff suffering second grade uncleanness is invalid in the case of unconsecrated food? Because it is said, And every earthen vessel whereinto any of them falls, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean (Lev. 11:33). The creeping thing is a Father of uncleanness, and the earthenware vessel into whose contained space the creepii;ig thing falls suffers first-grade uncleanness, and foodstuff in the vessel suffers second-grade uncleanness, and this is the meaning of it shall be unclean."] C. And [unconsecrated food} in the third remove is eaten in pottage of heave-offering. M. 2:3 (b. Hui. 34b) A.

A. Heave-offering: in the first and in the second removes is unclean and renders [ other heave-offering (so TYY) and Holy Things} unclean. [GRA: The meaning is renders unfit.]

56

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2:3-7

B. [Heave-offering] in the third remove is unfit and does not convey uncleanness. [Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness ll:3B: "And whence do we learn that, in the case of heave-offering, foodstuff suffering third-grade uncleanness is invalid? Because it is said, And when the sun is down he shall be clean,-and afterward he may eat of the holy things (Lev. 22:7). Thus one who has immersed that day is forbidden to eat of heave-offering until he has awaited sunset, and if he touches it he makes it invalid; and he is like one who suffers second-grade uncleanness. And so we learn that in the case of heave-offering, what suffers second-grade uncleanness imparts third-grade uncleanness."] C. And (heave-offering] at the fourth remove is eaten in a pottage of Holy Things. M. 2:4

A. Holy Things: in the first and the second and the third removes are susceptible to uncleanness and render unclean [ other Holy Things; Rosh: in the case of the purification-rite]. [Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness 11 :4B: "And whence we do learn that, in the case of Holy Things, what suffers third-grade uncleanness is unclean? Because it is said, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten,-it shall be burnt with fire (Lev. 7:19); and Scripture has already pronounced unclean what suffers second-grade uncleanness, for it is said, Whatsoever is in it shall be unclean (11:33). Thus we learn that if flesh of Holy Things touches what suffers second-grade uncleanness, it is rendered unclean and must be burnt. And whence do we learn that, in the case of Holy Things, what suffers fourth-grade uncleanness is invalid? By inference from the less to the greater: if one who still lacks atonement, although permitted to partake of heave-offering, is forbidden to partake of Holy Things until he has brought his atonement, how much more, then, must one who suffers third-grade uncleanness, seeing that he is forbidden to partake of heave-offering, impart fourth-grade uncleanness to what is hallowed. But what incurs uncleanness at a fifth remove is deemed clean."] B. And [Holy Things] in the fourth remove are unfit and do not convey uncleanness. C. And [Holy Things] in the fifth remove are eaten in a pottage of Holy Things. M. 2:5

A.

Unconsecratedfood:

in the second remove renders unconsecrated liquid unclean [which becomes unclean in the first remove], and renders foods of Heaveoffering unfit.

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO 2:

3-7

57

B. Heave-offering: at the third remove renders unclean liquid of Holy Things [ = M. 1:9] and renders foods of Holy Things unfit [ = M. 2:4BJ, C. if it [the heave-offering] was prepared in the condition of cleanness pertaining to Holy Things. [This rule applies if it was heave-offering prepared in the condition of cleanness pertaining to Holy Things. Then that which is in the third remove renders unfit but not unclean. But if prepared in the condition of heave-offering, the heave-offering has not been guarded as Holy Things. The law of the third remove is like that of the first remove: rendering unclean at two removes, second and third, and unfit at one, the fourth remove of Holy Things ( Albeck) J. D. But if it [MA: unconsecrated food] was prepared in conditions pertaining to heave-offering [ and was made unclean by an insect (TYT, MA)], it renders unclean at two removes and renders unfit at one remove in reference to Holy Things [like other heave-offering]. [Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness 11:7: "Second-grade uncleanness in common food renders invalid foodstuffs that are heaveoffering, imparting to them third grade uncleanness; and if it touches liquid that is common food, it renders it unclean [ = in the first remove]. .. (11:8:) If heave-offering suffering third-grade uncleanness touches food-stuffs that are Holy Things, it renders them invalid and they suffer fourth-grade uncleanness; and if it touches liquid that is hallowed, it renders it unclean of first-grade uncleanness .... J M. 2:6 (b. Hui. 35a) A. R. Eleazar [Eliezer: GRA, Rosh, V, N, M; Eleazar (Leazar): MA, K, Katsh # 117, C, Pa, P, PB] says, "The three of them are equal: B. "Holy Things and heave-offering and unconsecrated food: "which are at the first remove of uncleanness render unclean at two removes and unfit at one [ further J remove in respect to Holy Things, "render unclean at one remove and spoil at one {further] remove in respect to heave offering, "and spoil unconsecrated food. C. "That which is unclean in the second remove in all of them renders unclean at one remove and unfit at one [ further J remove in respect to Holy Things, "and renders liquid of unconsecrated food unclean, "and spoils foods of heave offering. [Even the third remove of heave-offering prepared in accord with the rules of cleanness of heave-offering does not render unclean at two removes and unfit at one-contrary to M. 2: 6. The rule of the third remove is not the same as the one of the first in respect to Holy Things ( Albeck)]. D. "The third remove of uncleanness in all of them renders liquids of Holy Things unclean [in the first remove, = M. 1 :9], "and spoils foods of Holy Things." M. 2:7 (M. Sot. 5:2, b. Sot. 29a-30a, Hui. 33b)

58

TOHO ROT CHAPTER TWO 2:

3-7

What is now to be done, before reviewing the interpretation of the pericope in the light of the great commentaries, is to ask, If we had no prepared agendum of questions and no preconceptions, formed on the basis of other rules, what should we understand by the present set of rules? The first, M. 2:3, tells us that unconsecrated food in the first remove of uncleanness is unclean and renders unclean. That language seems to me to mean exactly what it says, which is that unconsecrated food in the first remove is capable of a further affect of contamination, so that what touches unclean unconsecrated food in the first remove, thus in the second remove, is unclean-unclean, and not unfit. Unconsecrated food in the second remove is unfit but does not convey uncleanness. Does heave-offering appear? Obviously not. The simple meaning, therefore, is that unconsecrated food in the second remove is unfit for consumption, presumably by people who wish to keep the laws of cleanness. Unconsecrated food in the third remove produces no contamination. The entire interest of the pericope, therefore, is in unconsecrated food. M. 2 :4 then speaks of heaveoffering and tells us that heave-offering in the first and second removes are unclean and impart uncleanness. To what do they impart uncleanness? To heave-offering, in the third remove. And that heaveoffering is unfit, as we know. The same is to be said of Holy Things. They impart uncleanness at three removes. Accordingly, unconsecrated food produces not two further removes of contamination, but three. The first remove at M. 2: 3 makes something it touches unclean. What it touches should be that which is unclean-in the second remove. But we are told, explicitly, that what is unclean in the second remove is unfit, but does not convey uncleanness. The difficult point, therefore, is the second remove. What we should want, for M. 2:3B, if dictated by M. 2:3A, should make provision for the uncleanness referred to at M. 2:3A, and we should have: Unconsecrated food which is unclean in the first remove is unclean and conveys uncleanness Unconsecrated food which is in the second remove is unclean but does not convey uncleanness That which is unclean in the third remove .... What is difficult is replacing the TM~ of M. 2:3A with PSWL at M. 2:3B (and the same with the parallels of M. 2:4-5). Why has the model of M. 2:3A been abandoned at B? For the contrast clearly is

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2:3-7

59

between unclean/renders unclean and unclean/does not render unclean. Why substitute unfit for unclean at B and not at A? The question applies to M. 2:7, render unclean at two removes and unfit at one [third] remove. This bears the same redundancy. If we said only, render unclean at two removes, it would follow that what is at the third remove does not render unclean-but it is unclean. In other words, at the foundation of the shift in language is the evident purpose of marking the end of a chain of contaminating contacts with unfit, rather than unclean, thus MT~P ... PsWL. .. , rather than M. 2:3A's TM,... MTM,. Notice, moreover, that Maimonides uses both word choices, Other Fathers of Uncleanness ll:2B, cited at M. 2:3B, "And whence do we learn that food stuff suffering second grade uncleanness is invalid ... ?" I cannot imagine why, except for mnemonic reasons, someone should have shifted the usage, but it is done consistently. Let us now ask, Do M. 2:3-6 continue the opinion of Joshua at M. 2:2? He says that one who eats food unclean in the first and second remove is unclean in the second remove. Will he agree with M. 2:3, assuming we speak of unconsecrated food? Of course he will, because M. 2:3 is of the view that unconsecrated food at the second remove is unfit/unclean. But what do we gain-for Eliezer, M. 2:2A2, says exactly the same thing. Only if we insist that Eleazar at M. 2:7 is Eliezer of M. 2:2 shall we assume that there is disagreement between Eliezer and Joshua on the issues of the present pericope. The disagreement seems to be between M. 2:3-6 and M. 2:7, as follows: M. 2:3

Unconsecrated food unclean in the first remove: Contact 1: Unclean, imparts uncleanness at Contact 2: Unfit ( = unclean, but does not impart uncleanness. There is no contact 3).

M. 2:7

Unconsecrated food unclean at the first remove: Contact 1: Unclean, imparts uncleanness at Contact 2: Unclean, imparts uncleanness at Contact 3: Unfit in respect to Holy Things Contact 1: Unclean, imparts uncleanness at Contact 2: Unfit ( = unclean, etc.) in respect to heave-offering Contact 1: Spoils unconsecrated food ( = makes it unclean, but it does not impart uncleanness. There is no contact 2.)

60

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2:3-7

If we assume that M. 2:3-6 are talking, at M. 2:3, about the affects of unconsecrated food upon unconsecrated food, then the difference between M. 2:3 and M. 2:7 (Eleazar) is very clear. Eleazar is of the view that unconsecrated food in the first remove does not impart uncleanness at all. It may become unclean, but it has no affect upon other food. What sort of food does have an impact upon other food? Only heave-offering and Holy Things. They indeed do produce the affect of uncleanness/unfitness, and may further produce the affect of such severe contamination that a further stage of contamination is possible. If that indeed is Eleazar's view, then to whom will it be important to insist that, when unconsecrated food does have the capacity to impart uncleanness, it is in fact unconsecrated food which has been prepared under conditions of cleanness required for heave-offeringto whom, if not to Eleazar! The gloss of M. 2 :2C-D in fact brings Joshua into conformity with Eleazar's quite separate point, by making him say that, when he speaks of food in the first, second, and third removes producing uncleanness, it is specifically unconsecrated food prepared under conditions of cleanness required for heave-offering. But why should Joshua alone be made to say so? For Eliezer of M. 2 :2 has told us that he who eats food unclean in the first remove is unclean in the first remove-which is to say, unclean food imparts uncleanness. So C-D must in fact be read as (Eleazar's) glosses of both Eliezer's and Joshua's total and completed dispute. What about the equivalent gloss at M. 2 :6? There we are told that heave-offering prepared in conditions of cleanness required for Holy Things when in the third remove produces uncleanness-that is, it makes fluids of Holy Things unclean and renders food of Holy Things unfit. (To put it otherwise, the liquid falls into the first remove and so has the capacity to render other things unclean, but the solid food does not, so is merely unclean itself, without further contaminating capacity.) What is Eleazar's view of the capacity of heave-offering to render something unclean? At M. 2:7D, he speaks of the third remove of "the three of them" ( including heave-offering). What does it do? It renders unclean liquids of Holy Things and renders unfit food of Holy Things ( !) . Does Eleazar disagree with M. 2 :6? Of course not-that is, if we include the gloss of M. 2:6C: heave-offering at the third remove renders liquid of Holy Things unclean and foods of Holy Things unfit. What is it that the glosses accomplish? First, they eliminate the

TOHOROT

CHAPTER TWO

2:3-7

61

dispute (?) between Eleazar and Joshua and Eliezer of M. 2:2, on the one side, and, second, they force M. 2:6 to concur with Eleazar. And what is Eleazar's position in these matters? In his view, the unconsecrated food not prepared as if it were heave-offering and the heaveoffering not prepared as if it were Holy Things has precisely the same contaminating power as if it were prepared in accord with the more strict sets of rules, respectively. At issue, then, is nothing other than the unstated agendum of our chapter, the capacity to raise food to a higher order of sensitivity to uncleanness by subjecting it to rules of cleanness not ordinarily required, unconsecrated food to heaveoffering, heave-offering to Holy Things. That which is not essential at M. 2 :2, 6, and 8, in fact has shaped the articulation of the whole set, M. 2 :2-8. If the fact is that M. 2 :2C-D serve as a gloss, to bring that set into relationship to Eleazar's opinion, then what shall we isolate as the equivalent gloss to the set M. 2:3-6? The answer is obvious: the whole of M. 2:6 serves to gloss M. 2:3-5 in much the same way as M. 2:2C-D revise M. 2:2A-B. Who is this Eleazar, who holds that it makes no difference whether we prepare unconsecrated food as unconsecrated food, or whether we prepare it as heave-offering, and whether we prepare heave-offering as such, or whether we prepare it as Holy Things? It is none other than the authority of M. 2 :SB, who tells us that if we prepare unconsecrated food as if it were Holy Things, it has exactly the same capacity to impart uncleanness as other unconsecrated food. Eleazar b. R. $adoq, who holds that unconsecrated food prepared as if it were Holy Things produces the contaminating affects of heave-offering, will differ. And we have, in fact, an Ushan construction, between Eleazar b. R. $adoq and an Ushan Eleazar-or Eliezer, it hardly matters among Ushanson exactly the same point. And why is it that Eleazar takes this position? Because, so far as he is concerned, what is important is not the source of contamination -the unclean foods-but that which is contaminated, the unconsecrated food, heave-offering, and Holy Things. He could not state matters more clearly than he does when he says that the three of them are exactly equivalent. And they are, because the differentiations will emerge in the food affected, or contaminated, by the three. So at the root of the dispute is whether we gauge the contamination in accord with the source-unconsecrated food, or unconsecrated food prepared as if it were heave-offering, and so on-or whether the criterion is the food which is contaminated. M. 2:3-5 are all wrong, Eleazar states

62

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2:3-7

explicitly at M. 2: 7A, because they differentiate among uncleanness imparted by unclean unconsecrated food, unclean heave-offering, and unclean Holy Things, and do not differentiate among the three sorts of food to which contamination is imparted. It is surely a logical position, for the three sorts of food do exhibit differentiated capacities to receive uncleanness; one sort is more contaminable than another. And so too is the contrary view logical: what is more sensitive to uncleanness also will have a greater capacity to impart uncleanness ( = Judah, M. Neg. 13:10). The subtle debate before us clearly is unknown to Eliezer and Joshua at M. 2:2. To them the operative categories are something unclean in first, second, or third removes, without distinction as to the relative sensitivities of the several types of food which may be unclean. The sequence thus begins with Eliezer and Joshua, who ask about the contaminating power of that which is unclean in the first and second removes, without regard to whether it is unconsecrated food, heave-offering, or Holy Things. To them, the distinction between the capacity to impart contamination, or to receive contamination, of the several sorts of food is unknown. Once, however, their question is raised-in such general terms-it will become natural to ask the next logical question, one which makes distinctions not only among the several removes of uncleanness, but also among the several sorts of food involved in the processes of contamination. That step is not before us. Only the still further, logical extension of the issue is before us, the third dimension in our three-dimensional construction: ( 1) removes, three; ( 2) types of food, three; and, finally, ( 3) whether the important aspect of the types of food is its susceptibility to receive uncleanness or its capacity to impart uncleanness, three respectively. Each system-Eleazar's and the authority of M. 2:3-5's- bears twentyseven possibilities, therefore, with the difference in the systems coming at the 18th through 27th cases, so to speak. Our picture of the matter will intersect with the inherited one, but also come into conflict, for fairly obvious reasons. Having stated matters in our own way, let us now consider the set in the light of the great commentaries. First, we notice that M. 2:3-5 form a carefully coordinated set; M. 2:6 goes over the ground of M. 2:3B and 2:4B; and M. 2:7 states the same issue as M. 2:3-5 in still another way, disagreeing with M. 2:3-6.

TOHOROT

M. 2:3 Unconsecrated food - first remove: unclean, renders unclean. -- second remove: unfit, does not render unclean. - third remove: clean,

M. 2:4 Heave-offering - first and second remove: unclean and renders unclean.

-- third remove: unfit, does not render unclean. fourth remove: clean.

CHAPTER TWO

M. 2:6

Unconsecrated food - second remove: renders liquid unclean; spoils heave-offering.

2:3-7

63

M. 2:7 (E/eazcw) Holy Things, heave-offering, unconsecrated food - first remove; render unclean at two removes, unfit at one for Holy Things, unclean at one remove, unfit at one for hec1ve-offering, spoil 1mconsecr,i!ul food.

second remove: unclean at one remove, unfit at one for holy things, liquid unclean for unconsecrated food [ all the more so for heave-offering], spoils heave-offering.

Heave-offering

-

- third remove: renders liquid unclean, spoils Holy Things [ if prepared in status of Holy Things]; [if prepared as heaveoffering, unclean at two removes, unfit at one = M. 2:4]

-

third remove: renders liquids unclean for Holy Things, spoils Holy Things.

M. 2:5 Holy Things -- first, second, third remove: unclean, render unclean. --- fourth remove: unfit, does not render unclean. fifth remove: clean

Eleazar thus has for unconsecrated food a remove affecting Holy Things, just as heave-offering does, rejecting M. 2 :3. He differs in two items ( GRA) : ( 1) clean unconsecrated food is comparable to Holy Things-so too, clean heave-offering: clean heave-offering and unconsecrated food arc not unclean so far as Holy Things are con· cerned; and (2) the third remove in unconsecrated food spoils Holy Things. TYY sees three differences: ( 1) the third remove of unconsecrated food spoils liquid of Holy Things; (2) it spoils Holy Things but is clean for heave-offering; ( 3) anything in the third remove only spoils Holy Things. Accordingly, M. 2:3·5 + 2:6 and 2:7 do not

64

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2 :3-7

agree on the affects of the several removes of uncleanness in respect to the several sorts of food. The one significant gloss is at M. 2:6B: if the heave-offering is prepared in the condition of cleanness pertaining to Holy Things, it then falls under the rules of contamination effected by Holy Things, but if it was prepared as is normal heave-offering, it falls under the normal rules of heave-offering-which seems self-evident. Will M. 2:2C-D agree? We do not know, since M. 2:2C-D speak of unconsecrated food prepared under the conditions of cleanness pertaining to heave-offering. It follows that Joshua's view, as herein glossed, says nothing about heave-offering prepared in the conditions of cleanness applying to Holy Things. The point throughout is that something which conveys uncleanness affects some other food with which it comes into contact. That which is unfit may not be eaten by a person who proposes to eat ordinary food in a state of cleanness, but does not convey uncleanness. In M. 2: 3 we make it clear that unconsecrated food does not produce a third remove of uncleanness at all. 2:4 says the same for heave-offering, at a fourth remove. And 2:5 adds that Holy Things do not produce a fifth remove. The rule about unconsecrated food in the second remove and its affect upon liquid by now is abundantly familiar. Its affect upon heave-offering is as stated a.itM. 2 :6A. Heave-offering is put into the third remove and so is unfit, but not unclean. The same pattern is repeated for heave-offering in the third remove, with the stated qualification. Maimonides (Mishnah-commentary) reads M. 2 :6C to refer to unconsecrated food which is prepared in accord with the rules of the cleanness of Holy Things. If such food was in the third remove and touched something of Holy Things, it has rendered the Holy Things unfit, in the fourth remove; so too is the rule if it touched unconsecrated food which has been prepared in accord with the conditions of cleanness applying to Holy Things. D has unconsecrated food in the first remove, prepared in conditions of cleanness affecting heaveoff ering. If it touches Holy Things, it puts them into the second remove of uncleanness; if this last touches other Holy Things, it makes them unfit, but they do not render other Holy Things unclean. Likewise, summarizing Maimonides, MA interprets M. 2 :6C-D as follows: That heave-offering which is in the third remove spoils foods of Holy Things and also food which is prepared in accord with the rules governing Holy Things. Under what circumstances? In the case

TOHO ROT CHAPTER TWO

2: 3-7

65

of heave-offering itself. But as to unconsecrated food which is prepared in the condition of heave-offering, there are two removes of uncleanness and a third of unfitness. Even if the food contacted at the second or third remove was Holy Things, it is not subject to a fourth remove of Holy Things, since to begin with, we deal with unconsecrated food prepared under the conditions required of heave-offering. cAqiva, by contrast, holds the view that that unconsecrated food which is unclean in the second remove does make unconsecrated food uncle,m in the third remove, contrary to the opinions of both Eleazar and M. 2:3. The relevant passage of M. is as follows: On that day, R. cAqiva expounded, "And every earthen vessel, where into any of them falls, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean (Lev. 11:33). "It does not say, is unclean (TM 0 ) but shall render tmclean (YTM)). "This teaches that a loaf whid1 is unclean in the second remove renders [that unconsecrated food which it touches] unclean in the third remove." M. Sot. 5:2 (b. Hui. 33b) A. The creeping thing [a Father of uncleanness} renders unclean at three removes and unfit at one [ further remove] in connection with Holy Things; and renders unclean at two removes and unfit at one [ further J remove in connection with heave-offering. It renders unclean at one remove and unfit at one remove in connection with unconsecrated food. B. [Unclean] liquid [which always is at the first remove] renders unclean at two removes and unfit at one remoYe in connection with Holy Things. C. It renders unclean at one remove and unfit at one remove in connection with heave-offering. D. And it spoils unconsecrated food. T. 1:5 (p. 288, ls. 10-13)

T. is autonomous of M., but its sequence is parallel to M. 2:7: Father of uncleanness ( creeping thing) effects four removes for Holy Things, three for heave-offering, two for unconsecrated food. Liquid is unclean at the first remove and stands for anything else unclean at that remove. Sens cites this item at M. 1 :8. It is formally parallel to the present materials. A. The hands [ always unclean in the second remove J convey uncleanness at one remove and render unfit at one remove in connection with Holy Things. 5

66

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2 :3-7

and render heave-offering unfit, and [the rule governing the uncleanness of] hands [has] no [bearing upon] unconsecrated food. B. R. Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of R. Meir, "The hands are unclean in the first remove so far as Holy Things are concerned and are unclean in the second remove so far as heave-offering is concerned" { = T. 1:4BJ. C. In respect to what sort of Holy Things did they speak? D. Concerning Holy Things of the sanctuary which are sanctified, for example, loaves of thanksgiving and the wafers of the Nazir over which the sacrifice has been slaughtered, and meal-offerings which were mixed in a utensil. E. But loaves of thanksgiving and wafers of a Nazir over which the sacrifice has not been slaughtered and meal-offerings which were not mixed in a utensil are like neither Holy Things nor unconsecrated food, but they are like heave-offering. F. And the insect renders unclean at two removes and spoils at one remove in their case. T. 1:6 (p. 288, ls. 14-22) (A = b. Hul. 33b; y. Ber. 8:3)

A continues the sequence of T. 1 :5. B puts hands in the second remove. On B's readings, see TR IV, p. 51. A follows the established formulary pattern of M. 2:3-5. Another way of giving A's rule would be simply to say that hands are regarded as unclean in the second remove, thus affect Holy Things in a sequence of two further contacts and heave-offering in one only. B has Meir consistent in a general way with his view in T. 1 :4B. There he holds the ! evul yom is in the second remove so far as heaveoffering and Holy Things are concerned. Now he says the hands are in the second remove for heave-offering, thus rendering it unfit; but in the first remove for Holy Things, thus rendering it unclean. The effect of being in the second remove for heave-offering is the same as being in the first remove for Holy Things. In assigning the hands to the first remove so far as Holy Things are concerned, Meir will then allow a sequence of contacts to produce uncleanness and unfitness for Holy Things, while in regard to heave-offering, the affect of the hands is only to make it unfit, that is, only one further remove is possible. C refers to M. 2:5: Holy Things in the first, second, and third remove are susceptible to uncleanness and render unclean. Now we are told what sorts of Holy Things are under discussion. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 11:13) states the rule as follows:

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2: 3-7

67

Wherever the term "Holy Things" is used in connection with the uncleanness of foodstuffs and liquids it means one or other of the Holy Things that have [actually] been consecrated, for example, flesh of the Most Holy Things, flesh of the Lesser Holy Things, the cakes of the thank-offering, the Nazirite's wafers brought when his sacrifice is slaughtered, the meal offerings consecrated in a vessel, and the two loaves and the shew bread after they are crusted in the oven. But the cakes of the thank-offering, the wafers of the Nazirite other than those brought when the sacrifice is slaughtered, and the meal offerings other than those consecrated in a vessel rank neither as Holy Things nor as common food but as heave-offering. A. The dough-offering and the first fruits and what is brought as restitution for heave-offering and its fifth, lo, they are like heaveoff ering. B. The edibles forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts [Jastrow, I, p. 517-8, s.v. TBLJ and the edibles with which heaveoffering has been mixed and that which grows from heave-offering and second tithe, lo, they are in the status of unconsecrated food. T. 1:7A (p. 289, ls. 1-3)

T. continues T. 1 :6Dff. On the readings see TR IV, p. 51. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 11:14-15) states: The dough-offering, the first fruits, and what is brought as restitution for heave-offering and its added fifth rank as heave-offering. Produce liable to tithes and heave-offering, produce that has been mixed with heave-offering, produce grown from what was heaveoffering, second tithe and first-tithe and dough liable to the doughoffering-all these rank as common food, and such as incur first-grade uncleanness become unclean, and such as incur second-grade uncleanness are invalid, but third-grade uncleanness does not apply to them.

The point is clear. These foods, A, which still are subject to rules of heave-offering, fall into that category in respect to contaminability. But foods pending separation of heave-offering still are treated as ordinary food. See TR IV, p. 57. The issue of whether unconsecrated food produces a third remove of uncleanness is discussed, further, at b. Sot. 30a-b ( trans. A. Cohen, pp. 146ff.) as follows [omitted: discussions of the view of Y ose and Eliezer]: R. Assi said in the name of Rab-another version is Rabbah b. Issi said in the name of Rab-R. Meir ... , R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ... all hold the view that what is unclean in the second degree does not create a

68

'I'OHOROT CHAPTER TWO 2:3-8

third degree with non-holy food [ vs. cAqiva, M. Sot. 5: 2). R. Meirfor we have learnt: Everything that requires immersion in water according to the statement of the scribes defiles the holy, disc1ualifies the heave-offering, and is permitted with the non-holy and with the tithe. Such is the statement of R. Meir, but the sages prohibit in the case we have learnt: R. of the tithe [M. Par. 11:5) ... R. Joshua-for Eliezer says: He who eats food unclean in the first degree is unclean in the first degree [if he eats] food unclean in the second degree he is unclean in the second degree; and similarly with the third degree. R. Joshua says: He who eats food unclean in the first or second degree is unclean in the second degree, [ if he cats food unclean} in the third degree, he is unclean in the second degree as regards the sacrificial food but not unclean in the second degree as regards the heaveoffering. This is said of non-holy food which was prepared in the purity of the heave-offering. [This means, does it not,] 'When it is in the purity of the heave-offering' but not when it is in the purity of the sacrificial food? Conclude, then, that he holds that [normally J what is unclean in the second degree does not create a third degree with the non-holy. R. Eleazar-for it has been taught: R. Eleazar says, The following three are alike: the first degree of defilement in the case of the sacrificial food, the non-holy and the heave-offering; it creates two further degrees of defilement and one of disqualification with the sacrificial food; it creates one further degree of defilement and one of disqualification with the heave-offering; and it creates one degree of disqualification with the non-holy ....

2:8 A. He who eats food unclean in the second remove [ all the more so in the first remove (TYY) J should not work (YcsH; alt.: ycsM) in the olive press, [ since he will render the oil unclean]. B. And [P, PB lack W] unconsecrated food which is prepared this is like in accord with the rules pertaining to Holy Things-lo, unconsecrated food. C. R. Eleazar b. R. ~adoq says, "Lo, it is like heave-offering, D. "conveying uncleanness [GRA: if it touched a dead creeping thing] at two removes and rendering unfit at one [further] remove." M. 2:8 (y. Ber. 8:3, y. Bile 2:1, y. Hag. 2:5; b. Hag. 20a, Hul. 35b, 33b, b. Nid. 71b)

A is separate from B-C. \'v'hy should a person who has eaten food unclean in the second remove not work in the olive press? Because the olive oil will emerge. The person is unclean in the second remove, as both Eliezer and Joshua will agree, and he will render the liquid unclean in the first remove. This will render the press unclean (T. 1:7C). B now returns to the issue of M. 2 :2C-D. There we arc told that

TOHOROT

CHAPTER TWO

2 :8

69

unconsecrated food which is prepared in accord with the rules of the cleanness of heave-offering produces a third remove, just as does heave-offering. B now adds that unconsecrated food prepared in accord with the rules pertaining to the cleanness of Holy Things is unchanged and remains adjudged in accord with the rules, for the cleanness and removes from uncleanness, of unconsecrated food, and with those alone. That matter is not raised at M. 2:2C-D, nor does it occur at M. 2:6. The former tells us about unconsecrated food prepared as if it were heave-offering. The latter speaks of heave-offering prepared as if it were Holy Things. So we can raise each level by one: ( 1 ) unconsecrated food to heave-offering; ( 2) heave-offering to Holy Things. But ( 3) we cannot raise the first to the third level. Eleazar b. R. $adoq says that if we treat unconsecrated food as if it were Holy Things, to be sure it does not fall into the category of Holy Things. But it does fall into the category of heave-offering and becomes subject to its rules of contamination, the other possible position. What is curious is that these matters are not put together into a single pericope but scattered among the several as glosses. Albeck, pp. 569-70, provides a full account of the relevant gemarot. The Amoraim discuss whether Joshua agrees with Eleazar b. R. $adoq. Other discussions concern the meaning of holding that unconsecrated food prepared under rules of cleanness governing Holy Things is regarded as subject to the rules of contamination of Holy Things. Is this to mean that it is wholly like Holy Things, or like Heave-Offering which is called Holy Things? Discussions of these matters far transcend the limits of our pericope. Maimonides logically treats the several matters together ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 11 :9): If common food prepared in conditions of cleannessbefitting heaveoffering suffers third-grade uncleanness, it becomes invalid, as does heave-offering; but if it touches a Holy Thing, it does not impart to it fourth-grade uncleanness, and even liquid that is hallowed is not rendered invalid. If common food is prepared in conditions of cleanness befitting Holy Things, its third-grade uncleanness is accounted clean, as is the case with ordinary common food [M. 2:8B}. [Compare Rabad, ad foe.}

On the reading ycsM instead of ycsH, see Hoffmann, p. 398, n. 57. A. R. Eleazar b. R. ~adoq says, "He who eats food in the second remove of uncleanness should not work in the olive press because he produces uncleannessin the second remove.

70

TOHOROT CHAPTER TWO

2 :8

"And that which is unclean in the second remove renders liquid unclean so that it conveys uncleanness in the first remove." B. Food which is unclean eKL instead of ,BL) in the second remove which touched the liquid of the olive-press-it [the press] is unclean. T. 1:7C (p. 289, ls. 7-10)

A explains M. 2:8A, assigning it to Eleazar. B then repeats the same point. What is unclean in the second remove which touches the liquids of the olive-press renders the liquids unclean. Schereschewsky, however, more plausibly translates, "Aber ist da ein zweitgradig Unreiner ... die ()Jkelter ist unrein." I take it that he reasons as follows: The press is a utensil. A utensil is not made unclean by something in the first remove but only by a Father of uncleanness or by unclean liquid. Thus even if something unclean in the second remove contaminated the liquid of the press and put it into the first remove, the press itself is made unclean.

CHAPTER THREE

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE I do not believe we have a chapter in our entire order which illustrates more poignantly than the present one the homely and everyday circumstances for which the rabbis made laws of cleanness. Before us are cases involving children holding lilies of a grave-field, hens which peck at dough, cows which lap up water. Further, at least one decision is made upon the basis of the assessment of the intelligence of dogs. Eliezer b. Jacob (M. 3:8) bases his ruling on the fact that dogs are more intelligent than other animals ( as any dog-owner knows). The first four pericopae complete the discussions begun at M. 1: 1, and the remainder of the chapter deals with a new theme entirely. M. 3: 1-3 distinguish between the liquid, and the congealed state, of certain foods. When liquid, these are in the first remove of uncleanness, and when congealed, in the second. A second important interest, following from the first, is whether the substance is of sufficient volume-an egg's bulk-to convey uncleanness at all. If it is exactly an egg's bulk and solid, and a drop of liquid exudes as the congealed substance begins to melt, then the original egg's bulk of congealed matter is diminished and no longer able to convey uncleanness to the drop of liquid. If the congealed substance is more than an egg's bulk, of course, it will render the drop of liquid unclean, which in turn will render further melted liquid-substance unclean. M. 3:1-3 form a set of five exemplifications of this rule, stated as an apophthegm, "for, as soon as the first drop [ of moisture J exuded, it was made unclean (-[by the remainder which is] the volume of an egg)." This last clause goes over the statement of conditions upon which the cases are set up. To this group T. adds a rich supplement on whether certain substances are susceptible to uncleanness as foods or as liquids or as neither or as both. M. 10:5 artfully picks up the theme of M. 3:1-4, an effort to establish a redactional link to this unit. M. 3 :4 combines two already-completed pericopae into a single unitary rule, one concerning food of an egg's bulk which is dried out and diminished by the sun, so is insusceptible, and which then is left in the rain to expand and so becomes susceptible again; the other concerning certain Holy Things which, at a requisite volume, are

72

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:1-3

subject to restrictions, but, at less than that volume, are not. The subtractate begun at M. 1: 1 is concluded at this point. The new subtractate has to do with matters of doubt in connection with cleanness. If we find an object and it is in the presumption of being unclean, we rule that it is indeed unclean, and the contrary is also the case. M. 3:5 has a beautifully worked out rule, first a generalization, then a specific example, to begin the set. M. 3 :6 deals with deaf-mutes, imbeciles, and minors. They cannot supply information on their own condition. If there is a matter of doubt concerning whether they are clean or unclean, we rule that they are clean. But a person who, under interrogation, can supply such information in doubt is ruled to be unclean. M. 3:7 then gives us two examples, one involving a minor, the other an ass. M. 3 :8 adds a number of further exemplifications of the same matter, a minor who may or may not have touched dough, but who has dough in his hand; dough which may have been pecked at by hens, and the like. The chapter contains many Ushan attributions, and T. provides further evidence that its problems and rules derive from that stratum. 3:1-3 A.

The grease and the bean-mash and the milk, when they are (in the form of] running liquid [and are made unclean], C. lo, they are in the first remove of uncleanness. D. (If] they congealed, lo, [instead of being in the first remove], they are in the second remove of uncleanness. E. (1£] they went and became liquid [again], F. (if they are of the volume of] an egg, exactly G. it is dean. (Bert.: The uncleanness of the congealed mass is annulled when the state of the mass changes, and there is now nothing to render the fluid unclean.} H. (If they are of the volume of] more than an egg, it is unclean, I. for as soon as the first drop '(of moisture] exuded, it was made unclean, J. by [the remainder which is] an egg's bulk in volume. M. 3:1 B.

1

A. R. Meir says, "The oil is in the first remove of uncleanness under all circumstances ( congealed or liquid]." B. And sages say, "Also: the honey." C. (T lacks:} R. Simeon Shezuri says, "Also: the wine." D. And [K lacks W}: A clump of [unclean] olives which fell into the oven, and it was heated-

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:1-3

73

E. [if it is the volume of] an egg exactly, it [the oven] is clean. F. {If it is the volume of] more than an egg, it [the oven] is unclean, G. for as soon as the first drop [ of moisture] exuded, it was made unclean, by [ the remainder which is] an egg's bulk in volume. H. [If] they were separate [olives] [PRWDYN: Katsh #118, P, PB, T, V, M; PRWRYN: C, K, N, Pa], even if they are a se'ah (Sens, MS, Bert.: M~H), it is clean [the olives are not joined together]. M. 3:2 (b. Men. 31a; H: M. Ed. 3:2 '[ in accord with sages vis a vis Dosa b. Hyrcanus]) A. One unclean with corpse-uncleanness who pressed out olives and grapesB. [if the olives or the grapes were of the volume of] an egg exactly, it is clean, C. and on condition that he not touch the wet place. D. [If it was of the volume of] more than an egg, it is unclean, E. for as soon as the first drop [ of moistureJ exuded, it was made unclean, by [the remainder which is] an egg's bulk in volume. F. If it was a Zab or a Zabah, even [if only] an individual berry [was squeezed out], it is unclean, G. for as soon as the. first drop [ of moisture] exuded, it was made unclean through the carriage [ or shaking, of the Zab or Zabah]. H. A Zab who milked the goatI. the milk is unclean, J. for as soon as the first drop [ of moistureJ exuded, it was made unclean through the carriage [ or shaking, of the Zab or Zabah] [ and all subsequent drops are made unclean for the same reason (GRA)]. M. 3:3 (A-B: b. Pes. 33b; H-I: Shah. 144b) For the present principle applied to utensils, see M. Kel. 18:6-8 (Part II, pp. 132-138), in which a change in state effects a change in status. Maimonides (Uncleanness of Foodstuffs 9:2) gives the rule as follows: If grease, bean mash, or milk turn solid, they count as solid foodstuffs and require intention [ vs. T. 2:4), and if they are touched by foodstuffs suffering first grade uncleanness or by an (unclean) liquid, they suffer second grade uncleanness. If they still contain dripping moisture, they count as liquids and suffer first grade uncleanness. If they become unclean while still liquid and they afterward congeal and become solid, they suffer second grade uncleanness like a foodstuff that is made unclean by an unclean liquid.

74

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:1-3

If they become unclean while in solid form and they then melt and turn liquid, if they are exactly an egg's bulk in quantity, the liquid becomes clean. If they are more than an egg's bulk, the liquid remains unclean, for when the first drop is melted, it becomes unclean through the egg's bulk of the unclean foodstuff from which it has melted, and that drop renders unclean all the liquid that melts after it ... And if he who squeezes them [ olives or grapes J is a man or a woman with flux, or the like, even if he squeezes but a single berry which has not been made susceptible and has not touched any liquid, the liquid becomes unclean, since so soon as the first drop comes forth it becomes unclean through being carried by a man with a flux; for a man with flux who carries foodstuffs or liquids renders them unclean ....

M. 3: 1 forms a set of declarative sentences. The problem is not complicated. We have liquids which can congeal. When they are liquids, if made unclean, they enter the first remove of uncleanness. When they then congeal, they enter a new status and state but are made unclean-by contact with their former character, thus in the second remove. As the congealing begins, the congealed substance is made unclean by the still uncongealed part ( GRA). They then melt. If they are exactly an egg's bulk in size, when the melting begins, a drop of liquid diminishes their size to less than an egg's bulk. Food of less than an egg's bulk in volume does not convey uncleanness; the drop is not made unclean. But if they are more than egg's bulk, then, when the drop melts, it is made unclean by the food, which is unclean in the second remove. The drop of liquid of course is now unclean in the first remove, and renders the subsequent melting fluid unclean. The reason is, as I said, given at I. M. 3:2A-C are interpolated. They are relevant to the theme of the set, but not to the principle at G. Meir's point is that even congealed oil is in the first remove of uncleanness; sages add honey, and Simeon Shezuri, wine. The redactional reason for the interpolation becomes clear at D. We have a clump of unclean olives. It falls into an oven, and the oven is heated. Olive oil flows from the clump. Oil is in the first remove of uncleanness, Meir has told us; thus the case is parallel to M. 3:lA. Is the clump unclean? If it is the volume of an egg exactly, it is not unclean. Why not? Because as soon as a drop of olive flows, the clump is diminished and no longer conveys uncleanness. If it is larger, of course it renders the oil unclean, and, reciprocally, the oil then contaminates all the oil which flows thereafter. G restates the principle of M. 3:1.

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:1-3

75

H then qualifies the whole. However great a quantity of olives, if they are separate from one another, they do not join together to form the necessary egg's bulk to render the exuded oil unclean. The issue of cleanness here pertains not only to the olive-dump but also to the oven. When we are told, E, it is clean, we mean not only the oil, since the dump is smaller than an egg's bulk, but the oven. It will not be made unclean by the clump of olives, since food cannot make a utensil unclean. But when the olive-dump is of sufficient size, it renders the oil unclean, and the oven likewise is made unclean, since unclean liquid renders utensils unclean, likewise for H. The third, fourth, and fifth cases, M. 3:3A, F, and H, change the framework of discourse somewhat. Now we introduce the difference between the mode of contamination effected by the Zav and that brought about by the person suffering corpse-uncleanness. At A we no longer deal with a quantity of liquid which has congealed. We simply apply the same principle to olives and grapes, that what is of less than the volume of an egg does not convey uncleanness. Obviously, if an unclean person touched the exuded liquid, he renders it unclean. The real point is at B, balanced against D, with the standard explanation at E. We assume the press itself is unsusceptible. F changes the framework once more. A Zab or Zabah conveys uncleanness through carriage, unlike the person unclean with corpseuncleanness at A. Once the berry is made unclean by the carriage of the Zab, the drops which follow are made unclean. The case is repeated at H-J. A. The cress and the bean mash, when one stirs them in the pot, convey uncleannessas food conveysuncleanness. B. If one put them into a dish and liquids exude from them, the liquids which exude from them impart uncleanness as liquids. T. 2:2 (p. 289, 1. 18, 290, ls. 1-2)

T. gives a rule parallel to M. 3:lA-D. But its interests are its own. The point of Bis the same as M. 3:lB-C; as liquids, they are unclean in the first remove; as mush, they are in the second ( = M. 3:1D). In A, the mush is congealed and stirred to prevent further solidification. A. Oil is neither food nor liquids. In what way (KY~D) have they said, . C. Oil is always in the first remove of uncleanness? D. For if it is wiped away and nothing remains of it but as much as a bean, that which exudes from it renders unclean as liquids render unclean. T. 2:3 (p. 290, ls. 3-5) B.

76

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:1-3

T. = M. 3:2A, Meir. When oil is congealed, then it is neither food nor liquid, but if liquified, it is liquid (TR IV, p. 52). A. B.

It comes out that one rules: There are three traits in respect to liquids. C. The grease and the milk and the bean mash, when liquid runs [ from them}, lo, they are in the first remove of uncleanness. D. [If} they congeal, they do not require intention [to convey uncleanness} as foods. T. 2:4 (p. 290, ls. 6-8) T. does not specify its three rules, A-B. Sens says they are ( 1) liquid conveys uncleanness as foods convey uncleanness without prior intention to make use of it [ = T. 2:4]; (2) there is liquid which requires intention [that it be consumed as food] before it conveys uncleanness as food conveys uncleanness [= T. 2:5A-BJ; and (3) there is liquid which, even when subject to intention for use as food, is not regarded either as food or as liquid [ = T. 2:5JJ (TR IV, p. 53, citing Sens). C = M. 3:lA-C. A. Honey which oozes from the hive of bees imparts uncleanness as liquid. B. [If} one gave thought to it as food, it imparts uncleanness as food. C. Oil is neither food nor liquid. D. [If} one gave thought to it to make use of it as food and not as liquid, his intention is of no effect. E. Blood which congealed is neither food nor liquid. D. {If} one gave thought to it to make use of it as food, it imparts uncleanness as food. F. And [if one gave thought to use it as} liquid, his intention is null. G. The honey of palms is neither food nor liquid. H. [If] one gave thought to it to make use of it for food, it imparts uncleanness as food. I. And [ if one gave thought to it to use it J for liquid, his intention is null. J. And as to all other fruit juice, [it is} neither food nor liquid. K. [If] one gave thought to it, whether for liquid or for food, his intention is null. L. [Sens: J Snow is neither food nor liquid. If one gave thought to it for food, his intention is null. For liquid-it imparts uncleanness as liquids. M. If part ot it is made unclean, the liquids are made unclean. N. If part of it is made unclean, the whole of it is not made unclean. 0. If part of it is clean, the whole of it is clean. T. 2:5 (p. 290, ls. 9-18)

TOHO ROT CHAPTER THREE

Maimonides lowing:

3: 1-3

77

(Uncleanness of Foodstuffs 1:18-19) gives the fol-

Honey still in the hive can contract uncleanness even without intention to use it as foodstuff. If the honey is scraped away after the honeycombs are broken, it can contract uncleanness as a liquid. Honey oozing from the hive can contract uncleanness as a liquid. If there is intention to use it as foodstuff it can contract food uncleanness. Congealed oil is neither food stuff nor liquid. If a man has the intention to use it as foodstuff or liquid while it is congealed, his thought is of no account. The issue throughout, therefore, is the ambiguous status of congealed liquids. Intention to eat honey as food puts the honey into the category of food. For C, Maimonides, gives us congealed oil. As to date honey (G) and other fruit juices, he concludes, "As for all other fruit juices, they are none of them either foodstuff or liquid, and if a man has the intention to use them either as foodstuff or liquid, his thought is of no account." Rabad observes that these liquids exude on their own, but if deliberately squeezed out, they fall under a different rule. I see no close relationship of any of these rules to M. To be sure, at M. 3:2A-C we deal with the remove of uncleanness affecting oil, honey, and wine. But the matter of intention never enters the discussion, and the sole issue of M. is as stated, the uncleanness imputed to the fluid. Accordingly, the set before us is entirely autonomous of M. A. Purification-water which froze over and does not contain running liquids is clean. B. If it melted, it has returned to its former uncleanness. C. An immersion pool of drawn water which froze over is clean in respect to drawn waters. D. If it melted, it is fit to be added to. T. 2:6 (p. 290, ls. 19-21)

The reading for A-B is difficult. Lieberman, TR IV, p. 54, offers: "Purification water which froze over is clean. [If] it melted, it has reverted to its uncleanness. Unclean water which froze over and does not contain flowing liquid is clean. If it melted ... " Note also Part IX, p. 149. The rule for C-D is clear; see TR IV, p. 54. A. He who gives thought to the milk which is in the udderit is clean. B. [ And he who gives thought to the milk which is} in the mawit is unclean.

78

TOHOROT

CHAPTER THREE

3:1-3

C. The hide and the placenta do not receive uncleanness as food receives uncleanness. D. The hide which one boiled and the placenta to which one gave thought [for use as food} impart uncleanness as food. T. 2:7 (p. 291, ls. 1-3) (A-B: b. Hul. 116b; C-D, ibid., 77b)

The point in both cases is that what is available for food and intended as food is subject to the uncleanness of food. A. The peat and the grapeshells which are prepared in a state of cleanness and from which one squeezed li(1uids-they are clean. B. And those which were prepared in a state of uncleanness and from which one squee,:ed liquids-they are unclean. C. And R. Simeon declares clean. D. Said to them R. Simeon, "What difference does it make to me that they are prepared in a state of uncleanness or that they are prep2.red when they are in a state of cleanness?" [Peat and grape-shells are not food and do not receive uncleanness anyhow. The liquid in them has not been made unclean by contact. J E. They said to him, "When they are prepared in a state of uncleanness, liquids drip down from under the beam, and when he raises the beam, they go back and are absorbed in the peat." F. He said to them, "Also when they are prepared in 2. state of cleanness, the Zab comes and presses on them. The liquids which drip down from under the foot of the Zab, when he raises his foot go and are absorbed in the peat." G. They said to him, "Liquid which exudes at one's intent is not like liquid which exudes not by intent." H. He said to them, "This and this have never been unclean." T. 3:1 (p. 291, ls. 5-1:?)

If the peat or grapeshells are prepared in a state of cleanness, then the lic1uid which is squeezed remains dean. Otherwise it becomes unclean. Simeon challenges this latter ruling. He sees no difference between preparing them in a state of cleanness and doing so in uncleanness. Simeon's main point, Lieberman explains ( TR IV, p. 5 5), is that the materials here are not food and are not susceptible to uncleanness. The liquid in them one way or the other has not been made unclean b_r contact with unclean people. Sages, E, point out that the lic1uid will drip from the beam and be absorbed in the peat, and if unclean persons have tread on the peat or grapeshells and afterward the liquid is reabsorbed, the unclean lic1uid will make the peat or grapeshdls unclean. The sages point out, moreover, that the liquids which exude are produced by intent, so are made unclean. By contrast,

TOHOROT

CHAPTER THREE

3:1-'J

79

if the Zr1bpresses down on them, this is not by intent. At H Simeon simply repeats his original proposition. Maimonides ( Uncleanness of Foodstuffs 9:9) gives the rule as follows: If olive peat or grapeskins have been prepared in conditions of cleanness and unclean persons tread on them and afterward lic1uid issues from them, they remain clean, since from the outset they have been prepared in conditions of cleanness. But if from the outset they had been prepared in conditions of uncleanness and li,1uid issued from them, they would be unclean.

Accordingly, the primary distinction is at G, which explains A-B. A. B. C.

D. E. F. G. other H.

Grapes which are jammed in a wedge by the basketthey fell into the airspace of the clean oven-it is unclean. Olives which are jammed in a wedge by the press-and they fell into the airspace of a clean ovenit is clean. This and this, if there is on them running moisture [from some sourceJthe oven is unclean. T. 3:2 (p. 291, ls. 15-17)

Liquids which exude from the grapes in the grape basket in which they are carried render something susceptible to uncleanness. Use of the grape basket to preserve the juice shows the owner wants it, and it renders the grapes susceptible. They are then made unclean by dirty hands. Therefore they render the oven into the airspace of ,vhich they fall unclean. But the slime exuding from the olives docs not render unclean for two or three days (below, M. 9:1). Lieberman, moreover, points out (TR IV, p. 5 5) that this is in accord with tbe opinion of Hillel, b. Shab. 17a, that they vintage grapes in a state of cleanness but cut olives in a state of uncleanness. Accordingly, olives are not rendered unclean when they are cut. A. Unclean pots which fell into the airspace of the oven, whether whole or broken, even when it is heated up--it is unclean. B. When it is not hcat~d up-it is clean. C. And if one made use of them in cleanness, and they are made unclean, and they fell into the airspace of the ovenD. when it is heated up, it is unclean. E. \When it is not heated up, it is clean.

80

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE 3: 1-4

F. And those which are broken, G. even when it is heated up--it is clean, H. for it does not contain liquids by which it will convey uncleanness [to the airspace of the oven}. T. 3:3 (p. 291, Is. 18-19, p. 292, Is. 1-4) Even if the oven is heated when the pots fall in, the oven is unclean. We do not postulate that when the pots fell in, the moisture in them evaporates in the heat of the oven. If the pots fell in when the oven is not heated, and afterward it is lit, the liquids begin to exude into the oven when it is heated. But, B adds, if the oven is never heated while the pots are in it, then the oven remains clean, because-and this is the primary concern-unclean liquids absorbed into the pots will not exude. What if the pots are used only in a state of cleanness and never touch unclean liquid, but afterward the pots are made unclean? Then the absorbed liquid is clean and is made unclean only when it exudes and touches the pots themselves. D-E follow for the same reasons as apply to A-B. Broken pots, in this latter case ( C), will not make the liquids unclean, because they themselves are no longer susceptible to uncleanness. In the case set up at C, therefore, there is no way in which the pots can be made unclean, thus no way for the liquid to be contaminated either (all in accord, of course, with TR IV, p. 56).

3:4 A. An egg's bulk of foodstuffs which one left in the sun and which shrank, B. and so (1) an olive's bulk of corpse-matter and (2) an olive's bulk of carrion and ( 3) a lentil's bulk of a creeping thing, C. ( 4) an olive's bulk of Refuse, ( 5) an olive's bulk of Remnant, and (6) an olive's bulk of prohibited fatD. lo, they are clean [in respect to imparting uncleanness (TYY)]. E. And they are not liable on their account because of [ transgression of the laws of} Refuse, Remnant, and uncleanness [Better: forbidden fat]. F. [If} one left them in the rain, and they expanded, they are unclean, G. and they are liable on their account [ for transgression of the laws of} Refuse, Remnant, and uncleanness [Better: forbidden fat]. M. 3:4 (b. Men. 54b) The present pericope concludes both M. 3:1-3 and the major unit begun at M. 1: 1 on the uncleanness of foods. From this point, we

TOHOROT

CHAPTER THREE

3:4-5

81

turn to other matters entirely, in which the details of the rules of the uncleanness of foods no longer are important. The point is the same as at M. 3:1-3, namely, what is less than the requisite volume to receive uncleanness is clean. This means that if something was of requisite volume and shrank, it falls out of the category of susceptibility to uncleanness, but when it expands once again, it reenters that category. We have, in fact, a classic example of two separate rules which have been combined. The first is A-B + D + F, the egg's bulk of food, olive's bulk of corpse-matter, olive's bulk of carrion, and lentil's bulk of a creeping thing. F then completes the first unit. The second is C+D, spelled out by E, and (F)-G. That is, E's and G's interests are solely in the items listed in C, and E of course spells out the obvious implications of D. Not only are the items clean, but their other prohibited aspects are no longer taken into account. F + G then make their point, relevant to A-B, only in terms of C. Or, to put it differently, one unit is A, B, D, F, and the other, C, D, E, F, G. I am inclined to think the matter of C lus been introduced after the completion of the primary unit, A-B, D + F, 3:5 A. All unclean things [ are adjudged in accord with their condition} at the moment that they are found. B. (1) If they are unclean, they are unclean; and (2) if they are clean, they are clean; ( 3) [PB: and if] if they are covered up, they are covered up, and ( 4) if they are uncovered, they are uncovered. [Danby: "Conditions of uncleanness are so accounted of as they appear at the time when they are found: if they were (found) unclean they are (assumed to have been already) unclean (if one had touched them before); if they were [ found J clean, they are ( assumed to have been) clean (before); if they were ( found) covered, they are ( assumed to have been) covered (before); if they were found uncovered, they are ( assumed to have been) uncovered (before)".} C. A needle which is found full of rust or broken is clean. D. For all unclean things [ are adjudged in accord with their condition} at the moment that they are found. M. 3:5

Maimonides (Other Fathers of Unclectnness 15:10) states matters as follows: If a creeping thing is found burnt and lying on top of food-stuffs

'[ = M. 9:9}, so too if between vessels there is found a wornout cloak [ = M. 9:9} or a broken or rusty needle [ = CJ, they are deemed 6

82

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:5

to be clean, whether in the public domain or in private domain; and no one may say, 'Perchance it was not burnt until after it touched the foodstuffs,' or 'Perchance the needle was not broken or rusted nor the cloak worn-out so as to be insusceptible to uncleanness until after the vessels had become unclean by contact with the cloak or hte needle;' for matters of uncleanness are determined by their condition at the time that they are found.

This is, formally, a delightful, poetic construction. At first glance it looks as if we have two units, A-B, then C-D, that is, a very general statement, followed by an autonomous set,. which gives a specific example and then a generalization. But I am inclined to argue that the pericope is the product of a single hand; the formulator has deliberately given us the repetition of A at D, the very general formula of B, then the very specific example of C. There is of course no way of settling the matter, and the repetition of A at D suggests that, as prose, two distinct pericopae have been joined. But if we count the syllables, we notice the following for B and C: B JM T~PWT (4) TM:)WT (3) (W) :)MTHRWT (4) THRWT (3) JM MKSWT (4) MKSWT (3) JM MGLWT (4) MGLWT (3) C

(5)

MJ:IT sNM!;?T pwsBWRH

(3)]

MVH l;ILWDH THRWH

(6) (3)

C self-evidently is out of phase; each of the other stitches exhibits care in balancing syllables, 4/3 for the first group, 3/3 for the final one. But the inclusion of or broken is hardly necessary. Without it, we have MI;IT sNM~:,T

(5)

MVH

I;ILWD

(6)

THWRH

(3)

Or, to put it differently, each group of stitches in the first unit, MKSWT /MGL WT, contains fourteen syllables, 7/7, just as does the final unit 5 + 6 + 3 ( !) . After the two rhyming groups, the last thus breaks the rhyme but preserves the exact number of syllables, marking the conclusion of the whole and shifting the sound-pattern sufficiently to point up the difference between the generalization and the specification. A+ D, fore and aft, are in precise balance, but their eleven syllables bear no relationship to the groups of fourteen in the intermediate unit.

TM:, /THR,

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:5

83

The point of the rule is not so complex as its expression. We simply open our new, major unit with the generalization, to be spelled out in the next three pericopae: we take for granted that the condition of an object as we find it is determinative. If we find an unclean thing of requisite measure to convey uncleanness, we assume it has always been of requisite size-thus a link to M. 3: 1-4- and so clean things which have touched it are regarded as unclean (MA) . If it is less than requisite size, we ignore the possibility that it once was of requisite size. If we find corpse-matter covered up in a Tent, we assume it has always been covered up. If we find corpse-matter uncovered in a Tent, we assume whatever has been in the Tent is unclean. The case of the needle is simple. If the needle is rusty or broken, it is useless, therefore clean ( M. Kel. 13: 5). Whatever has touched the needle is regarded as clean. We do not speculate that it broke only recently or rusted just now, so that such things may be unclean. Maimonides, moreover, points out that metal utensils revert to their former uncleanness once repaired (M. Kel. 11 :1); in the case of the needle, we do not posit even that it once was unclean-which seems to me still more to the point. In other words, matters of doubt in cleanness are resolved in favor of their present status. A. All the unclean things are adjudged as they are ( 1) at the moment at which they are found, and ( 2) in accord with every place in which they are found. B. [If] one lost a needle which is polished and came and found it full of rust, lo, this remains in its presumption [ of being] polished, C. until one may say, "It is clear to me that it was full of rust." [Sens, TR IV, p. 56, adds]: If it was lost when full of rust and one came and found it polished, lo, it remains in the presumption of being polished until one will say, "It is clear to me that it has put forth rust." D. And so in the case of a creeping thing. E. And so in the case of a rag: F. [if] one left it unclean in this corner and found it in another corner, G. the first corner is unclean, H. until one will state, "It is clear to me that it has uprooted from here." I. The second corner is unclean, J. until one will state, K. "It is clear to me that it did not come here." T. 3:4 (p. 292, ls. 5-11) A.

If an olive's bulk of corpse-matter was lost in the house-

84

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:6

B.

they sought and did not find itthe house is clean. D. When it will be found, the house conveys uncleanness retroactively [to what is in it}. T. 3:5 (p. 292, ls. 12-13) C.

T. 3:4A augments M. 3:5A, and B brings us to M. 3:5C. But T. takes a somewhat more complex view of the matter. We make our decision on the basis of two factors, first, the condition of the object when it is found, and, second, the location in which it is found. T.' s needle is more complex. M. simply has one found full of rust or broken; we do not assume it was unclean. T.'s problem is that it was susceptible to uncleanness and now is full of rust. We leave it in its former condition until we can show that it was full of rust before it was lost-self-evidently contradictory of the condition of the case. In the matter of the rag, we have two assumptions, as I said, first, the fact that it was left unclean; second, the fact that it is found in a different location. The first corner remains unclean, because of the (original) presence of the unclean rag. The second is unclean because we suppose the original rag now has been moved to the second corner. Accordingly, as I said, T.'s cases introduce more complex problems than M. suggests. T. 3:5 is relevant only in a general way. Since we cannot find the corpse-matter, we imagine the house is clean. But if we do find it, the house is retroactively declared unclean. See T. Ah. 4:8. The decisive language, "It is clear to me," recurs at M. 6:6 to mark the end of a subtractate. A. The woman is raking stubble in the courtyard and a creeping thing is found inside the stubbleB. she is clean. C. [If it is found] on top of the stubble, D. she is unclean. E. [If] she was winnowing wheat in a sieve and a creeping thing is found in the sieve, F. she is clean. G. [If it is found] on top of the sieve, H. she is unclean. T. 3:6 (p. 292, ls. 14-16)

A creeping thing does not convey uncleanness if it is carried, but only if it is touched. In accord with M.'s law, which is herein illustrated, we take for granted that the location of the insect when it is-found

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:6

85

is determinative. If it is inside the stubble, we do not assume the woman has touched it. If it is on top, we do. If it is in the sieve, she presumably has not had actual contact with it; if it is on the surface of the sieve, she probably has. Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness 17:9B, adds the consideration that we deal at E-H with private property, in which doubts are deemed unclean. 3:6 A. A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor who are found in an alley in which is [located} uncleanness, lo, these are assumed to be clean. B. But any person of sound sense is assumed to be unclean. C. And whoever [ or whatever, e.g., food, utensils, cattle} lacks understanding to be interrogatedD. a matter of doubt concerning him [it} is resolved in favor of cleanness. M. 3:6

We continue with generalizations on doubtful matters in connection with cleanness. We do not know, A, whether the minor, etc., have been made unclean. The alley is private property, in which situation matters of doubt are resolved in favor of uncleanness ( B). We cannot consult the aforenamed, however, so we assume they are clean (D). C-D repeat the same matter, not specifying the people who cannot be consulted, and explain A. If a person of sound sense, who can be consulted, is in doubt as to whether he has touched the uncleanness in private property, he is ruled to be unclean. Once again, we have a unitary pericope, A contrasted with B, then explained by C. A. A child who was holding on to his father's hand or was riding on his father's shoulderB. a matter of doubt concerning him is unclean, C. because his father may be interrogated about him. D. A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a child-a matter of doubt concerning them is clean, E. because they do not have intelligence to be interrogated [ as to their state}. F. Said R. Simeon, "In this case the rule of justice is smitten!" T. 3:7 (p. 292, ls. 17-20)

T. augments M.'s rule. A-C clarify the matter of the minor. D-E rephrase M. 3:6A + C-D. Simeon rejects the assumption of stupidity. A. Four [ stages of} doubts have the sages stated in connection with the minor:

86

TOHOROT

CHAPTER

THREE

3 :6

B. (I) If his mother left him and came and found him as he was, he is dean. C. Said R. Judah, "Under what circumstances? When she left him dirty. But if she left him clean, he is unclean, because menstruating women hug him." D. They said to him, "Even if he was dirty, [ it J also [ should be the rule], because they move him out of the way of the feet of men, and out of the way of the feet of cattle." T. 3:8 (p. 293, ls. 1-6) E. F. G.

(2) If he began to go out and come in [on his own], his clothing is clean. But they do not prepare clean things depending upon his being

clean. H. And [ ordinary J Israelites did not refrain from this point [ onward]: ( 3) If he has intelligence to be consulted about his condition, I. a matter of doubt concerning him in private domain is resolved in favor of uncleanness; in the public domain, it is resolved in favor of cleanness. T. 3:9 (p. 293, ls. 7-9)

J. (4)

If he knew how to keep his body, food which is on his body is clean. L. [If he knew J to keep his hands, food which is on his hands is clean. M. And how do they examine him? N. They immerse him and give him unconsecrated food, saying that it is heave-offering. 0. If he knows how to guard his body, food which 1s on his body is clean. P. If he knows how to guard his hands, food which 1s on his hands is clean. T. 3:10 (p. 293, ls. 10-14)

K.

The four stages are ( 1) a child who depends on his mother; ( 2) one who goes in and out on his own; ( 3) one who has intelligence and can answer questions about what he has touched; and ( 4) one who knows enough to avoid sources of uncleanness in respect to his body and hands. The first case is disputed by Judah, C-D. The point of the second case is that we do not assume the child's clothing has become unclean with midr,u-uncleanness, but, nonetheless, we still do not rely upon his being clean. H then says that Israelites will depend upon the cleanness of the child at the third and fourth stages. The third case goes over the ground of our Mishnah, but introduces the issue of private and public domain, about which our Mishnah knows nothing. Finally comes the fourth case, which should

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:6-7

87

be fourth (J) and fifth (L). O-P go over the rules already stateda handsome construction in all. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 16:10) phrases G telicitously: "Yet even though they are clean, matters requiring conditions of cleanness must be dealt with apart from them." For M-P, he gives, "How is he examined? They immerse him and give him common food under the name of heave-offering. If he then knows how to guard his person, clean foodstuffs which have touched his person may be eaten; and moreover if he knows how to guard his hands, clean foodstuffs which his hands have touched may be eaten." While T. intersects with M., it must be regarded as a wholly autonomous construction, with its own interests and considerations. 3:7 A. A child who is found on the side of a graveyard, and lilies are in his hand, and lilies are [located) only in [or (come) from] the place of the uncleanness is clean, B. for I say, "Someone else gathered them and gave them to him." C. And so an ass [located] among the graves-his utensils are clean. M. 3:7

We have a further illustration of M. 3:6. The child is in a situation in which we may assume that only by entering the grave-area is he able to pick the lilies. Nonetheless, we are not certain he has entered the grave-area, for the reason given in B. Therefore we rule that he is clean, just as at M. 3:6D. As to C, we do not know for sure that the ass has walked in an unclean place. The pack and bit are clean, because we cannot ask the ass where he has been, as at M. 3 :6C. A. A blind man and one who is sleeping and one who walks by nightB. matters of doubt which concern them are resolved in favor of cleanness, because they have intelligence to be consulted. C. An ass which was standing in a clean place, and it is possible for him to pass over into an unclean place-D. utensils which are on him are clean. T. 3:11 (p. 293, Is. 15-18)

C-D = M. 3:7C. A-B contradict M. 3:6C, unless, like Sens and Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 16:3), we read, at B, uncleanness.

88

TOHOROT

CHAPTER THREE

3:8

3:8 A. A child [who is unclean] who 1s found at the side of the dough, and the dough is in his handB. R. Meir declares clean. C. And sages declare unclean, D. for it is the way of the child to slap [dough]. E. Dough which had on it marks of hens' [beaks], F. and unclean lic1uids are in the house, G. if there is between the liquid and the loaves sufficient [space} for the hens to dry off their beaks in the ground, H. lo, these are clean. I. And in the case of the cow and in the case of the dogJ. sufficient space in which they may lick their tongue. K. And in reference to all other cattle, sufficient space in which they may dry themselves. L. R. Eliezer b. Jacob declares clean in the case of a dog, because he is intelligent, M. for it is not his way to leave food and to go for water. M. 3:8 (A-D: b. Nid. 18b, Qid. soa-b, Hul. 86a, Yev. 1 J 9a)

M. 10:2 presents an exact parallel to M. 3:8E-H. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Unclermness 16:4) gives the rule as follows: If there is unclean liquid and clean dough in a house contammg cattle or wild animals or fowls, and the mark of a bite is found in the dough, it is a presumption that they have drunk of the liquid ,ind bitten the dough and rendered it unclean. If there is a cow and, between the liquid and the dough, there is distance enough for it to have licked its tongue, the dough is deemed to be clean; and the same applies to any other beast if there is time enough for it to wipe its muzzle. If the distance is less than this, the dough is deemed to be unclean. But if it is a dog, even if the liquid stands beside the dough, the dough is deemed to be clean, since it is not the way of dogs to leave food and go after water. If the beak mark of fowls is found in the dough and there is distance enough between the liquid and the dough for them to wipe their beaks on the ground, the dough is deemed to be clean; but if there is not, it is deemed to be unclean, since the presumption is that they drank and pecked at the dough with liquid still in their beaks. This applies if the liquid is clear enough for a child's reflection to be perceptible therein; but if it is turbid, the dough remains clean, for if fowls had pecked in the water, the mark of the water would be perceptible in the dough. If the water is clear, then although the dough is presumed to be unclean, heave-offering is not to be burnt because of this presumption; but it must be left in suspense.

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE 3 :8

89

The pericope is in the following parts: A-D, E-H, supplemented by I-J, and K-M. The set is unified by a common theme and principle, namely, if we cannot ask a party whether he has been made unclean, and we have reason to doubt that he has been made unclean, we rule that he is clean. In the first instance, Meir holds that the dough is clean, because we do not know for sure that the child has touched the dough; someone else may have given it to him, just as at M. 3:7. He of course cannot be interrogated. But sages say that usually a child does slap the dough, so we assume that he has done so in this case. Meir takes account of uncommon behavior (Rosh, b. Nid. 18b). The problem of E-M has to do with the behavior of animals. Do we assume that the hens have pecked at the liquids, then at the dough? No, G-H rule, if there is reason to believe the hens have pecked at the ground, then we assume that they have touched the unclean liquid, dried their beaks in the dirt, and then pecked at the dough. I-J apply the same principle to cows and dogs, and generalizes. Eliezer b. Jacob eliminates the dog from I, and his reason is certainly valid, namely, dogs are intelligent and unlikely to behave like dumb animals. Ideally, L-M should follow J, which suggests that I-L form a unitary rule, only afterward glossed by Eliezer' s disputed item. The point throughout is no different from M. 3:7, also illustrating M. 3:6. A. B.

A child who is found standing at the side of a basket of dough[or] at the side of a jar of liquidsC. R. Meir declares clean. D. And sages declare unclean, E. for it is the way of a child to slap [dough]. F. R. Y ose says, "If he can spread forth his hands and touch [ or: takeJ it, it is unclean. G. "And if not, it is clean." T. 3: 12 (p. 293, Is. 19-20, p. 294 Is. 1-2) H. More than this did R. Yose say: "If he was found far from the dough, even though there is dough in his hand, it is clean, I. "for I say, 'Someone else took and give it to him.' J. "And if one said, 'It is clear to me that no one came here,' it is unclean." K. R. Ilai said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, "With respect to a dog, lo, this is clean, L. "for it [the dog] would say, 'Anytime is water available, but food is not available any time.' " T. 3:13 (p. 294, Is. 3-7)

90

TOHOROT CHAPTER THREE

3:8

T. serves as a supplement to M. T. 3:12A-E = M. 3:8A-D, with an additional case at B. Yose's saying does not help us determine whether B is integral, since F may ref er to the jar of liquid, and H confirms the dough. Y ose's position is in-between that of Meir and the view of the sages. He says it is not necessarily unclean. If the child has the capacity to make the dough or liquid unclean, it is unclean ( = sages). But if he cannot do so, it remains clean. The supposition of Yose's saying at H-I is the same as that of M. 3:7A-B. All that is added is J, which is consistent with Yose's position at F-G. K-L = M. 3:8L-M. T. adds the attribution by Ilai to Eliezer b. Jacob.

CHAPTER FOUR

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR The problem of interpreting the laws before us is to determine which of the several principles about matters of doubt pertaining to the various cases is to be applied. We already know that if a person can be interrogated, a matter of doubt is deemed unclean, but, if not, it is deemed clean (M. 3:6). M. 3:5 says we determine matters in accord with the situation pertaining at the moment of discovery of the uncleanness. Other such principles are that matters of doubt concerning the public domain are deemed clean, concerning the private domain are deemed unclean; matters of doubt in a situation in which the unclean thing is at rest or has an abiding place are deemed unclean, but if the unclean thing has no place in which to come to rest, doubts are deemed clean. The chapter is in two main parts, 4:1-6, a series of discrete pericopae, and 4:7 + 8-13, a major unit, 4:7, systematically spelled out in a commentary thereafter, 4:8-13. All named authorities are Ushan. The first pericope concerns throwing something unclean from place to place. The matter of doubt is whether, en route, the unclean thing has touched something and contaminated it. The rule is that it has not, generalized by T. into the principle: "Matters of doubt concerning things which are dragged and thrown are deemed clean." But Judah distinguishes between M. 4:l's two exemplary cases, and it is difficult to establish exactly the principle he has in mind. Is it that of T.? Then how shall we distinguish between what seem to be identical cases? Is it that of M. 3:5, that we judge matters in terms of their final condition? or of M. 3:6-7, that we rule leniently, deeming a matter of doubt to be clean, when there is no possibility of interrogation? These are among the exegetical possibilities to be attempted. The next unit, M. 4:2-3, introduces an object of uncleanness-a creeping thing-in the mouth of a weasel. The weasel walks on loaves of heave-offering. We do not know whether, in transit, the creeping thing has touched the loaves. We rule they are clean. Why? The operative principle now is that if an unclean thing has a place in which to rest, it is deemed unclean, but if not, a matter of doubt is deemed clean. M. 4:4 carries forward the same theme, but now we have a

92

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

raven flying overhead, with an olive's bulk of corpse-matter in its beak. If it overshadowed men or utensils in the private domain-in which setting we resolve matters of doubt strictly-the men are deemed unclean, the utensils clean. Presumably the men can be interrogated. M. 4:5 brings us to the issue of heave-offering. If heave-offering is certainly unclean, it is to be burned. If we are not sure that it is unclean, it should not be needlessly burned. But we have six matters of doubt in which, in any event, we do burn heave-offering, M. 4:5A, followed by explanatory matter, stressing that we know for sure the heave-offering has been in contact with the source of uncleanness, but are not certain that the source of uncleanness really is unclean. M. 4:6 presents an autonomous item, concerning two drops of spit, one clean, one unclean, and their affect upon heave-offering. We make a series of distinctions, ( 1) between touching, carrying, and moving; ( 2) between private and public domain;; and ( 3) between moist and dried up spit. Finally, M. 4:7 + 8-13 list twelve conditions of doubt which sages have declared clean, by contrast to the foregoing. But on the list are several items, e.g., firstlings and sacrifices, which have nothing to do with cleanness or uncleanness. Some of the items are cases, for example, uncleanness floating on the surface of water, and others present generalizations about law; scribes' rulings; sources of uncleanness, creeping things; objects susceptible to uncleanness, liquids, hands, unconsecrated food; locations of contamination, public or private domain and the like-a hodgepodge. The illustrative materials, M. 4:8-13, carefully avoid materials explained elsewhere in our tractate, spelling out only those items which occur in other tractates or are not going to recur in ours. This means that the supplementary pericopae are apt to have been added at the very final stages of the tractate' s redaction, after other tractates, also, had taken shape, in which case the redactor also must be responsible for the provision of much of the explanation, therefore of some of the tradental work, and must have known the layout and arrangement of this and other tractates-very late indeed in the process of ultimate redaction. It goes without saying that T. to our chapter is exceptionally rich. Much of its materials belongs to the type of autonomous supplement, bearing only tenuous relationship to M.'s principles, let alone its problems and cases, and making no effort to elaborate or elucidate M. at all.

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FOUR

4:1

93

The attributions and attestations of the chapter are as follows: M. 4:1, Judah; T. 3:14-4:3: Simeon b. Gamaliel, Dosa; M. 4:5, Yose; M. 4:6 continues M. 4:5 and is Ushan; M. 4:7-13 are full of Ushan attributions and attestations.

4:1 A. He who threw something unclean from place to place [ and we do not know whether, en route, it touched something clean]B. [M: \"v] a [clean] loaf of bread among [unclean] keys-C. an [unclean] key among the [clean} loaves of breadD. it is clean. E. R. Judah says, "[If one threw} a [clean] loaf among the [unclean] keys [which are at rest], it [the loaf] is unclean. F. "[If one threw] an [unclean] key [which is not at rest] among the [clean] loaves, it [ the loaf] is clean." M. 4:1

The form of our pericope is st.111dard, a dispute composed of a complete, slightly apocopated sentence, and an appended gloss, which in fact differs from the given rule and revises it. That the two parts, A-D and E-F, are not a unity, however, is shown by B-C, which are important only from Judah's viewpoint. A suffices at D, and its point, without the interpolated examples, is that if we are in doubt about something unclean' s having touched something clean, and the unclean thing has been thrown, then the matter of doubt is deemed clean. In fact, M. 4:3 restates exactly that proposition, which stresses the question of whether the unclean thing has a place in which to land. If it docs not, then we do not posit that it has touched something clean and contaminated it. ( Bert. and TYY introduce M. 3 :6: this is something which cannot be interrogated.) Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 15:6) states the rule in terms of doubts about creeping things which are thrown, stressing M. 3:5: If a dead creeping thing or anything unclean is thrown among loaves or if a loaf is thrown among unclean things, and it is in doubt whether it did or did not touch them, it remains clean insofar as the clean loaf is found not touching the uncleanness; for any matter of uncleanness is determined by the condition at the time it is found; and no one may say, 'Perchance it touched it and afterward fell to the side of it;' but it is determined by the condition at the time that it is found.

In his Mishnah-commentary, on the other hand, Maimonides interprets

94

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FOUR

4:1

the case in terms of M. 4:3. We do not assume the unclean thing has touched what it passes over, because it has no resting place. Judah holds that if one threw a clean loaf among keys, the loaf is unclean, because the unclean keys are lying on the ground, so that what is unclean has an abiding place. If one throws an unclean key among clean loaves, the unclean thing has no abiding place. Accordingly, the issue is exactly the same as in M. 4:3, so far as Judah is concerned. Sages agree, differing only as to the facts of the case. What is important to our pericope is Judah's position. A has told us we throw something unclean. Yet Judah seems to have in mind a clean loaf at B/E and an unclean key at C/F, for, if not, the distinction between the two cases, B/E and C/F, is incomprehensible. If in fact we have a clean loaf in B, then Judah's point is this: since we have a matter of doubt about something clean which is thrown, that is, the clean loaf of B, we deem the clean thing to be unclean. If we have a matter of doubt about something unclean which is thrownthe unclean key of C-then we deem the matter of doubt to be clean. Bert., following Rosh and Sens, as noted, explains Judah's position to depend upon the one who throws (A). Since we may interrogate the person who throws, the matter of doubt is regarded as unclean. But, he says, when we throw an unclean key among the clean loaves, since the uncleanness does not rest in one place but passes over that which is clean, the matter of doubt is deemed to be clean. This explanation naturally asks us to see two separate rules in A-D, one explaining why B is clean, the other, C. A+ D hold that we have a case in which interrogation is possible. MS interprets the problem to concern a doubt involving insects, which is resolved in terms of the condition or the situation at the time it is discovered. In this he follows the view of Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 15:6). GRA stresses that in a matter of something which is thrown, we deem a matter of doubt to be clean; in so stating, he cites T. 3:14B. Judah, he says, requires an abiding place (M. 4:3) for uncleanness, but as to something clean, even if it is thrown, its matter of doubt is deemed unclean. As to the matter of interrogation, the issue is no issue, for the man can be interrogated. Which of the several principles adduced in interpreting the pericope seems to be operative? Clearly, A+ D must be interpreted in the light of A. What M. wants to tell us is the law about throwing something unclean from place to place. If that is the primary consideration, then

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FOUR

4:1

95

the point is that if we have a matter of doubt about something which is thrown, we deem it to be clean, not because it has no place in which to rest (M. 4:3), which plays no role, but because of the throwing, that is, the primary verb in the construction. It is T.'s understanding of the pericope, as GRA rightly stresses. \'vhat about Judah's viewpoint? Interestingly, his saying lacks the operative verb but stresses B-C, loaf/key, key/loaf. \Vhat is important to him? The only principle which can explain the difference in his opinion is that of M. 4:3, whether the unclean thing has a resting pl,1ce. At E, the clean loaf is thrown among unclean keys; the keys have a resting place. The loaf is unclean. At F, the unclean key is thrown among clean loaves. The unclean key has no resting place. Does Judah's "contrary" opinion find a natural place in the pericope? Hardly, for he docs not reject the primary principle. He illustrates another, separate one. Judah docs not disagree about throwing some· thing unclean and not knowing whether the unclean thing has touched something en route. In fact, what interests him is the quite separate matter of whether the unclean thing has a resting place--and that, by definition, is not going to be something thrown at all! A speaks of throwing something unclean. Judah's F concurs in this matter. If one throws an unclean key among loaves-the loaves are clean. That is, Judah's case in F is exactly the same as A. At F we throw something unclean, and declare the items on the ground to be clean. At A+ D we throw something unclean and declare the items on the ground to be clean. Quite simply, Judah does not disagree with A+ D. He inserts into A+ D a quite separate rule, distinct from that of A+ D but by no means in conflict with it. The exegetes who read the pcricope in the light of uniform principles, of interest to both parties, cannot be faulted, to be sure, since they take for granted we have a unitary pericope. But the operative language of the separate sayings, A+ D and E + F cannot be ignored either, and what is important to A, he who threw, is simply not what is important to E + F ( or, therefore, to the intruded B + C generated by E + F). What has happened is that two separate sayings have been elided into ,1 dispute. B-C serve the function of presenting as a dispute what are simply two discrete examples of two quite separate, if related, principles. What can we say in behalf of the ultimate tradent, the one who combined the two principles? Logic is surely in his side, for throwing and resting place are complementary; something thrown has to come to rest, but, by

96

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:1-3

definition, if it is thrown, it has no resting place, and both the anonymous rule at A+D and Judah agree on that point. Adding Judah's opinion is equivalent to saying, Under what circumstances? When it is thrown. But if it is at rest and something clean is thrown .... Will sages of A+ D agree with that point? According to the present formulation, they explicitly reject it. But according to our conception of their saying in its original form, they most surely need not reject it at all. In constructing a "dispute", therefore, the ultimate tradent has simply wished to tell us the limits of two separate but intersecting principles, a beautiful piece of legal formulation indeed. 4:2-3 A. B.

The creeping thing is in the mouth of the weasel, and it [the weasel] walks on loaves of heave-offeringC. there is doubt whether or not it [the creeping thing] touched [the loaves]D. its matter of doubt is deemed clean. [GRA: (1) there can be no interrogation; (2) the unclean thing is not at rest.J M. 4:2 (b. Hui. 9b [M. Ed. 2:7: Before cAqiva, M. 4:2 is attributed to Joshua]) A. B.

The creeping thing is in the mouth of the weaseland a [bit of] carrion is in the mouth of the doge. and they passed among clean things, D. or clean things [ or: people J passed between them, E. their matter of doubt is deemed clean, F. because the unclean thing has no place [Danby, p. 720: "since the uncleanness had no abiding place"]. G. [If] they were picking at them while [these lay] on the ground [the weasel or dog nip and gnaw at the creeping thing which is on the ground]H. and a person said, I. "I went to that place, but I do not know whether I touched or whether I did not touch" J. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean, K. because the unclean thing has a place ["since the uncleanness had an abiding place;']. [And the man can be interrogated.] M. 4:3

The issue of M. 4:1 continues. Maimonides ( Other Fathers Uncleanness 15:7) summarizes, "In such a condition of doubt they are deemed clean, since the uncleanness did not remain at rest.. . If the rat or the dog is picking at them on the ground, it is as though the unclean things rested there .... " The point of M. 4:2 is explained at M. 4:3F.

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:2-3

97

M. 4:3A repeats M. 4:2A; M. 4:3B is new, M. 4:3C-D state M. 4:2B in more elaborate language, M. 4:2C has no counterpart at M. 4:3, since it is subsumed under M. 4:3E = M. 4:20. Accordingly, we have nothing more than two parallel versions of the same problem, as if Judah's opinion in M. 4:1 had not sufficed. M. 4:3G-K are strikingly uninterested in the matter of interrogation; the person can be interrogated, therefore a matter of doubt concerning him should be deemed unclean. And it is deemed unclean, but for the reason predominant in this whole set, the matter of whether the unclean thing has a natural location, in which case matters of doubt are deemed unclean. A. Whatever is suspended and whatever is dragged-matters of doubt concerning them are resolved in favor of uncleanness, because they are [ regarded] as if they were lying [ and have a place in which to rest]. B. And whatever is throwna matter of doubt concerning it is clean, C. except for an olive's bulk of corpse matter, D. and whatever overshadowsE. they convey uncleanness from above as from below. F. But if something clean was thrown over an olive's bulk of corpse-matter-it is clean. T. 3:14 (p. 294, ls. 8-11) (y. Naz. 9:2; A-E: b. Naz. 64a)

The point of A is the same as M. 4:3G. That is, when the dog or weasel drags the creeping thing on the ground, the creeping thing has a resting place, so a doubt concerning it is deemed unclean. But T. is autonomous of M. Since something is dragged on the ground, it is as if it were lying on the ground. B-E hold that where overshadowing is concerned, we regard the matter as if it has a resting place, and a matter of doubt is deemed unclean. But this is not reciprocal (F), in connection with which see M. Oh. 8:5 (TR IV, p. 57). A. [If a person] was wrapped in his cloak, B. with unclean things and clean things at his sideC. and unclean things and clean things are aboveD. there is doubt whether he touched or did not touchE. his matter of doubt is deemed clean. F. And if it is not possible for him [not to come] into [contact], G. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. H. R. Dosa says, "They say to him that he should do it again." I. They said to him, "They do not attempt a repetition in matters of cleannesses." T. 4:1 (p. 294, ls. 13-16) (b. Nid. Sb) 7

98

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:2·3

The man is sitting with both dean and unclean objects beside or above him. We do not know whether he touched or was touched by the objects. Did the cloak contract uncleanness? If we· do not know for sure, we rule he is clean. But if it would not be possible for him to avoid contact with the objects, the doubt is deemed unclean. Dosa's view is that we should reenact the scene and see whether, in fact, he has to have touched the objects. (b. Nid. 5b here has Simeon b. Gamaliel.) The sages say that this will not remove the doubt, since we cannot reproduce the exact situation. Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 16:6) introduces the issue of the public or private domain: If there are unclean things and clean things beside a man or above him, and he is wrapped up in his cloak, and it is in doubt whether they did or did not touch him while he was wrapped up-if they are in private domain, he is deemed to be unclean, since a doubtful uncleanness that comes by human means is something about which inquiry can be made; even a vessel that lies on the ground is, as it were, something which has 'understanding enough to be inquired of.' [ = Yohanan, b. Nid. 5bJ. But if they are in the public domain, his condition of doubt is deemed clean; yet if he could not have avoided touching them, his condition of doubt is deemed. to be unclean.

T., of course, is entirely autonomous of M. A. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "There are times that he does repeat.'' B. (How so?) C. {If} there was a creeping thing suspended between the walls, and it is (not) possible to pass without touchingD. [if there J is doubt whether one touched or whether one did not touchE. its [his J matter of doubt is deemed clean. F, And if it is not possible [to pass] there {without touching]G. its matter of doubt is deemed unclean. H. R. Dosa says, "[They say] to him that he should repeat." I. They said to him, "They do not repeat in matters of cleannesses." T. 4:2 (p. 294, ls. 17-18, p. 295, ls. 1-3)

The case, C, is different, and then D-1 = T. 4:1D-I, word for word. The case, C-G, hardly illustrates A, and B therefore makes no sense; GRA deletes it. Accordingly, Dosa and Simeon are of the same mind, and presumably Simeon is assumed to cite the case, C-D, also E, and at F will have the man repeat the experiment.

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:2-3

99

A. [If] there was a [live] creeping thing suspended between the wallsB. one rubbed against it, and it fell on his garments or on a loaf of heave-offeringC. it is clean. D. And if they found it dead before him, it is unclean. E. And if they saw it, that it was alive between the walls, even though one found it dead before him, it is clean. F. If it (the dead creeping thing] rested on his shoulder, lo, this one is unclean. T. 4:3 (p. 295, ls. 4-7)

In the present case, the issue is whether, when the person touched the creeping thing, it was alive and dean, or dead and unclean. In A-C, we assume it is alive. But, D adds, if we find it dead, then we assume the loaf of bread of heave-offering is unclean. E then introduces the interesting question, What if it was alive when seen, then found dead? Do we assume that when the person rubbed against the creeping thing, it was dead? No. We deem the matter of doubt to be dean, because no interrogation is possible, so far as the loaf of heave-offering is concerned. F then points out that, with the man, the rule is different; now there is the possibility of interrogation, so we rule the man is unclean. M. 3:5 is ruled out by the contrast between E and F. A. B.

A loaf of heave-offering which was placed on top of the boardsomething unclean with midras-uncleanness[b. Nid. 4a: maddaf] is set beneath itC. and it is not possible for it [ the loaf] to fall without touching that which is unclean with midras uncleannessD. and one came and found it on top of something else which is unclean with midras-uncleannessE. _it [the loaf] is clean. F. For I say, "Another person took it and placed it on that place." G. And if one said, "It is clear to me that no man has come here," it is unclean. T. 4:4 (p. 295, ls. 8-11) (b. Nid. 4a)

The problem in A-F is whether, in shifting its position, the loaf has touched the thing unclean with midras-uncleanness, as it moved to another object parallel to B. Since there are grounds for doubt, and since there is no possibility of interrogation, we deem the loaf clean. But if we have no grounds for doubt, then we accept the definition of the circumstance at face value and rule the loaf unclean. Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 16:7) gives:

100

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FOCR

4:2-3

If a loaf of heave offering is put on a shelf and below it lies matting that has suffered midras-uncleanness, and it is impossible for the loaf in falling not to touch the midras-uncleanness, even if the midrasuncleanness lies on sloping ground and a man comes and finds the loaf in another place, it continues clean, since we might say that someone has come and taken it and put it in this place. But if anyone can say, 'It is clear to me that no one came in hither,' it is deemed to be unclean, since beyond doubt it fell, and in falling, it must have touched the midras-uncleanness. A. A creeping thing is in the mouth of the weasel and it walks on top of loaves of heave-offeringB. it touches itC. there is a doubt whether it is alive or whether it is deadD. Rabbi declares unclean, E. for the presumption concerning creeping things is that they die in the mouth of the weasel. F. And sages declare clean. G. Under what circumstances? H. \Vhen it took it and went on its way. But if one found it dead in its mouthI. J. if one saw it alive in its mouthK. even though it [then J is found dead in its mouthL. it is clean. T. 4:5 (p. 295, ls. 12-16)

T. at last comes to M., g1vmg a parallel version to the case at M. 4:2. But the case is more subtle. Now we do not know whether the creeping thing was dead, though we are sure that the creeping thing has touched the heave offering-a link between M. 4:2-3 and M. 4:5. Rabbi declares the loaves unclean, for the reason given at E. G-H refer to F. That is, sages will declare the loaves dean when the weasel went about its way. But, presumably, if the weasel gnaws on the creeping thing, we agree that the creeping thing dies.

In the new case, I- L, we know that the creeping thing was alive (J), but then is found dead (I, K). Now Rabbi's presumption is rejected, showing how far sages of F-H will go. Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Unclecmness 15:7) gives: If a rat holds a dead creeping thing in her mouth and runs along on top of heave-offering loaves, and it is in doubt whether the creeping thing did or did not touch them, in such a condition of doubt they are deemed dean, since the cleanness did not remain at rest [ = M. 4:2]. If the rat runs along with it and it touches the loaves and it is in doubt whether it was alive or dead, they remain clean [ = FJ. This

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:2-3

101

applies if the rat has taken it away [G-HJ. But if it is found dead in the rat's mouth, the loaves are deemed to be unclean. If it was seen to be alive in the rat's mouth, even though afterward it is found dead in its mouth, they still remain clean.

Accordingly, Maimonides interprets I to add unclean, and J-Lare as we have them, in which case the sages reaffirm their original position, rejecting E. A. R. Simeon b. Leazar says, "A creeping thing in the mouth of the snakeB. "it is crawling on top of loaves of heave offering C. "there is a doubt whether it touched or whether it did not touchD. "its matter of doubt is deemed clean. E. "For thus it is the way of the snake, to raise its neck and crawl along." T. 4:6 (p. 295,ls. 17-20)

This case is autonomous of M. Its point is clear, another secondary link of M. 4:2-3 to M. 4:5. The creeping thing is in the mouth of the chickenand a bit of carrion is in the mouth of the doge. they pass through the courtyardD. they do not convey uncleanness retroactively. E. For I say, "From some other place did they bring them." F. If they were pecking at them on the ground, G. they do convey uncleanness retroactively. T. 4:7 (p. 295, I. 21, p. 296, ls. 1-2) A. B.

T. asks an interesting question. What happens when we discover that the chicken or dog which has passed through the courtyard has a creeping thing in its mouth? Do we hold that the courtyard through which the chicken or dog has passed is unclean on that account? No. We have reason to suppose that after passing through the courtyard, the chicken or dog has picked up the creeping thing or carrion. But that is only when the creeping thing has no resting place, as at M. 4:3F. If it has a resting place, F = M. 4:3G, the matter of doubt is deemed unclean. T. therefore both cites and illustrates M. A. [If] a person went into an alley and made dough, and afterward a creeping thing was found, B. and the person said, "If it were here, I should have seen it," C. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel declares clean.

102

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:2-3

D. And Rabbi declares unclean, E. until he will state, "It is clear to me that it was not here beforehand." F. Lo, he who immersed and went up, and afterward there was found on him something which interposes [between his flesh and the water], even though he was occupied with that very sort of thing after he immersed, lo, this one is unclean, until he will state, "It is clear to me that it was not on me beforehand." T. 4:8 (p. 296, ls. 3-1 I) (A-E: M. Nid. 7:2; F: b. Hul. 10a)

The issue, entirely autonomous of M., is, What constitutes the basis for a doubt? Rabbi wants very firm testimony, and F reflects the same view; M. Nid. 7:2 follows Rabbi's view. A. A grave which is discovered conveys uncleanness retroactively. B. If a person came and said, "It is clear to me that it was not here twenty [years ago, so Schereschewsky)," C. it is unclean only from the time that it was discovered and thereafter. T. 4:9 (p. 296, ls. 9.11)

T. is wholly autonomous of M., continuing the theme of T. 4:8. A. An unclean olive-pit which was found inside a loaf on top of a boiling stew, B. even though flowing liquid is not on it [the pit), it [the loaf] is unclean. C. [If] it was discovered on top of a loaf inside of a cold broth, D. even though there is flowing liquid on it, it is clean E. This is the general principle: Whatever is discovered in something which is boiling, even though there is running liquid on it, is unclean. [Sens: Whatever is found in something which is boiling, even though there is no flowing liquid on it, is unclean. (If) it is found on a loaf in a cold broth, even though there is flowing liquid on it, it is clean.] F. A pit which is in the house-they follow the majority [of pits in the house]. T. 4:10 (p. 296, ls.17-17)

The boiling releases unclean fluid which renders the stew unclean, A, but C-D produce a legitimate matter of doubt. For the readings, see TR IV, p. 61. The point of F is that if most pits are unclean, this one is too-a link to the next subtracta.te's interests. Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Unclea11ness17:6) gives the rule as follows:

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:2-4

103

If the kernel of some unclean fruit is found inside a loaf or on top of seething stew, although there is no dripping liquid on it, it is still deemed to be unclean, for we could say that the entire unclean fruit fell there and was liquefied by reason of the seething stew, and only its kernel remained. If the kernel is found on top of the loaf or inside cold stew, this is deemed to be dean-even though there is liquid on it, for we could say, "This kernel alone fell in after the fruit was lost to it," because the kernel alone does not convey uncleanness.

On the differences between this view of the mle and T.'s readings, see TR IV, p. 61. A.

Flax which a menstruating woman has spunhe who moves it is dean. C. And if it was moist, D. he who moves it is unclean, E. because of the liquid which is in his [better: her J mouth. F. R. Judah says, "Even he who wets it [the flax] is unclean because of the liquid in her mouth." G. They said to him, "Once they put it into water, it [the water] has overflowed it [ formed the greater part J and it is dean." T. 4:11 (p. 296, ls. 18-21) (M. Nid. 7:1, b. Zev. 796)

B.

T. is autonomous of M. The issue is the way in which the flax is made unclean. Once it is wet, the woman makes it unclean (A-E). The spit of A-B is dry, so does not impart uncleanness, by contrast to C-E. See TR IV, pp. 61-2. 4:4 A.

An olive's bulk of corpse-matter is in the mouth of the raven-

B. there is doubt whether it overshadowed the man and the utensils in the private domainC. the doubt concerning the man is deemed unclean. [GRA: He is subject to interrogation; the uncleanness has a place in which to abide (see T. 3:14).J D. The doubt concerning the utensils is deemed clean. E. He who draws with ten buckets, and a creeping thing is found in one of themF. it is unclean, and all [the rest] of them arc clean. G. He who empties from utensil and a creeping thing 1s found in the lower oneH. the upper one is dean [as at M. 3:5}. M. 4:4 (E-H: b. Nid. 36)

The present problem devolves upon the possibility of interrogation, C-D. Since we do not know whether the corpse-matter has over-

104

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:4-5

shadowed the man, and since he can be interrogated, he is deemed unclean, but the utensils, not subject to interrogation, are clean. (Doubts in the public domain are treated differently, as we shall see.) So much for A-D. E-F form a separate item, as do G-H. Maimonides treats the former as follows (Other Fathers of Unclecmness 17:lB): So too if water drawn into one vessel and poured into ten vessels and a creeping thing is found in one of them, that one alone is deemed to be unclean and the other vessels are deemed to be clean, although they all are in doubt: perchance the creeping thing was in the vessel in which the water was first drawn-seeing that they are but vessels and have not understanding enough to be inquired of.

The same principle explains G-H. But to that last case, the further principle should pertain, that we adjudge the matter in accord with the situation when the problem turns up (M. 3:5). Since the creeping thing is found in the lower one, we assume it always has been there and has not affected the upper one. M. 10:7 brings us back to M. 4:4E-H, a sign that a redactional consideration stands behind both units. That is, we end subtractates or major units with uniform cases and principles, thus linking one to another.

4:5 A. On account of six matters of doubt [ as to the uncleanness of that which touched the heave-offering) do they burn the heave-offering [if we arc sure that the heave-offering h,is touched the specified substanceJ: 1. concerning a doubt in regard to a grave-area [into which the heave-offering has certainly been carried); 2. and concerning a doubt in regard to dirt which comes from abroad ["the land of the gentiles"), [which certainly has touched the heave-offering]; 3. because of a doubt concerning the clothing of an cam ha"are.f [which is certainly unclean but may or may not have touched heaveoffering); 4. and because of a doubt concerning utensils which were found [by chance, that were perhaps unclean J; 5. because of a doubt concerning spittles which were found [which may be a Zab's or a menstruant's]; 6. because of a doubt concerning human urine [ as aboveJ that was nearby the urine of a beast-

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:5

105

B. [M:W; Katsh #119, K, P: wcL) because of certainly touching them, which is a matter of doubt in respect to their [imparting] uncleanness, [Danby, p. 720: "if these have of a certainty touched (the heave offering) and so conveyed an uncleanness which is in doubt,"] C. they burn the heave-offering [ even in public domain]. D. R. Yose says, "Even because of a doubt about having touched them in the private domain [they burn the heave-offering]. E. And sages say, "[Because of a doubt about having touched them J in the private domain, they leave it in suspense. And [because of a doubt] in the public domain, it is clean." M. 4:5 (b. Shab. 15b; A3: Nid. 33b)

b. Shab. 156 assigns this pericope to Usha. A, B+C form a complete thought. If heave-offering has certainly touched the specified items, which may or may not be unclean, it is burned. Yose, D, then adds a separate and additional rule. If we are not sure that heave offering has touched these items in the private domain-in which doubts are deemed unclean-heave offering is burned. Sages, E, reject Yose's rule. If we do not know for certain that heave-offering has touched these items, in respect to the private domain, the heave-offering is kept in suspense, not eaten, not burned, but in the public domain, the heave offering is clean. Accordingly, sages stand with B, stressing the importance of being certain that the heave offering has actually touched these items. The point is that the uncleanness of the items is in doubt. Let us now review the items. A grave area (M. Oh. 17:1, Part IV, pp. 318-321) has produced a bit of corpse-matter. There is the possibility that a bone of requisite size is located there. Accordingly, it may be unclean. Dirt which comes from the land of the gentiles may be unclean (M. Oh. 2:3, Part IV, pp. 59-69). The clothing of an cam ha,ares is unclean because his wife may have sat on them when in her period (Sens). If we find utensils and do not know whether they are clean, they convey uncleanness. If we find drops of spittle, we regard them as possibly unclean, because they may derive from a Zav or from a menstruating woman. ( GRA deletes which were found.) If we have human urine near cow's urine, we have to know which is which, since the former may be unclean, deriving from an unclean person, e.g., a Zav. In all instances, as I said, if we know for sure that the heave-offering

106

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:5-6

has touched these things, but do not know for sure that these materials are unclean, we burn the heave-offering. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 13:13) gives the rule as follows: Because of six uncleannesses whereof there is doubt, heave-offering must be burnt-all being precautionary measures resting only on the authority of the scribes-and these are they: ( 1) a grave area, ( 2) earth from heathen land, (3) the garments of a common person, ( 4) utensils that have been found, (5) spittle found by the wayside, (6) and urine of an unclean person that is mixed up with urine of cattle in equal quantities, and it is not known if its appearance has become indistinguishable or not. Thus, if by reason of one of these six things, heave-offering becomes unclean, although the primary fact of their being unclean is in doubt, the heave-offering must be burnt, inasmuch as the certain case, of which these are doubtful instances, rests on the authority of Scripture, since a corpse and a man with flux are unclean according to Scripture. No matter whether heave-offering touches one of these six uncleannesses directly or whether it becomes unclean by one of them indirectly, so standing at a third remove from one of them, it must be burnt. But if there is in any wise a doubt whether it has or has not touched a grave area or heathen land or whether it has or has not touched the garments or the spittle or the utensils or the urine, the heave-offering must be held in suspense, inasmuch as there is a doubt whether they are unclean or clean in the first place; and even if we assume that they are unclean, there is still doubt whether it touched them or did not touch them; thus there are two doubts, and on account of two doubts heave offering must not be burnt; but it must be held in suspense ....

4:6 A. B.

Two [ drops of] spitone unclean, and one cleanC. they suspend [ decision on the status of the heave-offering] ( 1) on account of having touched them, and (2) on account of having carried them, and (3) on account of having moved themD. in private property [ = sages, M. 4:5]; E. and on account of having touched them F. in public property, when they are moist; G. and on account of having carried them, whether they arc moist or whether they are dry. H. [If] there was a single drop of spittle and one touched it, and carried it, and moved it

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FOUR

4:6

107

I. in public domainJ. they burn the heave-offering on its account, K. and it is hardly necessary to rule, ( if one did so} in private property ( = the heave offering is burned}. M. 4:6 (M. Nid. 7:1) Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 18:5) states as follows: If there are two drops of spittle in a private domain, the one clean and the other of the kind which, when found by the wayside, has been decreed unclean... and someone touches or shifts one of them, and it is not known which, heave-offering must be left in suspense on account of it, since there are two doubts: doubt whether it is the dean one which he has touched or whether it is the kind decreed unclean; and if we say, "It was of the kind decreed unclean," it is again in doubt whether this drop is in fact unclean or whether it is clean.

Accordingly, we carry forward the issue (M. 4:5) of spittle (which is found). We have two cases, A-G and H-K. The former presents us with a doubt as to whether we have touched the clean or the unclean drop of spittle. One is spittle which is found, regarded as unclean because of doubt (M. 4:5). The other is clean; we know that it derives from a clean person. If a person has carried, moved, or touched one of them and does not know which one, and he touches heave-offering, the heaveoffering is suspended, as at M. 4:5E. That is, in the case of private domain, we suspend the heave offering if we are not sure it has touched the unclean spit. In respect to public property, we distinguish between moist and dry spit. If we have moist spit, and if heave-offering touches the spit, and we do not know which one it has touched, it is suspended. As to carrying, whether moist or dry, the spit causes the heave-offering in public property to be suspended. The man is regarded as private property ( = T. 5: 5). If the spit is moist and adheres to him, then in any event we deal with the strict rule-deeming unclean matters of doubt-applying to private property. The second case gives us a single drop of spit. In the public domain, we treat it as we do at M. 4:5A5-which gives exactly the same rule, but in a different way. Private property, of course, imposes the more severe rule in any event.

A. Unclean blood which was mixed with clean bloodB. "blood does not annul (BTL) [the contaminating effects of other} blood," the words of R. Judah.

108

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:6

And sages say, "They regard it as if it were wine in water. color is diluted, it is clean, and if not, it is unclean." Unclean spit which was mixed with clean spit"spit is not annulled," the words of R. Judah. F. And sages say, "They regard it as if it were water. If its color is diluted (BTL), it is clean, and if not, it is unclean." G. [If] it fell into water, [if] it remains cohesive, it is unclean. If it dissolved, [if] its taste and its color are diluted, it is clean, and if not it is unclean. T. 5:1 (p. 297, ls. 1-8) (M. Zev. 8:6, b. Zev. 79a) C. If its D. E.

The translation of G follows Jastrow, II, p. 1689b. T. continues to present its own materials, scarcely relevant to M. even in theme. D speaks of a mixture, unlike M. 4:6A-B. But the issue of M. ( = T. 5:5) is possible only if the spit is not annulled (E), since sages' view -depending on the color of the spit-should lead to no doubts. Either the spit is unclean, and we burn the heave-offering, or it is clean and of no effect. A. B. C. D. E. status

Urine which was mixed with wine--they regard it as if it were water. [If] it was mixed with water, they regard it as if it were wine. [If] its color is diluted, it is clean, and if not, it is unclean. Urine of a gentile [mixed with other urine]-they follow the of the majority [of the mixture]. F. R. Judah says, "A quarter-log in two se'ahs is unclean; more than that is clean." T. 5:2 (p. 297, ls. 9-13) (b. Zev. 79a; M:M. Ter. 10:8 [GRAJ)

For T. 5:1-2, Maimonides (Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 2:6) gives: If unclean blood mingles with water and its color disappears, the whole is clean. If it mingles with clean blood or with wine, it is regarded as though it was water. So too if unclean spittle mingles with water and it remains compact as in its original form, it is unclean; but if it dissolves in the water and its color disappears, the whole is clean. If it mingles with other spittle, it is regarded as though it was water. So too if the urine of an unclean person mingles with water and its color disappears, the whole is clean; if not, it is unclean. If it mingles with wine or with urine of a clean person, it is regarded as though it was water. If it mingles with the urine of gentiles, its condition of cleanness

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FOUR

4:6

109

or uncleanness follows the condition of the majority of the people of the place. Thus if Israelites and gentiles make water into the same vessel and the majority are gentiles, the whole is unclean; but if the majority are Israelites the whole is clean; if they are equal in number, the whole is unclean. So too if the urine of a gentile is mingled with the urine of an Israelite, the condition of its cleanness or uncleanness follows the condition of whichever is in greater quantity.

See TR IV, pp. 62-3. A. They purchase and borrow urine from any source, and they do not take account of the possibility that it derives from menstruating women, for the daughters of Israel are not suspected of collecting their urine when they are menstruating. B. The chamber pot of a Zab and of a ZabahC. the [ water of] the first and of the second [ washings of the pot] convey uncleanness. D. The [water of the] third [rinsing] is clean. E. Under what circumstances? F. When he put water into it [washed it with water]. G. But if he did not put water into it [but washed it with urine] H. even up to the tenth [ rinsing JI. it is unclean J. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, "The third, even though he did not put water into it, is clean." [TR N, p. 63: "All the same is water and urine-the first and second are unclean, the third clean."] T. 5:3 (p. 297, ls. 14-20) (b. Zev. 79b)

For B-J, Maimonides

(Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 2:8)

gives:

If the potsherd into which a man with flux or a woman with flux has made water is washed a first and a second time, the liquid with which it is washed becomes unclean; but the third time, the liquid remains clean, whether it is washed with water or with clean urine, since moisture from the first urine no longer remains there. A. A Zab who put his mouth on the mouth of the cup and changed his mind and did not drink itB. he who moves it is clean. C. If he drank from it any amount at allD. whoever moves it is unclean, E. because of the spit of his mouth. F. R. Simeon says, "The liquid which is in it forms the greater part over the liquid which is in his mouth [ and it is clean]." G. [If] he bit from the bread or from the onion-

110

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:6

he who moves it is clean [because spit does not adhere to them]. [If he bit off a piece J of gourd or cucumber, J. he who moves it is unclean, because of the spit of his mouth. K. R. Simeon says, "The liquid which is in it forms the greater part than the liquid which is in his mouth [ and it is clean}." L. And shells of beans and shells of beets which the gentile has shelled-M. he who moves them is unclean. N. And as to those in the market-places0. they follow the status of the majority. P. R. Judah b. Beterah says, "If we know that he has certainly touched them in private domain, they burn [heave-offering]." T. 5 :4 (p. 298, ls. 1-9) H.

I.

We have two disputes of Simeon, A-F, G-K. The point in both cases is that if the Zttb's spit mixes in any amount with what is in the cup, etc., the whole mixture is unclean. On the various readings, see TR IV, p. 63. As to L-M, the gentile shells the beans by biting them, so contaminates them with his split. Lieberman prefers PSS for our verb, thus split. N refers to bean-pods in public places. If most people there are gentiles, they arc unclean. P brings us directly to M. 4:6K. Judah b. Beterah holds that we burn heave offering which has certainly been touched only if we deal with a case which took place in private property ( TR IV, p. 64). Two drops of spit, one unclean and one clean, and one touched one of them, C. or carried it on a sherdD. R. Judah says, "Since it dripped on him, its status [Sens does not have: J upon him is regarded as if it were on private property." E. All the same is private and public domain: they suspend. F. [If] they were dried or one moved them on a chipG. in private property, they suspend, H. and in public property, it is clean. I. R. Y ose the Galilean says, "In private property, they burn." [Sens, TR IV, p. 65, for I: And R. Yose says, "In private domain they burn." (If there) is doubt whether he touched or did not touch, whether he moved or did not move-in private property they suspend; in public property it is clean. R. Y ose the Galilean says, "In private property, they burn. J. [If there] was a single drop of spit-K. there is doubt whether one touched it or whether one did not touch it, A. B.

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:6

111

L. there is doubt whether one moved it or whether one did not move it, M. in private property, they suspend. N. In public property, it is clean. 0. R. Yose says, "In private property, they burn."

T. 5:5 (p. 298, Is. 10-18) T. provides a fine commentary to M. 4:6. The first unit, A-D, goes over the ground of M. 4:6A-E. A = M. 4:6A. B-C then introduce a dimension of the problem lacking in M. How has the contact taken place? Either through touching, or even through carrying the spit, without actually touching it. We have already interpreted M. in the light of Judah's saying in D. If the spit is wet and the man touches it, the man is adjudged as private domain. A matter of doubt in public property is deemed dean. But if there is doubt as to whether the man touched the spit, however, here we have a context of private property. Therefore we deem the doubt to be unclean. M. 4:6C says that in connection with private property, we suspend decision on the heave-offering. E says the same thing. F-H now concur with this same view as given in M. 4:6G. F says the spit was dry or was not actually touched. In private property, the heave-offering is kept in suspense; in public property, it is regarded as clean. M. 4:6C-D agree on private property. M. 4:6G says if it is moist or dry, carrying it in public property produces a decision to suspend the status of the heave-offering. M. and T. therefore concur. Yose the Galilean's view is rejected by M. R. Yose's view, in the light of Sens' reading for I, accords with his view at M. 4:5D that they burn even because of uncertain contact in private property. Here he agrees, since there may have been no contact at all. Y ose the Galilean requires burning even here ( TR IV, p. 65). J-0 bring us to M. 4:6H-K. M. speaks of touching or carrying. T.K, by contrast, says we do not know whether we have moved or"' touched the spit, a separate but related question. In this case of doubt, we suspend the status of the heave-offering in respect to a doubt about private property, and declare it clean in respect to public. M. 4:6H-K's problem is different. There, as I said, we know that we have touched or carried or moved the spit, but we do not know the status of the spit. In that circumstance, we do burn the heave offering, whether our uncertainty concerns actions in private or public domain. So T.'s problem runs parallel to, but separate from, M.'s, and beautifully supplements M.' s.

112

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

4:7-13 A. These are [ conditions of] doubt which sages have declared clean [ even in private domain J: B. 1. A doubt concerning drawn water [that falls into] the immersion-pool [M. Miq. 2:3]. C. 2. A doubt concerning uncleanness floating on the surface of the water. D. 3. A doubt concerning liquids, in respect to contracting uncleanness-it is unclean. E. [ A doubt concerning liquids, in respect to J conveying uncleanness-it is clean. F. 4. A doubt concerning hands, G. either in respect to contracting uncleanness, H. or in respect to conveying uncleanness, I. or [T lacks:] in respect to being made cleanJ. it is clean. K. 5. A doubt concerning public domain. L. 6. A doubt concerning rulings of the scribes [b. Shab. 13bJ. M. 7. A doubt concerning the unconsecrated food. N. 8. A doubt concerning creeping things. 0. 9. A doubt concerning plagues. P. 10. A doubt concerning Naziriteship. Q. 11. A doubt concerning firstlings. R. 12. A doubt concerning sacrifices. M. 4:7 A. A doubt concerning uncleanness floating on the surface of the water [ = M. 4:7CJB. whether [water] in utensils, whether [water] on the ground. C. R. Simeon says, "[If it is] in utensils, it is unclean, and [if it is] on the ground, it is clean." D. R. Judah says, "If the doubt has to do with his descent [into the water], he is unclean. If the doubt has to do with his coming up from the water, he is clean." E. R. Yose says, "Even if there is there only space enough for the man and the uncleanness, he is clean." M. 4:8 (b. Naz. 63b)

A. A doubt concerning liquids to contract uncleanness is deemed unclean [ = M. 4:7D]B. how so? C. An unclean person who put out his foot among clean liquidsD. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or did not touchE. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. F. {If] there was an unclean loaf of bread in his hand, and he threw it [Katsh #119, K, C, P, Pa, M:PSTHJ among dean liquids

[C, M:KKRWT THWRWTJ-

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

113

G. it is a matter of doubt whether it touched or whether it did not touchH. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. [GRA: Since a man threw it, we have the possibility of interrogation. The unclean thing, moreover, has a resting place.] I. And to convey uncleanness-it is clean [ = M. 4:7E]J. how so? K. [If] there was a staff in his hand, L. and on the end of it are unclean liquids, M. and he threw it among clean loavesN. it is a matter of doubt whether it touched or whether it did not touch0. its matter of doubt is deemed clean. [GRA: This is a matter of doubt on something which is thrown.] M. 4:9 (b. Pes. 16a) P. R. Yose says, "A matter of doubt in respect to liquids [M. 4:7D]Q. "in what concerns food, it is unclean, R. "and in what concerns utensils, it is clean." S. How so? T. Two jars, one is unclean and one is cleanU. and one made dough [ with water] from one of themV. it is a matter of doubt whether he made it from the unclean or whether he made it from the cleanThis is [the matter of which it is said]: W. A matter of doubt concerning liquidsX. if it has to do with foods, it is deemed unclean, Y. and if it has to do with utensils, it is deemed clean. M. 4:10 A. A matter of doubt concerning the hands, to contract uncleanness and [P, W lack:] to convey uncleanness and to be made clean-it is clean. [ = M. 4:7F-J] B. A matter of doubt having to do with the public domain [ = M. 4:7K] is deemed clean. · C. A matter of doubt having to do with the rules of scribes [M. 4:7L]D. One ate unclean foods, drank unclean liquidsE. his head and the greater part of his body came into drawn waterF. or three logs of drawn water fell on his head and on the greater part of his bodyG. a matter of doubt concerning him is deemed clean. H. But in respect to something which is a Father of uncleanness, I. and it [the uncleanness at the level of the Father] derives from the rulings of scribes [ e.g., the grave-area]J. its matter of doubt [if we know it is unclean but do not know whether it has been touched] is deemed unclean. M. 4:11 1

8

114

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR 4: 7-13

A. A matter of doubt concerning the unconsecrated food [M. 4:7MJ-this has to do with the cleanness of Perishut [TYY: separatism of various sorts]. B. A matter of doubt having to do with creeping things [M. 4:7NJ -it is adjudged in accord with their condition when they are found [ = M. 3:5, 4:1]. C. A matter of doubt having to do with plagues [M. 4:7 /0]D. in the first instance, it is clean, before it has been subjected to a ruling of uncleanness. Once it has been subjected to a ruling of uncleanness, a matter of doubt concerning it is deemed unclean. E. A matter of doubt concerning Naziriteship {M. 4:7PJ-it is permitted. F. A matter of doubt concerning firstlings [M. 4:7QJG. all the same is the rule for the first-born of man and the first born of cattle, H. whether unclean or clean, [is deemed permitted to the owner], I. for: J. he who would take something away from his fellow, upon him is the burden of proof. M. 4:12 (E: b. Ned. 18b-19a; F: b. Ker. 8a) A. B.

A matter of doubt concerning sacrifices [M. 4:7RJa woman suffered five miscarriages that were in doubtC. five fluxes that were in doubtD. she brings a single offering, E. and eats sacrifices, F. and the remainder is not an obligation for her ["and she is not bound to bring the other offerings"]. M. 4:13

What is interesting in the present catalogue is the absence of principles important in the foregoing pericopae. What has happened to the consideration of whether or not we can interrogate a person or object? The difference between the public and private domain is simply one item on the list, necessitating our reading it into all others. The list should also distinguish between whether something is at rest or in motion, has an abiding place or does not have an abiding place, and so on. In fact, no single principle appears throughout the list, which is, as we shall see, a conglomerate, originally composed of ten items, a doubt concerning liquids, with no articulation, a doubt concerning hands, and then Nos. 5-12. But Nos. 11 and 12 have nothing to do with cleanness. The conditions of doubt deemed clean-certainly an Ushan construction, as shown in the attestations and glosses consistently in the name of Ushans-involve the private as well as the public domain.

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

115

Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 14:1) counts twelve; if we treat D-E as two items (3, 4), and F-J as three (G = 5, H = 6, I = 7), we have fifteen. As is clear, most items from C-R are spelled out in the massive articulation of the list. I do not know why M. 4:7B, F, and J have, not been given illustrations or cases in Mishnah. In fact, Maimonides (ibid.) constructs the list somewhat differently. He drops everything after 0, replacing them with "a doubt about one 'who passes by' and one 'who stands still'; a doubt about creeping. things ... a doubt about two domains." Accordingly, he is as struck as we by the inconsistency of the items, Q and R for instance being wholly out of phase with the earlier ones. But the construction of his list is not our problem. Let us now turn to the subdivisions of the list. B, C, D, E, Nos. 1-3, deal with liquids. But these are not of the same sort. The first has to do with an immersion pool; the second may or may not deal with the same; and the third has to do with liquids in general. No. 4 is new and separate, so too Nos. 5-12. That is to say, there is no effort to list only items having to do with the professed theme of our tractate, which may be at No. 3 and certainly is at Nos. 5, 7, and 8, and which, by definition, is excluded from Nos. 1, 9-12. The last eight, Nos. 5-12, lack any sort of predicate, further evidence of the artificiality of the list. In all, it is not an impressive piece of tradental work, and I doubt that we have much more than the redaction of quite separate items, at a very late stage in the history of each discrete item. The point of No. 1, as given at M. Miq. 2:3, is simple. If three logs of drawn water fall into an immersion pool, they render it invalid. If we do not know for sure that they have fallen in, or, if we know they have fallen in, we do not know for sure that they were of the prescribed quantity to spoil the pool, the pool remains valid [ clean J (Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness 14:2, citing M.). Let us now turn to the articulation of the other eleven items on the list. At each point, the original item is cited, then discussed. In my translation I have given the citations in italics. M. 4:8A introduces doubt about uncleanness on the surface of the water ( in private domain). What sort of water is under discussion? B-C, one dispute, assume we speak of water in general, D-E, a second and separate dispute, take for granted we address ourselves to water in the immersion pool. Accordingly, Judah and Yose treat No. 2 as related to No. 1, and Simeon and the anonymous authority deal with water as if we shall turn next to No. 3.

116

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

The point of B is that whether ,ve have a bit of uncleanness floating on the surface of water which is in utensils or whether it is on the surface of water on the ground, we deem a matter of doubt to be clean. \"o/hat is the matter of doubt? It has to do with whether the person has touched the bit of uncleanness. The uncleanness has no abiding place, so the doubt is deemed clean. Simeon distinguishes, according to this same principle, between water in utensils, in which case we the utensil---and suppose the uncleanness has an abiding place-in water on the ground, in which case it does not. Judah and Yose refer to A, showing no knowledge of B-C, the supposition of which they do not treat. But Maimonides (reasonably) sees this second dispute as concerning water on the ground, thus a clarification of the first. Now the doubt has to do with whether a person in an immersion pool has been in contact with a bit of uncleanness. Judah says that if we are not sure that a person has touched it when going down into the water, we deem him unclean, in the theory that the unclean thing floats over to the man when he enters the water. And if the doubt has to do with the man's ascent from the water, he is clean. Y ose takes the extreme position that the cited language means what it says. Under any circumstances, if we do not know for sure that the man has touched the uncleanness, even though we have every reason to believe that he did, he is still clean. The next group, M. 4:9-10 (which must be treated together) brings us to M. 4:7D. But the exact formulation of that clause is in doubt. M. 4:9A/I take for granted that M. 4:7D is as we have it. But Yose, P, seems to have a quite separate rule about liquids. Now the distinction is not between contracting and conveying uncleanness, but between food and utensils. Accordingly, prior to both interpretations of l'vL 4:7D is simply d mdtter of doubt in respect to liquids, and the articulation to contract/ convey unclemmess is secondary ( compare T. 5: 11). This further suggests that the primary model for the list of M. 4:7 is simply the reference to the item, e.g., liquids, hands, public domain, etc., without a further spelling out. If that is so, then the materials of M. 4:7B-C come last, and the primary list has ten items, liquids, hands, public domain, and so on; G-Jare as superfluous as the articulation of D-E, and B-C are added last of all. And this is further confirmed by the absence of the predicate from the larger part of the unit, K-R, since not only the specification of the problem (contracting/conveying unclecmJless) but also the decision ( mzclelln /clean) are absent in the bulk of the cases.

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

117

Let us now return to the two approaches to what doubts concern liquids. The first, M. 4:9, stresses the distinction between contracting uncleanness and conveying uncleanness. A is given two exemplifications, C-E and F-H, and I one more, K-0, three in all. In C-E we do not know whether the liquids have been touched by the unclean foot and made unclean. We deem this matter of doubt to be unclean. In F-H we have clean liquids again, but .this time an unclean loaf of bread. Again, the liquids contract uncleanness in a situation of doubt. Why the unclean foot, the unclean loaf? First, we exclude the case of M. 4: 1, throwing ( GRA) . Second, in the former case, the person puts out his foot, in the second he throws the loaf. But other MSS give he put forth the loaf, so that cannot be the decisive difference. The clear intent must therefore be to show that both the unclean person and the unclean object are treated in the same way; the issue of interrogation is irrelevant and carefully excluded (TYT). I-0 then bring us to the second part of the articulation, the capacity of unclean liquids to convey uncleanness. K-M set up the case, parallel to the clean liquids of the earlier exemplifications. The liquid is unclean, the loaves clean. We do not know whether the unclean liquid has touched and contaminated the clean loaves. They are clean. Yose's case is quite separate. He now wishes to distinguish food from utensils. If we have doubt about liquids having touched food ( e.g., M. 4:9M), we deem the food unclean. If we do not know that utensils have been touched by unclean liquid, we hold that they are clean. Yose's case, T-V, deals with two jars of water. We make dough with water from one of them but do not know which one. The food -doughis deemed to be unclean. The case, T-V, lacks the expected, its matter of doubt is deemed unclean. Rather, X-Y go back and cite Yose's version of the rule, P-Q, ignoring the absence of utensils in our case. On the other hand, following Maimonides, we may suppose that the point of Z is that the trough in which the dough is kneaded is clean, and that is why we do not add, after V, anything about the dough. M. 4:llA simply repeats the exact language of M. 4:7F-J. M. 4:llB does the same for M. 4:7K, adding the obvious predicate. M. 4:llC is followed by three illustrative cases, M. 4:11D, E, and F, as well as a major qualification, H-J. If we are in doubt that a person, in the private domain, has been made unclean by a source of uncleanness, so specified not in the Pentateuch but by the scribes, we assume the person

118

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

is unclean. The uncleanness imparted by eating unclean food and liquid then is a decree of scribes. E and F take for granted that if one puts his head and the greater part of his body into drawn water, or if three logs of drawn water have fallen on them, he is unclean (M. Miq. 2:2). But, H-J add, if the scribes have declared something to be a Father of uncleanness, then a matter of doubt is deemed to be unclean; if, for instance, we do not know whether a person has touched mixed blood, (M. Oh. 3:5) or a grave area (M. Oh. 17:1), in the private domain he is deemed to be unclean. M. 4:12A cites M. 4:7M and explains the reference. If we have a matter of doubt about the cleanness of unconsecrated food which is kept in a condition of cleanness for Pharisaism ( Perishut), we deem the food to be clean. M. 4:12B, citing M. 4:7N, refers us back to M. 3:5. If in doubt, we judge the case in accord with the condition of an object at the moment at which it is found. Here we specify that we deal with creeping things, but M. 3:5 speaks of uncleanness or cleanness in general. M. 4:1 seems a closer analogue. M. 4:12C-D are familiar from M. Neg. 4:11, 5:1, 4-5. All that M. 4:12E gives us is a predicate for M. 4:7P. If a person says, "I shall be a Nazir when my wife gives birth," and the wife miscarries, so that we do not know whether the foetus would or would not have lived, he is not a Nazir (M. Naz. 2:8). F, citing M. 4:7Q, spells out the rule, but never gives us a predicate. It assumes we have a predicate, merely explaining the sort of firstlings ref erred to, also the reason for the lenient principle. M. Bekh. 8:3, 1:3, 2:6 go over this ground. As observed, the relationship to cleanness (M. 4:7A) is tenuous. M. 4:13 concludes the "Talmud" on M. 4:7. Its case is at M. Ker. 1:7. We do not know whether the woman has produced a foetus which subjects her to, or exempts her from, the necessary offerings; or she sees blood five months, on three consecutive days in each month, and does not know whether the blood was that of menstruation or that of flux. In all cases, she brings one sacrifice and then is clean to eat Holy Things, if her husband is a priest. The remaining four sacrifices are not owed by her. Again the issue is not cleanness, which is only secondary, but cult. A. And just as they declared clean a matter of doubt concerning uncleanness floating on the surface of the water, B. whether it is in utensils or whether it is on the ground, [Sens supplies: so they have declared clean a matter of doubt

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

119

concerning cleanness floating on the surface of the water, whether it is in utensils or on the ground]C. how so? D. A trough which is unclean with corpse-uncleannessE. a loaf of [ cleanJ heave-offering wrapped in bast or wrapped in papers is in itF. and the rains came and it was filled up, and it [the loaf wrapper] is unfolded [by the flow' s forceJG. lo, this [loaf] floats on the surface of the water [ not wholly covered, but floating in the wrapper JH. there is doubt whether it touched the sides of the trough or whether it did not touchI. its matter of doubt is deemed clean. J. Because it is a matter of doubt concerning something clean which was floating. K. R. Simeon says, "In the case of utensils, it is unclean, and in the case of the ground, it is cleanL. "except for the case of an olive's bulk of corpse; and [ except for] all things which overshadow, which render unclean above as below." T. S:6 (p. 298, ls. 19-24, p. 299, ls. 1-2)

Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 14:5) gives A-J of the pericope as follows: As the sages have pronounced clean a doubtful uncleanness floating on the water, whether in vessels or on the ground, so also have they pronounced clean a doubtful cleanness floating on the water, whether in vessels or on the ground. Thus if a kneading trough has incurred corpse-uncleanness, and in it is put a loaf of heave-offering wrapped in bast or paper, and rain falls into the trough and it becomes full, and the paper unfolds and the loaf floats on the water and the paper still separates it from the water, since it is in doubt whether its side has or has not touched the kneading trough, it remains clean, since it floats.

T.'s commentary to M. 4:7-13 picks up at M. 4:8, M.'s own development of M. 4:7. The case of A-J is parallel to M. 4:8A-B, but T. supplies a case not only illustrative of M.'s point, about uncleanness floating on the surface of the water, but also illustrative of its own interest, in cleanness floating on the surface of the water. M. does not have a case parallel to T.'s, but we of course may readily reconstmct it. T.'s case has the loaf of heave-offering floating on the surface of water in an unclean trough. We do not know whether the heaveoffering has touched the sides of the trough, as it floats along. It is not wholly wrapped up (F). T.'s improvement of M. is a superb clarification.

120

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

K cites M. 4:SC, and L ( = T. 3:14C-F!) clarifies Simeon's position. Since Simeon distinguishes that which has a resting place-what is in utensils-from that which does not, L wishes to add that the corpsematter which overshadows always is deemed to have a resting place. Most likely L does not belong. A. R. Judah says, "If the doubt concerns his descent, he is unclean, because the water is stirred up, B. "and it is not possible for him not to touch it; C. "if the doubt has to do with his ascent, it is clean, because the water pushes it [the uncleanness] to the sides." T. 5:7 (p. 299, ls. 3-5)

T. turns to M. 4:8D. Since the water pushes the uncleanness toward the man as he enters the water, there is no possibility of his not touching it (GRA; TR IV, p. 66). Sens has $LWL, thus the water forms an eddy (A). Lieberman explains that, according to this reading, the man is unclean because of possible contact, and here the uncleanness is not floating freely on the surface of the water (M. 4:SA). A. And what is the doubt concerning creeping things which the sages declared clean [ = M. 4:12B]. B. This is a matter of doubt concerning things which are thrown. C. R. Dostai b. R. Yannai said in the name of R. Yose, "(If] one went into an alley and prepared dough, and afterward an, insect was found thereD. "this is the doubt concerning creeping things." T. 5:8A (p. 299, ls. 6-9)

A-B differ from M. 4:12B = M. 3:5. The rule is interpreted, rather, as a generalization of the case of M. 4:1. C-D conform to the p-icture of M. 4:12B = M. 3:5; the criterion is the state of affairs at the time of discovery. The dough is clean, even in the private domain. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 15:6) accepts the view of A-Bl, treating the case of M. 4:1 as definitive: 'A doubt about creeping things': that is, a doubt concerning creeping things that are thrown. How does this apply? If a dead creeping thing or anything unclean is thrown among loaves or if a loaf is thrown among unclean things [ = M. 4: 1], and it is in doubt whether it did or did not touch them, it remains dean in so far as the dean loaf is found not touching the uncleanness; for any matter of uncleanness is

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

121

determined by the condition at the time it is found (M. 3:5]; and no one may say, 'Perchance it touched it and afterward fell to the side of it'; but it is determined by the condition at the time that it is found.

E. And he who eats heave offering which is suspended is clean. F. And any one whose matter of doubt is deemed clean-a matter of doubt concerning its offspring is clean. G. Any thing the matter of doubt concerning which is unclean, a matter of doubt concerning its offspring likewise is unclean. T. 5:8B (p. 299, Is. 9-11) A. And just as he who eats food unclean in the first remove and food unclean in the second remove and drinks unclean liquids, B. and he whose head and greater part enter into drawn water, C. and the clean person on whose head and the greater part of whose body three logs of drawn water are thrownD. [as] a matter of doubt concerning his conveying uncleanness to others is deemed clean, E. so too: F. liquids which touch himG. a matter of doubt concerning their rendering other things unclean is deemed clean. H. And R. Yose b. R. Judah says, "Liquids which touch him are as if they touch a creeping thing." T. 5:9 (p. 299, ls. 12-17)

T. 5:SB tells us that the doubt concerning something affects its offspring as well. This introduces T. 5:9, which brings us to M. 4:llC-G. A carries forward the foregoing rule ( = M. 4:11D), then B and C go over the matter of M. 4:llE and F. Matters of doubt in these instances are deemed clean, and, T. adds, not only matters of doubt concerning such people, but also matters of doubt concerning their conveying uncleanness to other things. And, F-G. add, the same applies even to liquids which touch people deemed clean because of the stated doubts. Yose b. R. Judah rejects this last point. Accordingly, the whole construction, T. 5:SB/E-G+T. 5:9A-D, serve to set the stage for the disagreement of T. 5:9E-H. Lieberman (TR IV, p. 67) points out that Yose, b. Pes. 15b, holds the capacity of liquid to convey uncleanness is of Pentateuchal, not scribal, origin, but here, since the origin of the uncleanness affecting the liquid is scribal, he will agree with F-G. Yose b. R. Judah agrees with Y ose, but since the liquid is unclean in the first remove, it is unclean at a more virulent remove than that which has made them unclean, and H follows ( as in M. Par. 8:7).

122

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-1_',

A. And just as that which is unclean in the first remove produces something unclean in the second remove [ = Joshua, M. 2: 3 ), and something unclean in the second remove produces something unclean in the third, B. so a matter of doubt concerning something unclean in the first remove produces a matter of doubt concerning something unclean in the second remove, and a matter of doubt concerning something unclean in the second remove produces a matter of doubt concerning something unclean in the third remove. C. "A matter of doubt concerning liquids, as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, is unclean, and [a matter of doubt} concerning whether they have been deaned is clean," the words of R. Meir. D. And so did R. Eleazar rule in accord with his opinion. E. And R. Judah says, "For all [unclean and clean] is it unclean." F. R. Yose and R. Simeon say, "A matter of doubt concerning liquids: G. "as to food, it is deemed unclean. H. "And as to utensils, it is deemed clean." T. 5:10 (p. 299, ls. 18-21, p. 300, ls. 1-2) (b. Pes. 16a; E: Sifra Shernini VIII: 5) T. 5:lOA-B carry forward the theory of T. 5:SB-9. The real issue is at C-H, liquids, parallel to M. 4:lOW. Meir rejects the distinction of M. 4:lOW. M. 4:7D = M. 4:9A-H is ambiguous on this point, and both Meir and Judah can agree with that formulation. The disagreement between them is clear. Yose and Simeon, F-H, deal with the separate issue of conveying uncleanness. M. 4:lOP-Q have Yose's view. As before, he holds the uncleanness is not of Pentatcuchal origin, therefore utensils are not made unclean, but the food is, just as in the case of M. 4:lOT-V. A. A staff which is full of unclean liquids and one threw it among clean loaves--B. it is a matter of doubt whether it touched or whether it did not touchC. this is not the matter of doubt concerning liquids about which sages have disputed. D. But what is the matter of doubt concerning liquids about which sages have differed? E. Two jars-F. one unclean, and one cleanG. and one prepared dough with the water in one of themH. it is a matter of doubt whether he made the dough from the unclean [water} or whether he made the dough from the clean [water}I. this is the matter of doubt concerning liquids:

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

J. K.

4:7-13

123

if it concerns foods, it is unclean. and if it concerns utensils, it is clean. T. 5:11 (p. 300, ls. 3-9)

A-C reject M. 4:9K-O as the example for M. 4:7E, a doubt concerning liquids' conveying uncleanness. Rather, T. says, the example is as at M. 4:10, cited verbatim. T. simply continues T. 5:lOF-H. [If} one went into an alley and prepared dough, and afterward a creeping thing was found thereC. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched it or whether he did not touch itD. a matter of doubt concerning foods and liquids is deemed unclean; E. and [ a matter of doubt concerning} utensils is deemed clean. F. And one who had immersed on the selfsame day who put his hand into the airspace of a jarG. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchH. concerning foods and liquids, the doubt is deemed unclean, I. and concerning utensils, it is deemed clean. T. 5:12 (p. 300, ls. 10-13) A. B.

At A-E, even if the man touched the creeping thing, he would be unclean only in the first remove and could not contaminate the jar. But he renders the liquids unclean, and they contaminate the food ( = Rabbi, T. 4:8) (TR IV, p. 67). F-I give a separate illustration of the same view. A. Two jars, one unclean and one clean, B. and they were broken, C. and [the liquids therein] came on to clean thingsD. it is a matter of doubt whether it is [liquid of the} unclean [jar} or whether it is cleanE. a matter of doubt concerning foods and liquids is deemed unclean; F. [ a matter of doubt concerning} utensils is deemed clean. G. A jar which is half filled with clean liquidsH. and liquids fell into its airspace-I. it is a doubt whether they are clean or whether they are uncleanJ. the liquids [in the jar} are clean, K. for they [the unclean liquids of HJ convey uncleanness only on account of the jar [if they contaminate it. But they do not do so = F}. L. [If} they fell on liquids [in the jar}, M. the liquids are unclean, but the jars are clean. T. 5:13 (p. 300, ls. 14-20)

124

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

[If] one baked a loaf of bread in an oven, and liquids fell into its airspaceit is a matter of doubt whether they were unclean or whether they were cleanQ. the bread is clean [ = JJ, R. because it is made unclean only on account of the oven [ = KJ. S. [If] they fell on the loaf of bread, T. the bread is unclean, and the oven is clean [ = MJ. T. 5:14 (p. 300, ls. 21-23) N. 0. P.

The illustrations of Yose's principle at T. 5:10 continue, with two parallel cases, A-M and N-T. The point in both cases is that a doubt concerning food and liquid is unclean, one about utensils is deemed clean. What T. now adds is K = R, with their articulation at M = T. Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 14:8B) gives the rule as follows: So too if a liquid, unclean by reason of doubt, enters the contained space of a jar, the jar remains clean and the liquid within it remains clean, since it contracts uncleanness only from the jar; and if this liquid that is in a condition of doubt is mixed with the liquid in the jar, all the liquid becomes unclean by reason of doubt, but the jar remains clean. So too if the liquid falls inside an oven, both the bread and the oven remain dean. A. He who sprinkles his house with unclean water and there were clean things there-B. it is a matter of doubt whether it [the water] splashed or whether it did not splashC. its matter of doubt is deemed clean. If it is not possible for him to [ sprinkle unless the water does touch the clean things], E. its matter of doubt is deemed unclean. F. R. Dosa says, "They say to him that he should repeat." G. They said to him, "They do not repeat in a matter having to do with cleannesses." H. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "There are times that he does repeat." T. 5:15 (p. 301, ls. 1-5)

I. A person who launders his garment]. and washes his hairK. and boils his flaxL. and there were dean things there-M. it is a matter of doubt whether they splashed or whether they did not splashN. their matter of doubt is deemed clean.

TOHOROT CHAPTER FOUR

4:7-13

125

[If] it is not possible for him [to do so without splashing]its matter of doubt is deemed unclean. Q. R. Dosa says, "They tell him to repeat." R. They said to him, "They do not repeat in a matter having to do with cleannesses." S. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "There are times that he does repeat." T. 5:16 (p. 301, ls. 6-10) 0. P.

See above, T. 4:1-2. All we have is further exemplifications dispute of F-H = Q-S. A.

B. C.

D. E.

for the

[If a person} splashed unclean and clean liquids in the house, and afterward liquids were found on a loaf of heave-offeringand [if] one took it [ forthwith J to inquire concerning it, lo this is clean. If he waited for it until it dried off, lo, this is unclean. T. 5:17 (p. 301, ls. l L-13)

Maimonides as follows:

( Other Fathers of Uncle,11111ess14: 10) gives the rule

If he has swilled inside the house with clean and unclean water, and liquid is afterward found on a loaf of heave-offering: if he takes it up forthwith and inquires concerning it, it is to be deemed clean. If he leaves the loaf until the water thereon dries, it is deemed unclean by reason of doubt, since doubtful uncleanness in a private domain is deemed unclean ... for this is not a case of a liquid but of a loaf about which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean.

TR IV, p. 69, points out that if the Ioaf is taken forthwith, concern for its cleanness is thereby expressed. If one waited, deciding only later to inquire, it is unclean.

CHAPTER FIVE

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE Our chapter continues to explore issues of doubt, now with special reference to doubt in the public domain. At M. 5:1 cAqiva seems to take the position that doubt in the public domain is deemed unclean and to reject the principle that we treat such doubt as clean. Yose, M. 5 :2, takes up the same position, but distinguishes between a place in which people walk, in which case doubt is deemed unclean, and other problems involving the public domain, in which case doubt is deemed clean. His view is that it is natural for people to walk in the public domain-it cannot easily be avoided-but it is not natural for them to touch things there, so in the case of walking in a path, we treat the matter of doubt as clean. The construction of M. 5:1-2 is somewhat complicated, since we have a series of cases, then a series of modes by which contamination is effected, finally single rulings covering the whole lot. M. 5:3-4 introduce a special question, namely, matters of doubt in which one item must be unclean, another clean. But the cases are more specialized still, for the issue has to do with heave-offering, as at M. 4:5. If one walked in one of two paths and prepared heave-offering, which then was consumed, and then completed a process of purification, and thereafter walked in the other path, we treat heave-offering prepared after ,the second walk as clean. Why? Because the condition of the first, which has been treated as definitely unclean, establishes the presumption that the second is clean. If, on the other hand, we have both collections of food before us, then we do not effect any decision but suspend the status of both. And if, reverting to the first walk, the man did not purify himself, then his actions have not established the first as unclean, so the first part of the food is suspended, and the second is unclean; if we are in doubt about the first, there is no doubt possible about the second. M. 5 :4 goes over the same matter. Since M. 5:5-6 make use of the same case for their own inquiry, we may suppose that M. 5:3-4 also are Ushan. At M. 5 :5-6 we have another pair of cases which say exactly the same thing. Now the issue is interrogation. The important side is Judah's. If we can interrogate two people in doubt, one by one, then

TOHO ROT CHAPTER FIVE

5: 1

127

we rule that matters of doubt are deemed dean, but if they are interrogated together, and one of them certainly is unclean, we rule they both are unclean, there now being no doubt that uncleanness certainly is present. At M. 5:7-8 in still another way we qualify the rule that matters of doubt in the public domain are treated as clean. If we know for sure that a drop of spit found in a village certainly is unclean, we treat all drops of spit as unclean (M. 5:8). A further set of disputes (M. 5:7), between Meir and sages, introduces the problem of sleeping in the public domain. Meir holds that if a person sleeps in the public domain, we take for granted a Zab has stepped on his garments ("utensils") and made them unclean. Sages differ. Meir holds, by contrast, that if one touches someone by night and in the morning discovers the person dead, the one who touched the unknown object is deemed clean. Why? Because matters of doubt in the public domain are deemed clean. Sages say he is unclean, since a problem of uncleanness is settled in accord with the condition upon discovery. Thus conflicting considerations have to be worked out. M. 5 :9 introduces an autonomous item, not related to the foregoing. Now the doubt about uncleanness derives from conflicting testimony, e.g., two sets of witnesses contradict one another, or the man contradicts the testimony of others. Sages hold that a man's word about his own condition is decisive, even against two witnesses. Meir says that since two witnesses are believed to put him to death, they also are believed to make him unclean (b. Ker. 12a). The other cases in the set pose no problems. The main point which ties the pericope to our chapter is the conclusion, which has conflicting testimony of single witnesses. Such doubt, in private domain, is deemed unclean, and in public domain is deemed clean. M. 5:1 is attributed to cAqiva, attested at Usha by Yose, M. 5:2. As stated, M. 5 :3-4 are attested by M. 5 :5-6' s attributions to Usha. M. 5 :7-9 are Ushan. 5:1 A. The creeping thing [which conveys uncleanness through contact} and the frog in public domainB. and so: C. an olive's bulk of corpse-matter [which conveys uncleanness through overshadowing}and an olive's bulk of carrion, D. and a bone from a corpse [which conveysuncleanness through carrying], and a bone from carrion,

128

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FIVE

5: 1

E. and a clod from clean earth and a clod from a grave area [which conveys uncleanness through contact and carrying], F. a clod of clean earth and a clod of gentile earth [which conveys uncleanness through contact and carrying], G. two paths, one unclean [ with a grave so situated that one cannot pass without overshadowing it] and one cleanH. [if] one walked in one of them, and it is not known in which of them he has walked [ = G JI. [if] he has overshadowed one of them, and it is not known which of them he has overshadowed [ = CJJ. he moved [K: BJ one of them, and it is not known which of them he has moved [ = D, E, F]K. R. [C, V, N, Katsh #120, M, P, PB, T:] cAqiva [Pa: Judah; K: Joshua] declares unclean. L. And sages declare clean. M. 5:1 For the humble apodosis, K-L, we have a vast protasis, A-J, with six topics, A, C-G, supplemented by three clauses with further articuJation. A dead creeping thing renders unclean when touched; a frog is clean. An olive's bulk of corpse-matter renders unclean when overshadowed, that of carrion renders unclean only through contact and carriage, but not in a Tent. A bone from a corpse renders unclean through contact and carrying, but not in a Tent, so too dirt of a grave area and dirt from abroad. A bone of carrion is clean. Accordingly, the articulations must serve as follows:

H-G I-C J-D

(+ E, F)

None of the articulation serves A, for which only contact is going to produce uncleanness, and since H, I, or J must be included or we have no problem, it is a strikingly inappropriate introductory clause. In fact, M. 5 :4A has the same introductory clause, and there it does serve. What also is odd is that the order of the clauses which articulate the problem, H-J, pays no attention to the order of the foregoing materials, C-G. I can understand linking H to G, but why then jump back to I/C? And why give three examples to serve a single problem, J/D, E, F? If we wish to make the point about moving, D suffices; the interest of E + F in clods of dirt adds nothing. It would seem, therefore, that E-F's set is superfluous, and the fundamental pericope will have had C, D, G, with the correspondences as follows: H (G), I (C), and J (D).

TOHO ROT CHAPTER FIVE

5: 1-2

129

cAqiva declares unclean, sages, clean. Sages' view is based upon the principle that a doubt in public domain is deemed clean. cAqiva's remains to be explained. He clearly cannot agree that, in all cases, matters of doubt in the public domain are deemed clean. What characterizes all of these cases? The man has actually carried out a deedwalked, overshadowed, moved-and so has brought about the condition of doubt (Albeck). GRA more persuasively explains that in the present case we deal with an individual's action, not with the public at large, in which case we do not distinguish public from private domain. Yose, M. 5 :2, thus excepts the path, which serves the public. Bert. ( also Rosh) says cAqiva rejects the distinction between public and private domain when it comes to preparing food in conditions of cleanness. That which cannot be made clean again enjoys the lenient ruling in cases of doubt in a public domain, but men and utensils can be purified and are not given the benefit of the doubt (TYY).

Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 18:2) explains the cases of M. 5:1 and T. 6:2 in the light of M. 6:6: This is the general rule: any condition of doubt in public domain is deemed clean, unless a man can say, 'Of a surety I have become unclean'; and any condition of doubt in private domain is deemed unclean unless a man can say, 'Of a surety I have not become unclean.'

5:2 A. One who said, "I touched this, but I do not know (K: it is not known} whether it is unclean or whether it is clean"B. "I touched, and I do not know {K: it is not known} which of the two of them I touched" C. R. cAqiva declares unclean. D. And sages declare clean. (C: (If) one walked in one of them, R. cAqiva declares unclean, and sages declare clean.} E. R. Yose declares unclean in [the case of] all of them, but declares clean in the case of the path, F. for it is the way of men to walk, and it is not their way to touch. M. 5:2

The foregoing problem is presented a second time. Now it is phrased, however, through direct discourse in slight apocopation. The dispute is the same; it is important because of Yose's qualification of cAqiva's view, which he shares. Since the language refers to more than two cases, we may suppose he has reference to the whole of M. 5 :1-2B. This is certain, since M. 5 :2 does not have the path, to which Yose 9

130

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

5:2

makes reference. If that is so, then A-B bring us back to M. 5:lA, the creeping thing and the frog. Y ose' s point, Albeck explains, is that if a man did some sort of action which may lead to uncleanness, he is unclean in a situation of doubt. If therefore he touched or moved or overshadowed, and does not know which substance he has touched, moved or overshadowed, he is unclean. He has done something unusual. But in the case of not knowing the path in which he has walked, he is clean, because it is not out of the ordinary for people to walk along, and this does not constitute an unusual action. Bert. holds the man could not refrain from using a path; he could refrain from touching things. Maimonides (loc. lit.) has two men in A and B, that is, one touched a man and does not know whether he is clean or unclean ( see TYY, n. 14). A. The bits of carrion and of animals properly slaughtered ( Sl:fWTWT) in a village---B. they follow the status of the majority. C. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "Even [if} a single piece of carrion is sold in a village----allthe meat which is found in the village, lo, it is regarded as belonging to carrion, D. "because bits of carrion [indeed] are located there." E. Unclean and clean drops of blood in the house---F. they follow the status of the majority. G. McsH S: Drops of blood were found on loaves of heaveoffering, and the case came before sages, and they declared it clean, for it is only the blood of living creeping things. T. 6:1 (p. 301, ls. 15-21)

T. is autonomous of M. Its main point-following the status of the majority-is applied to both public and private property. Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 17 :8) adds, "This is the general rule: the condition of cleanness or uncleanness of anything that is found is determined by whichever kind is in greater quantity." But, as we shall now see, T. 6:2 is clear that that is not the case. A. B.

e.

D. E. F. G. H. I. of the

Nine creeping things and one frog are in the public domainand one touched one of themand it is not known which of them he has touchedhis matter of doubt is deemed clean. One of them separated to private domainits matter of doubt is deemed unclean. [One of them separated] to the public domainits matter of doubt is deemed clean. And in the case of that which is found: they follow the status majority.

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

5:2-4

131

J.

Nine frogs and one creeping thing in the private domainK. and one touched one of them, and it is not known which of them he touchedL. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. M. One of them separated to the private domainN. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. 0. To the public domainP. his matter of doubt is deemed clean. Q. And in the case of that which is found: they follow the status of the majority. T. 6:2 (p. 302, ls. 1-8) (y. Ket. 1:10; A-D, J-L: b. Ket. 15a)

In A-D, we again have a matter of doubt in public domain. But now we deem the doubt to be clean. In E-F, we have a case of touching one of the ten in private domain. The doubt is deemed unclean. At G-H we reverse the situation and decision. I concludes this set, but it is not in phase. In fact, what is done is to harmonize this set with T. 6:1. We follow the majority specifically in regard to what is found. J-Lrepeat the process, going over exactly the same ground as A-I, varying the cases only slightly. On the reading, see Lieberman, TR IV, pp. 69- 70. 5:3-4 A. Two paths, one unclean and one cleanB. one walked in one of them, and he prepared clean things, and they were eatenC. he sprinkled and repeated ( the sprinkling] and immersed and [N, V, C, K omit and] [now] is dean [P, M omit Wand THWRJD. he [then J walked in the second and prepared clean thingsE. lo, these [ second onesJ are clean [ in the assumption that the first ones were unclean]. F. If the first remained, G. these and these are suspended [since one is surely unclean]. H. If he did not become dean in the meanwhile. I. the first are suspended, . J. and the second are burned [since they are doubtless unclean, for the man has become unclean, having gone by both paths J. M. 5:3

A. The creeping thing and the frog in public domainB. [K: and] he touched one of them and prepared dean things and they were eatenC. he immersed [K: and] touched the second, and prepared clean thingsD. lo, these are dean.

132

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

5:3-4

E. [Pa: And] If the first remain, these and these are suspended. F. [Pa lacks:} If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, G. the first are suspended, and the second are burned. M. 5:4

The case of M. 5 :3 carries forward the issue of walking in a given path, not knowing whether it is a clean or an unclean one. Now the man has prepared heave-offering in a state of cleanness. The food is eaten. Then the man was sprinkled twice, on the third and seventh day, he immersed, and now he is clean. Then he walked in the other path and prepared clean things. These are regarded as clean. Why? Because he has behaved as if the first were unclean. But if the first heave-offering is available, both are suspended. The man did not eat them. One part of the food certainly is unclean, but is not burned, because the other part is certainly clean. Both are suspended-that is, not eaten, not burned. We then return to the original case. Both groups of food are available, and the man has not gone through a process of purification. The second part of the food is certainly unclean and burned, because, when the man walked in the two paths and thereafter prepared them, he was certainly unclean. But the first group is not necessarily unclean, since the second is definitely unclean. We do not know that the first path is clean, so we suspend the first. GRA has the first one clean as a matter of doubt in public domain; having burned the second as certainly unclean, we regard the first as clean ( = T. 6:4). At M. 5:4 we have M. 5:lA+M, 5:2A, as well as the case of M. 5 :3. There are our frog and creeping thing in the public domain. The man touched one of them and does not know which one he has touched. Then he prepared heave-offering, assuming he was in a state of cleanness, and ate the food. He afterward immersed, touched the second, and prepared the part of the food in accord with the rules of cleanness. The second group is regarded as clean, just as at M. 5 :3. If, as above, we have both groups, then one is certainly unclean, the other clean, and both are suspended. If after touching the unknown object, the man did not immerse, then the first group is suspended, and the second is burned. There is no difference between the paths and the frog/ creeping thing. T. explains M.'s principle: the state of one part of the food proves the condition of the other. A. An unclean loaf which was mixed with nine clean loaves, B. and five people ate the five first ones, C. and afterward five ate the five latter ones,

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

D.

5:3-4

133

and one of them was made unclean,

E. and it is not known [ which one]F. G. H. I.

J.

K.

L. M. N. 0. P.

Q. R.

S. T.

the first ones '[who ate the loaves] are unclean, for they have no [mitigating factor] on which to depend, and the ones who ate the latter loaves are clean. This is the general principle: A man with a man, clean things with clean things, a man with clean things, and clean things with a. manlo, these prove [which must be unclean]. If the first ones are eaten, [if] they were made unclean, or if they were lost before the second ones were made, the second are clean. [If this happened] once the second were madethe second are suspended. T. 6:3 (p. 302, ls. 9-16)

The important point is at G-H. We may suppose the second group is clean, because the first group may have been responsible for eating the unclean loaf. But the first group has no one on whom to depend. T. thus supplements M. 5:3-4 by supplying a further, and new example of the same principle about resolving matters of doubt, namely, one group's status decides that of both groups. I-N say that the status of one group of men or clean things proves that of another group of men or clean things--four possible cases. O-T add a further point: we must have both groups. But if the uncleanness takes place before the second group has come into existence, of course the second is clean. Sens explains man/man (J) as a single person who walked in two paths, immersing between walks and preparing clean things after each walk. Two paths, one unclean and one cleanB. and one walked in one of them and prepared clean things[Sens] they are clean. C. [One walked] in the second and prepared [ clean things] [ = T. 6:3K: clean things with clean things]D. they are to be burned. E. In the first [ did he walk] but he did not prepare [ clean things], [then he walked] in the second and he prepared [clean things]they are to be burned. F. [He walked] in the first and [then] in the second and then prepared clean thingsG. [if] these and these are lying before him H. the first are clean, and the second are to be burned. T. 6:4 (p. 302, ls. 17-20) A.

134

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

5: 3-6

The issue is the same as the foregoing. In A-D, one part of the food is certainly unclean. But, if we follow Sens' reading, the first group is deemed clean, since we have doubt concerning public domain. But the other group then must be burned. In E, by contrast, the man certainly was made unclean before preparing his food. F-H qualify this rule. If the food is still available, the supposition is that one group is unclean, so the other must be deemed clean, and GRA reads H into M. Two paths, one unclean and one deanand one walked in one of them and prepared clean things, C. and his fellow came and walked in the second and prepared [clean things] [ = T. 6:3J: man/man JD. [if] these and these are lying [before them, still available]lo, these prove [the condition of one another; the first is clean, the second burned]. E. If the first ones were eaten, [ or J made unclean, or lost, before the second were preparedF. the second are clean. G. If [this happened] after the second are preparedH. the second are suspended. T. 6:5 (p. 302, ls. 21-23, p. 303, ls. 1-2) A.

B.

The same point is made again, now with reference to two individuals. The principle is the same. If we have both quantities of food in hand (D), one is surely unclean. Fair doubt concerns the first, which is deemed clean, and the second is burned. But if ( E) we have only the first, then the second is deemed clean (F). If the first was lost after we have the second in hand, the second is now deemed possibly unclean, possibly clean.

5:5-6 A. Two paths, one unclean and one cleanB. [if] he walked in one of them and prepared clean things, C. and his fellow came and walked in the second and prepared clean things-D. R. Judah [Pa: Yose] says, "If they are interrogated, this one by himself and this one by himself, they are clean. E. "And if they are interrogated, the two of them at one time, they are unclean." F. R. Yose says, "One way or the the other, they are unclean." M. 5:5 (b. Pes. 10a; b. Ket. 27a, y. Ter. 7:3) A. B. C.

things-

Two loaves, one unclean and one cleanone ate one of them and prepared clean things, and his fellow came and ate the second and prepared clean

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

5:5-6

135

D. R. Judah says, "If they are interrogated, this by himself and the other by himself, they are clean. E. "And if the two of them are interrogated at one time, they are unclean." F. R. Yose says, "One way or the other, they are unclean." M. 5:6

We go over the same case at M. 5 :3-4, now in the form of a dispute between Judah and Yose. Yose's position poses no problems. To be sure, he has already held that in matters of doubt in the public domain, when it has to do with walking, we resolve a matter of doubt in favor of cleanness. But here, as in cAqiva's cases, one of the men surely has walked in an unclean path. Since one is surely unclean, we treat both as unclean. T. clarifies this matter. Judah holds that we interrogate each by himself. In that case, we have two separate cases, and either man may be clean or unclean. This matter of doubt in the public domain is deemed clean. But if the two are interrogated together, one then is certainly unclean, in which case we rule that both are unclean. M. 5 :6 simply repeats the same case. But MA points out that the second instance involves private domain. It is difficult to see how Judah and Yose are talking about the same thing. Without one 1ray or the other, all Yose says is what we have been told at M. 5 :3-4, and this has nothing to do with Judah's problem. A. [If] both of them prepared a single [item of] cleanness-lo, this is [ obviously J unclean. B. lf both of them prepared two dean thingsC. "[If} this one comes and is interrogated by himselfD. "one says to him, 'It is clean.' E. "And [if] this one comes and is interrogated by himself, F. "one says to him, 'It is clean.' G. "[HJ the two of them are interrogated together, one says to them, 'It is unclean' "_ H. the words of R. Judah. I. R. Yosah says, "If both of them said, 'We were two, and we walked in two separate paths and we prepared two separate clean things, one says to them, 'It is unclean,' J. "because even if one unclean thing is mixed together with a hundred clean things, they all are unclean." T. 6:6 (p. 303, ls. 3-9)

While T. 6:6 continues T. 6:5, it brings us to the dispute of M. 5:5D-F. T. simply spells out M.'s problem and Yose's reasoning thus linking Yose's opinion to Judah's problem-and showing that the two

136

TOHO ROT CHAPTER FIVJ;l 5: 5-7

do not form a natural dispute on a single problem. Yose affirms T. 6:2's private domain. T. further interprets Yose in M. to deal with a case in which one came but was interrogated about the deeds of both Accordingly, Maimonides (Other Fathers of Uncleanness 19:2) interprets M. in the light of T.: If there are two paths, one unclean and the other clean, and a man goes by one of them, and then prepares foodstuffs requiring conditions of cleanness, and then another comes and goes by the other path and prepares foodstuffs requiring conditions of cleanness-if they come one after the other to inquire of the court, each should be advised by himself that he is deemed clean; but if both come together, or if the first comes and inquires about himself and about the second and says, 'There were two of us, and we went by two paths and we prepared two lots of foodstuffs requiring conditions of cleanness,' then both must be pronounced unclean, and the foodstuffs requiring conditions of cleanness which they prepared must be burnt.

A. B.

Two paths, one unclean and one clean, and one walked in one of them, and entered the sanctuaryC. he is clear [ of punishment]. D. If he walked in the second [ and then entered the Temple), he is liable. E. [If he walked] in the first and did not enter [the sanctuary], and [then he walked] in the second and entered the sanctuary, he is liable. F. [If he walked] in the first and entered, [then] was sprinkled and the sprinkling was repeated, and he immersed, G. then he walked in the second and entered the sanctuaryH. he is liable. I. R. Simeon declares free in this case. J. And R. Simeon b. Judah declares free in all cases, in the name of R. Simeon. T. 6:7A (p. 303, ls. 10-14) (b. Ker. 18b, b. Shav. 19a-b)

T.A-J complete the whole unit of Tosef.ta. In the first unit, A-C, the man is deemed clean, but in the second, D, and third, E, he certainly is unclean. F now has him certainly clean when he entered the sanctuary the first time. Does this then prove he was certainly unclean the second time? Yes, H holds, it does. Simeon, I, rules that what the man did in purifying himself has nothing to do with settling the question of the paths. 5:7 A. He who sat down in public domain, and someone came and stepped (DRS) on his· garments-

TOHO ROT CHAPTER FIVE

5: 7

137

B.

or someone spit, and he touched his spitbecause of (cL) his spit, they burn the heave-offering, D. and as (CL) to his garments, they follow the majority [Pa.: sWRPYN JI:IR HRWQ; P, C: HRWQJ. E. [If someoneJ went to sleep in public domain and arose-F. "his utensils [garments] are unclean with midras-uncleanness," the words of R. Meir. G. And sages declare clean. H. [If) one touched someone at night, and it is not known whether he is alive or dead, and in the morning he arose and found him dead1. R. Meir declares dean. J. And sages declare unclean, K. for all the unclean things [are adjudged] as at the time that they are found. M. 5:7 (H-K: b. Eruv. 35b, Nid. 4a)

e.

M. 4:5 has already told us that drops of spit which are found, if possibly unclean, are deemed unclean, and heave-offering is burned on that account. But as to garments, we follow the majority; we take account of the possibility that a Zab has stepped on the man·s garment, but if the majority is not composed of Zabim, we rule that he is clean. E-G form a separate dispute, which goes over the same ground, and H-K provide still another dispute, the point of which is self-evident. But Meir's position is a problem. Why does he assume the utensils have been tread upon (F), but the man has not touched a corpse (I)? Because, Bert. (also TYY) says, even though most people are not Zabs, we suppose most people did step on it and one of them was a Zab who stepped on the garment by night. But, at I, Meir says a matter of doubt in public domain is deemed unclean. K. McsH B: They were bringing a man who was dying from Genossar to I:Iammatan, L. and the groups of bearers were changed for him, M. and at the end he was found by them dead, N. and the case came before sages, 0. and they declared unclean only the last group of pall-bearers alone. T. 6:7B (p. 303, ls. 14-17)

We decide the matter in accord with the situation when it is discovered. Sens assigns the case to M. 5 :7. Sages, M. 5 :7H-K, will not concur. A. [If] one touched someone at night and did not know whether he was alive or dead, B. and at dawn he got up and found him dead-

138

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

5:7-8

C. R. Meir declares him clean, D. [for] a matter of doubt involving the public domain is deemed clean. E. And sages declare unclean, F. for all matters of uncleanness are adjudged in accord with their condition at the time they are found. G. Sages agree with R. Meir that if he saw him alive in the preceding evening, even though dawn came and he found him dead, he is clean, H. for this is a matter of doubt involving the public domain. T. 6:8 (p. 303, ls. 18-21, p. 304, ls. 1-2) (b. Sot. 28b, Tosaf., s.v. BRsWT)

T. = M. 5 :7H-K. The concession of G-H harmonizes the conflicting principles of leniency in the public domain and of deciding matters in accord with their condition upon discovery. As at M. 4:1, the dispute is formed through the imposition of conflicting principles and the primary issue is which principle governs the case. A. [If} one fell asleep on a rock in public domainB. at dawn [or: on the next day}, and he found on it a creeping thing or a drop of spite. R. Meir declares clean, because a matter of doubt in public domain is deemed clean. D. And sages declare unclean, for all matters of uncleanness are adjudged [in accord with their condition} at the moment that they are found. E. And sages agree with R. Meir that if they saw it, that it was clean in the preceding evening, even though he came at dawn and found on it a creeping thing or spit, F. that he is dean, for this is a matter of doubt in the public domain. T. 6:9 (p. 304, ls. 3-8) Again the conflicting principles are spelled out, C-D. E-F now pose no surprises. T. artfully expands M.'s case and brings the disputants closer together. T. 6:8-9 are parallel in all details.

A. B. C.

D. some E.

F. G.

5:8 [If there isJ one [ femaleJ idiot in the village-or [ oneJ gentile [printed texts: Canaanite J womanor one Samaritan womanall drops of spit which are in the village are unclean [ since are certainly unclean (Maimonides) J. He on whose garments a woman has stepped, or next to whom a woman sat down on a shipif she knows him, that he eats heave-offering-

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

H. I.

5 :8

139

his utensils [garments J are clean. And if not, he will interrogate her. M. 5:8

The present pericope, A-D, supplements the foregoing. But now there is no matter of doubt. Even if there is doubt about having touched the drop of spit in the public domain, we hold that the matter of doubt is deemed unclean. M. 4:5 has gone over this ground. The reason is that there is no doubt about the uncleanness of a least one drop of spit. So we see still another principle about doubt, this one concerning the indubitable uncleanness of something which one may or may not have touched-in the public domain ( !) . E-G suppose that if the woman knows the man eats heave-offering, she will take care not to render his garments unclean. If not, we ask whether she is unclean. The theme of M. Chapters Seven and Eight thus is artfully adumbrated. A. "(If] there is one [ femaleJ idiot in the village, all the drops of spit which are in the village are unclean," the words of R. Meir. B. R. Judah says, "If she was accustomed to go into a certain alley, that alley in particular is in the presumption of being unclean, but all [the other] alleyways are in the presumption of being clean." C. And R. Simeon says, "All the alleyways are in the presumption of being unclean, except for a courtyard which is guarded." D. And R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon (Sens: b. R. ~adoq] says, "Even a courtyard which is guarded is in the presumption of being unclean, "until one will give evidence, stating, 'It is clear to me that I have not come to this place.' " T. 6: 10 (p. 304, ls. >'-15) M. 5 :SA+ D are now assigned to Meir. Judah, Simeon, and Eleazar dispute the matter, all in disagreement with Meir, but their interest is in alleys (B vs. C) and courtyards (C vs. D), so the pericope unfolds by stages, A vs. B, and so on. A. He who bumps against millstones in which a gentile is located[or] in which a menstruating woman is locatedhis garments are unclean with midras-uncleanness. D. What are millstones [under discussion]? E. Any which one uproots and moves from its place. F. [If] one spit and tread, G. on account of his spit, they burn the heave-offering, H. and as to his garments, they follow the status of the majority. T. 6:11 (p. 304, ls. 16-19)

B. C.

140

TOHO ROT CHAPTER FIVE

5 :8-9

On A-E, see T. Oh. 9:2. F-H = M. 5:7A-D; A.

He on whose garments a woman has steppedhis garments are unclean with midras-uncleanness. R. Dosetai b. R. Judah says, "If she spit and wiped away her spit when she spit, his clothes are unclean with midras-uncleanness, D. "for thus is the way of the daughters of Israel; E. "they wipe up their spit when they are menstruating. F. "If she did not wipe up her spit, his clothing is clean." T. 6:12 (p. 304, ls. 20-21, p. 305, ls. 1-3) B. C.

T. deals with the problem of M. 5 :SE, but its principle is separate. Now the issue is not a meticulous woman, but anyone. We know whether the woman was menstruating, therefore unclean, if she wipes up the spit. If she does so and if she steps on the clothes, they are deemed unclean. 5:9 A. A witness says, "He was made unclean," and he [C: she] says, "I was not made unclean"B. he is clean. C. Two say, "You were made unclean," and he says, "I was not made unclean"D. [N, V lack:J R. Meir declares unclean. E. And sages say, "He is believed concerning himself." F. A witness says, "He was made unclean," and two say, "He was not made unclean"G. whether in private domain or public domainH. he is clean. I. Two say, "He was made unclean," and one says, "He was not made unclean"J. whether in private domain or in public dorrf!l.inK. he is unclean. L. A witness says, "He was made unclean," and a witness says, "He was not made unclean"M. a woman says, "He was made unclean," and a woman says, "He was not made unclean"N. [ if the case concerns] private domain, he is unclean. 0. [if the case concerns] public domain, he is clean. M. 5:9 (A-B: b. Qid. 65b; Ker. 12a, y. Naz. 8:1) The present unit presents us with five rules: A-B, C-E, F-H, I-K, L-O. The first has a witness who contradicts the man. We rule the man is clean. In the second, C-E, for which the first sets the stage, we have a dispute ( missing in N and V). Two witnesses say he was made unclean, but the man denies it. Meir follows the testimony of the two

TOHOROT CHAPTER FIVE

5 :9

141

witnesses, sages do not. Following b. Ker. 12a, Slotki (p. 389, ns. 2-3) explains the position of Meir as follows: ... two witnesses on whose evidence a man may be sent to death may well be relied upon in sub· jecting one .to uncleanness which involves no greater liability than that of a sacrifice for entering the Sanctuary in an unclean state. Sages, he says, allow that the man may well claim, "Even if the witnesses' evidence is accepted, he has subsequently attained cleanness through immersion." F-H present a variation on the rule. We have one witness who says the man is unclean, and two who say he is clean. Now we ignore the matter of domain, since the two witnesses are believed. The same is so in the next unit, 1-K, which simply reverses the condition of F-H. I. has two witnesses who contradict one another, male or female witnesses, and this is a case of doubt in which we distinguish between private domain, in which we deem the matter of doubt, that is, the contradicted testimony of single witnesses, to be unclean, and public domain, in which the matter of doubt is deemed clean. A. Two say to him, "You were made unclean," and he says, "I was not made unclean" -he is clean. B. But they do not say to him, "You may engage in [prepare J clean things." But he should watch out for himself. T. 6:13 (p. 305, ls. 4-5)

A = M. 5:9A-B. B then qualifies the ruling. A. A man brings an offering in behalf of his adult son and daughter and~his Hebrew slave and maid servant, B. and he contradicts them [ = even if they say they are not obligated for such an offering} (TR JV, p. 72). C. He is believed concerning himself. D. How so? E. They said to him, "You have vowed," and he says, "It was subject to an unstated condition [in my heart}"F. they accept his statement. G. "You have vowed," and he said to them, "I did not vow, and when they came [with proof for their testimony}, he said, "It was subject to an unstated condition [in my heart}"-they do not accept his statement. H. "Your wife has vowed," and he says to them, "She did not vow," and when they came [with proof}, he said, "I intended to annul her vow for her" -they do not listen to him. T. 6:14 (p. 305, ls. 6-12)

142

TOHOROT

CHAPTER FIVE

5 :9

The principle is as at M. 5 :9E, but the illustrations are unrelated to our tractate. The point of G + H is that the man changes his claim in his own behalf, and in this case we do not believe him. For a parallel to A, see M. Neg. 14:12, Part VI, p. 285. On when they came, see TR IV, p. 73. A. One is believed to say, "This son of mine is nine years and one day old," "this, my daughter, is nine years and one day old," B. [if} he is liable to bring an offering for them. C. But for flagellation, and for punishments, D. lo, this one is not believed. T. 6:15 (p. 305, ls. 13-15)

For B-C, I follow Sens (TR IV, p. 74). T. continues the foregoing. A. If his asses and his workers were bearing clean things and passing [ some distanceJ before him, even if they were more than a mile away, lo, these are clean, B. because it is in the presumption of being guarded. C. If he said to them, "Go out, and I shall come after you," once they have left his eyesight, lo, these are unclean. T. 6:16 (p. 305, ls. 16-19) (b. Hag. 20b, A.Z. 69a)

The point, unrelated to M., is that so long as the workers assume they are supervised, they will take care to preserve the cleanness of the food. Once they suppose they are not supervised, we have no reason to trust them. The theme is important in Chapters Seven and Eight. A. Two say, "He was made unclean," and two say, "He was not made unclean" B. [if the matter of doubt concerns] private domain, he is unclean. C. [If the matter of doubt concernsJ public domain, it is clean. D. They asked Ben Zoma, "Why is [ a doubt in J private [ domain deemed J unclean ?" E. He said to them, "What is the status of the wayward wife in respect to her husband ? "[Has sheJ certainly [ committed adultery J or [has she onlyJ possibly [committed adultery}?" F. They said to him, "[She has only possibly committed adultery]. It is a matter of doubt." G. He said to them, "We find that she is prohibited to her husband." H. On this basis you may reason on a matter involving a ( dead} creeping thing: Just as in this case, in the private domain [we deem a matter of doubt to be unclean J, so in the other case in the private domain, we deem a matter of doubt to be unclean.

'J'OHOROT

CHAPTER FIVE 5 :9

14~

I. [If you argue,] Just as here, that is the case where there 1s intelligence for interrogation, so in the other case, where there is intelligence for interrogation]. on this basis have they said, "A matter in which there is intelligence for interrogation-involving the private domain a matter of doubt is deemed unclean, and in the public domain a matter of doubt is deemed clean. K. "And why is a matter of doubt in the public domain deemed clean?" [the students asked]. L He said lo them, "We find that the community prepares the Passover in a state of uncleanness when the larger numbers of them are unclean. M. "And if a matter of certain uncleanness is permitted for the community, all the more so a matter of doubtful uncleanness." N. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "On what account is a matter of doubt in the private domain deemed unclean, and a matter of doubt in the public domain is deemed clean? 0. "Because it is possible to interrogate an individual, and it is not possible to interrogate a crowd." T. 6: I 7 (p. 305, ls. 20-23, p. 306, ls. l-12) (y. Sot. 1:2; H-J: Sifre :\rum. 7, Horovitz, p. 13, b. Sot. 28a)

A-C go over the problem of M. 5 :9L + N-O, now with two witnesses. The next sequence is hereby provided with an introduction, but only by B-C. I-J are surely interpolated. The rest is clear as given. The whole is autonomous of M.

CHAPTER SIX

TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX The subtractate on matters of doubt in the public domain concludes here. The opening rule, indeed, serves as an appropriate introduction to the chapter as a whole, which deals, in the main, with space which at one time may be public domain, at another time private. M. 6:1 says that when such space is deemed public domain, a matter of doubt is resolved as clean, and when it is deemed private domain, the same matter is deemed unclean, hardly a surprising rule. At M. 6:2 we do have an unusual set; here, like cAqiva at M. 5:1, Joshua does not seem to recognize the distinction between public and private domain and deems matters of doubt in both as unclean. However, the pericope may be read to hold that Joshua rejects a temporal or spatial mixture of domains, that is, public in one aspect or time, private in another, and holds that matters of doubt are deemed clean only when the entire scenario-the setting of the problem-takes place in a single domain, the public. M. 6:3 illustrates this same matter, that is, the ambiguity of a case in which part of the action takes place in the public area, part in the private. M. 6:4 tells us that doubts pertaining to public domain are deemed clean, private, unclean. It intends to spell out some matters of that same well-established principle. Now the point is that if we try to introduce as wide a range of doubts in respect to the private domain, however many doubts we find, the matter comes out the same way: unclean. Eleazar then wishes to distinguish doubts concerning one's entry, as against doubts concerning one's contact; the former are deemed clean, the latter, unclean. M. 6:5-9 deal with space which, as noted, sometimes may be public, and sometimes private, domain. The first distinction concerns valleys, that is, canyons, which in the dry season are readily entered, and in the rainy season are not commonly accessible. Eleazar's distinction between doubts about entry and doubts about contact is reintroduced, but it is hardly essential to the pericope. M. 6 :6 again has a double theme. The first, quite out of phase, concerns the degree of uncertainty. In the private domain, a doubt remains a doubt and deemed unclean until we are able to ascertain that a person certainly has not touched the

TOHOROT

CHAPTER

SIX

6:1

145

unclean thing. In public domain, a doubt continues to be deemed clean until we know for sure that the person has actually had contact with the unclean thing. This is a fine conclusion of our subtractate, and the remainder is an Ushan appendix containing unimportant details. The real interest of M. 6 :6 is in the distinction between private and public domain, on the one side, and property which may be one or the other, depending on certain circumstances, e.g., the rainy season and so on. M. 6:7-9 work out the same matter, now with disputes in the names of Judah and Meir.

6:1 A. A place which was private domain and became public domain and once again was made private domainB. when it is private domain, a matter of doubt concerning it is deemed unclean. C. When it is public domain, a matter of doubi concerning it is clean. D. He who was on the point of death in private domain~~ E. and they brought him out to the public domain, and brought him back to private domain ( where it is clear that he is dead].F. when he is in the private domain, a matter of doubt concerning him is deemed unclean. G. When he is in the public domain, a matter of doubt concerning him is clean [ and unclean are only the objects with the man in private domain when he was brought ba~1, there (MS) J. H. R. Simeon says, "The public domain (retroactively] intervenes." M. 6:1 We carry on with further clarifications of the distinction between public and private domain. As we see below, some areas may at one time be private, at another public domain. This pericope goes over the ground of M. 6:5-9. Two cases, A-C and D-H, make the same, obvious point, one concerning a place, the other illustrating the case with the dying man, who may or may not have actually expired. Simeon's point is the important qualification. Retroactively, the man's presence in the public domain intervenes in the process. We do not say that the Jying man was alive in the public property and dead in private domain. Objects with him in the private domain when he was there at the start of the process are deemed clean. Since we suppose the man was alive when brought into public domain, we say objects in private domain are clean. Since we do not know for sure that he was dead in public domain, the doubt is deemed clean. IO

146

TOHO ROT CHAPTER SIX

6: 1- 2

A.

The dying man who is placed in a shop, and entered the stoa-it is clean. [If} they brought him out of the stoa and brought him back to the shop a second time-D. it is unclean. E. And R. Simeon declares clean. F. For R. Simeon says, "The public domain intervenes retroactively, G. "for one cannot say, 'He was dead in the private domain and he was alive [ reading l;IYH for HYHJ in the public domain.' " T. 7:1 (p. 306, ls. 14-18) B. C.

Simeon's position in M. 6:lA is now explained in terms of doubt involving the public domain. As we shall now see, this is diametrically opposite Joshua's position, M. 6:2.

6:2 A. Four matters of doubt does R. Joshua declare unclean, and do sages declare clean: B. How so? C. ( 1) the unclean person stands and the clean person passesD. (2) the clean person stands and the unclean person passes byE. ( 3) the unclean thing is in the private domain and the clean thing is in the public domainF. ( 4) the clean thing is in the private domain and the unclean thing is in the public domainG. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchH. it is a matter of doubt whether he overshadowed or whether he did not overshadow!. it is a matter of doubt whether he moved or whether he did not move-J. R. Joshua declares unclean. K. And sages declare clean. M. 6:2 ( = M. Ed. 3:7) We find ourselves with a construction similar to M. 5 :1, that is, several cases, followed by clauses which articulate the cases. At C, we do not know whether the unclean person, who is standing by the way, has touched the one who passes by (G). At D, we do not know whether the unclean person who passes by has touched the clean person who is standing still ( G). At E and F we have similar reversions: a clean thing in. public domain, an unclean in the private, and vice versa. G then brings us to C-D: touching; H deals with E-F: overshadowing; and I serves the same ( for the reasons given at M. 5: 1). Joshua, how-

'TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX

6:2-3

147

ever, does not distinguish between public and private domain, nor does he distinguish between actually doing a deed and not doing a deed. In all cases of doubt, he deems the matter unclean. Why? Because in all cases, the doubt affects both public and private domain, so we follow the rule of private domain and deem a d.oubt unclean (Bert. GRA). Sages declare clean. Following Bert. and GRA, Albeck (p. 318) explains sages' position as follows: They hold that a matter of doubt in private domain is deemed unclean only when the unclean and the clean person are in the same domain, e.g., both are in the private domain. But here we have one in one domain, standing still and one passing by, or one is in the private domain and the other in the public domain. Here we deem them clean. Bert. ( + GRA) says, as before, that when we have both domains, sages assign the whole to public domain. Maimonides ( Oiher Fathers of Uncleanness 15 :5,9) states the set as follows: "A doubt about one 'who passes by' and one 'who stands still' ": how does this apply? If a leper sits beneath a tree and one who is clean passes by, and it is in doubt whether the tree did or did not overshadow him and so render him unclean; so, too, if one who is clean sits beneath a tree and a leper passes beneath it, and it is in doubt whether the leper did or did not stand still and render the clean man unclean, since there is a doubt about his condition, he is deemed to be dean. [15: 5] "A doubt about two domains": how does this apply? If there is an unclean thing in a private domain and a clean thing in a public domain, or contrariwise, and anyone touches one of them and it is not known which of them he touched; or if he shifts one of them and it is not known which of them he shifted-if the unclean thing conveys uncleanness by carriage, or if one of the objects conveys uncleanness by overshadowing, and he overshadows one of them and it is not known which of them he overshadowed, he is deemed dean. [15:9]

6:3 A. A tree which is [K: SHYH] standing in public domain, and the uncleanness is in itB. one climbed to its topC. there is doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchD. his matter of doubt is· deemed unclean. E. He put his hand into the hole in which the uncleanness is locatedF. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touch-

148

TOHOROT

CHAPTER SIX

6: '.>

G. H. !. not go

his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. A shop which is unclean and open to the public domainit is a matter of doubt whether he went in or whether he did inJ. his matter of doubt is deemed clean. K. [PB, Katsh #122, C, Pa, K lack:} It is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touch- L. his matter of doubt is deemed clean. M. Two shops, one unclean and one dean-- N. one entered one of them0. it is a matter of doubt whether he entered the unclean one, or whether he entered the clean oneP. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. M. 6:3

We have five cases, A-D, E-G, H-J, K-L ( omitted by some MSS), and M-P. The first two cases deal with a tree, which is regarded as private domain so far as uncleanness is concerned. In both cases, A-D and E-G, therefore we resolve the doubt in favor of uncleanness. In H we have a shop, that is, private domain, \vhich contains corpsematter. It therefore is a case of imparting uncleanness through overshadowing. We do not know whether a person has entered the shop. We deem the doubt to be clean. Why? Because the matter of doubt begins in the public domain. That is, we do not know whether, from the public domain, a person has entered the private domain. And K-L add, if we do not know whether he has touched, the same rule applies. Sages of M. 6:2 will agree; Joshua should not. M changes the situation. The man has certainly entered one of the shops, and the shops constitute private domain, in which case the matter of doubt is \vhether he has been made unclean in private domain, and we deem the man unclean. Maimonides gives the rules of M. 6:3-4 as follows ( Other Fathers nf Uncleanness 20:9): If an unclean shop opens onto the public domain and it is in doubt whether a man did or did not enter it, he is deemed clean; for a shop is like a creeping thing lying in the public domain, concerning which a condition of doubt about contact with it is deemed clean. If there are two shops, the one clean and the other unclean, and a man enters one of them and it is in doubt whether he has entered that which is unclean or that which is clean, he is deemed to be unclean, for this is a case of doubt affecting private domain, for the shop counts as private domain. So, too, with a valley in the rainy season wherein are many fields:

TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX

6:3

149

if in it is one unclean field and one that is clean, and someone says, "I entered this valley and I do not know whether I did or did not enter that field," he is deemed to be unclean for a case of doubt about uncleanness in private domain, even doubt about entering it, is deemed to be unclean.

A. There are things in the public domain which they have treated as private domain: B. A basket (QWPH) in the public domain which is ten handbreadths high, C. and the uncleanness is in itD. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchE. his matter of doubt ·is deemed clean. F. [If] he put his hand into itG. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchH. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. T. 7:2 (p. 306, 1. 19, p. 307, ls. 1-3)

T. is parallel to M. 6:3's tree. But its rule contradicts M.'s, for M. 6:3B-C are parallel to T. 7.2D, but T. says in this case, if we do not know that the man touched the uncleanness, the doubt is deemed clean. In line with A, we should have expected unclean. TR IV, p. 75, explains that at B-E, we do not have both the man and the uncleanness in private domain ( = sages of M. 6:2), but in F-H, both the hand and the uncleanness are in the private domain. A. If there was a basket [Sens: on his shoulder], and a loaf of heave-offering was wrapped in a bast or in paper and placed in itB. it is a matter of doubt whether another [person] touched or did not touchC. its doubt is deemed clean [Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness 20:1: unclean]. D. If he put his hand into itE. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchF. its matter of doubt is deemed unclean. T. 7:3 (p. 307, ls. 4-6)

TR IV, p. 76, explains that we have the foregoing basket of T. 7:2. It is turned over on a man's shoulder; the loaf is wrapped so as not to touch the man and the basket. But we do not know whether the loaf has been touched by the man (B). It is clean. But if the man put his hand into the paper, and we do not know whether he has touched the loaf, it is unclean-exactly parallel to T. 7:2.

150

TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX

6:3

A. An ass in the public domain, ten handbreadths highand uncleanness is placed on top of itB. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched· or whether he did not touchC. its matter of doubt is deemed clean. D. If he stretches out his hand on top of itE. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchF. its matter of doubt is deemed unclean. G. A rock in public domain, ten handbreadths high-and uncleanness is placed on top of itH. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchhis matter of doubt is deemed clean. I. If someone climbed up to its topJ. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched or whether he did not touchK. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. T. 7:4 (p. 307, Is. 7-9)

T. gives us further cases in line with T. 7:2. The rock, G-K, is parallel to the tree of M. 6:3. A. This one was riding on his ass, and the other was riding on his assB. one is unclean and one is cleanC. it is a matter of doubt whether this one touched that one or whether he did not touch himD. R. Jacob declares unclean. E. And R. Yose declares clean. F. The son of this one was riding on his shoulder, G. [ and the son] of that one was riding on his shoulderH. one is unclean and one is dean!. it is a matter of doubt whether they touched one another or whether they did not touchK. R. Jacob declares unclean. L. And R. Yose declares clean. M. There was a bundle on his shoulderN. and spit was cleaving ten handbreadths above0. it is a matter of doubt whether he moved it or whether he did not move it [ as he passed beneath JP. R. Jacob declares unclean. Q. And R. Yose declares clean. T. 7:5 (p. 307, ls. 10-16) A. Utensils are lying on the public domain above ten handbreadths, and the unclean person passes-

I'

TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX

6:3-4

151

B. it is a matter of doubt whether he moved or whether he did not move [ them JC. R. Jacob declares unclean. D. And R. Yose declares dean. E. For R. Jacob would say, "A basket which is ten handbreadths high in the public domain, lo, it is regarded as the private domain." F. And R. Yose says, "Whoever has taken his way through the public domain is clean [or: clear (PTWR)]." T. 7:6 (p. 307, ls. 17-21)

In T. 7:5 we have three examples of the same dispute, A-E, F-L,

M-Q, and in T. 7:6 one more. The doubt has to do with whether we have the public domain in cases in which we have someone on the public domain but high above it. The principle at issue is spelled out at T. 7:6E-F. Yose holds that even though some one ten handbreadths high is deemed to be in private domain, since he is passing in public domain, and private domain does not intervene, he is clean in case of doubt, parallel to M. 5 :2. Some versions give us cAqiva for Jacob.

6:4 As much as you may multiply doubts and doubts about doubts,in connection with private domain, it is unclean; C. in connection with public domain, it is clean. D. How so [in private domain]? E. One entered an alley, and ( 1) the uncleanness is in the courtyardF. it is a matter of doubt whether he entered [the courtyard] or whether he did not enterG. (2) uncleanness is in the houseH. it is a matter of doubt whether he entered or whether he did not enter!. (3) and even if he did enterJ. it is a matter of doubt whether it was there or whether it was not thereK. ( 4) and even if it was thereL. it is a matter of doubt whether it contains a sufficient bulk [to convey uncleannessJ or whether it does not contain a sufficient bulk [ to convey uncleannessJM. (5) and if even if it does contain a sufficient bulk to convey undeannessN. it is a matter of doubt whether it is uncleanness or whether it is cleanness0. ( 6) and even if it is uncleannessP. it is a matter of doubt whether he touched it or whether he did not touch itA. B.

152

TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX

6:4-5

Q. his matter of doubt is deemed unclean. R. R. Eleazar says, "A matter of doubt concerning entry is deemed clean. S. "A matter of doubt concerning contact with that which is unclean is deemed unclean." M. 6:4 (R-S: b. B.B. 55b, Pes. 10a, A.Z. 70a) Most MSS assign A-C to the foregoing, M. 6:3, and begin M. 6:4 at D. But clearly the printed editions are correct in moving the introductory clause to the cases which it introduces. Formally, the first set, E-F, is out of line, since it is not followed by an even if. Five items are to be preferred, presumably beginning at G (2). What we have are several examples of doubt about doubts, with the same result. In E the alley is private domain, the courtyard also; we do not know whether the man went into the courtyard. At G we go further. We do no know whether the man went into the courtyard, and, if he did, we do not know whether he went from there into the house containing the uncleanness. If he did go into the house, we do not know whether the source of uncleanness was in that particular house. At L we do not know whether the source of uncleanness was of sufficient bulk to convey uncleanness. At N we do not know whether the source of uncleanness in fact was certainly unclean. In P we do not know whether, if it was certainly unclean, the man touched it. Q supplies a fitting conclusion. But the point of the whole comes at R, which refers us back to E, H, I, all cases in which, Eleazar says, we deem the matter of doubt as clean; and then S brings us to P. R-S are cited in the several gemarot in explanation of M. 6: 5.

6:5 A. One entered the valley [canyon} during the rainy seasonB. and the uncleanness is [located} in a certain field, C. and he said, "I walked in that place, but I do not know whether I entered that particular field, or whether I did not enter [it}"D. R. Eleazar [PB, M, N, V, C: Liezer} declares clean. E. And sages declare unclean. M. 6:5 (b. Pes. 10a, B.B. 55b, A.Z. 7Ca)

The case again illustrates Eleazar's position, that in matters of doubt involving entry, we deem the matter to be clean. Sages of course hold that, since we deal with a valley in the rainy season, when it is private property (M. 6:7), the matter of doubt is deemed unclean.

TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX

6:5-6

153

A. B.

If one entered the valley in the rainy season, and uncleanness is in a certain fieldC. They said before R. Eliezer, "Lo, it belongs to a private person." D. R. Merinos explained in his [Eliezer's} name, "Any field which has a name unto itself." T. 7:7 (p. 308, Is. 1-3)

T. goes over M. 6:5, with an argument for sages, M. 6:5E = C: Why declare clean in this case?

6:6 A. B.

A doubt concerning private domain is deemed uncleanuntil one will say, "I did not touch it." C. A [matter of] doubt in the public domain is deemed cleanD. until one will say, "I did touch it." E. What is public domain? F. The paths of Bet Gilgul, and the like of themG. [they are} private domain in regard to the Sabbath, and public domain with regard to uncleanness. H. [M omits:} Said R. Eleazar [PB, N, C, T: Eliezer}, "The paths of Bet Gilgul were mentioned only because they are regarded as private property for both purposes." I. Paths which lead down to cisterns, pits, caverns, and wine-presses -[are} private domain with regard to the Sabbath and public domain with regard to uncleanness. M. 6:6 (b. Eruv. 22a)

Before us are two separate rules, M. 6:6A-D, which expand A and C by B and D, and E-I. In the first group, we show the extent to which we resolve matters of doubt. Until the person can testify that he did not touch something unclean in private domain, we are in doubt, which is deemed unclean; and in regard to public domain, until the person knows for sure he did touch that which was unclean, we doubt and we deem him to be clean. This is a rather majestic finis for our subtractate. E introduces the new materials, which extend to the end of the chapter. But F-H are out of phase with E. For E asks about public domain, and G tells us about private domain and public domain, explaining that, for some considerations, a given area is regarded as private domain, and for others, as public, parallel to M. 6:l's division in time. I then spells out this same distinction, and the joining matter of E, which wants to unite the two distinct units, A-D and F-I, is shown to be somewhat inappropriate. The dispute of F-H therefore is to be seen as distinct, intruded only later on. The point of the

154

TOHOROT

CHAPTER SIX

6:6

distinction is that on the Sabbath one may carry in the private domain; and matters of doubt are resolved in favor of cleanness in the public domain, so we impose the two lenient rulings. Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 20:3) states the rules of this concluding group (M. 6:6-9) as follows: Some places, although they count as private domain in what relates to the Sabbath, count as public domain in what relates to uncleanness. And these are they: paths that lead only toward pits, cisterns, or wine presses; a field in a valley surrounded by a fence, in the summer season; a royal basilica, namely, a very spacious building in which chariotec:rs have their station and which has many entrances open to the public domain; a forum, namely, a large building with two entrances, the one opposite the other; a courtyard which the multitude can enter by one entrance and leave by another; likewise alleyways leading down to the sea or to the river-even though these are fenced in at both ends and many people climb over them; and public baths and bathhouses-all of these count as public domain in what relates to uncleanness. So, too, the whole Temple Court counts as public domain in what relates to uncleanness. A. The paths which lead down to the wells, caves, and cisterns, and winepresses, and threshing floors, are private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness. B. R. Eleazar says, "When they lead down, they are public domain for both; C. "and if they do not lead down, they are private domain for both, D. "and public domain for uncleanness." T. 7:9 (p. 3C8, ls. 9-13)

T. supplements M. 6:61. I do not understand the reading at D. A. Alleys which go down to the sea or to the river, even though they are fenced off on either side, and the public climb over the fences and walk thereinB. are private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness. T. 7:10 (p. 308, ls. 14-16)

The alleys are closed so that people have to climb over the fences. Nonetheless, they are regarded as public domain for uncleanness. A. The roofs of the village on which a public path passes are private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness. B. A garden, when it is guarded, is private domain. C. If it is not guarded, it is public domain. T. 7: 11 (p. 308, ls. 17-20)

TOHOROT CHAPTER SIX

6:6-8

155

A must be roof (GG), since B deals with a garden (GN) (TR IV, p. 79). Even though the roofs are private domain, the fact that they serve as a public way makes them public domain for uncleanness.

6:7 A. B.

The canyonin the dry seasonC. is private domain in respect to the Sabbath, and public domain in respect to uncleanness. D. And in the rainy seasonE. it is private domain for both. M. 6:7 (b. Shab. 6a, B.B. 153b)

The distinction introduced at M. 6:6 is applied once more. In the dry season many people enter the canyon; in the rainy season people do not go to work the field there. The way in is too difficult, as in the canyons in the American West during the spring run-off of melting snow. M. 6:6 depends on this rule. A. B.

And what is the dry season? Once the crop is gathered from it. C. And what is the rainy season ? D. Once the second rain falls. E. If there were there clear fieldsF. if one could stand on one side and see those that enter and those that leave on the other sideG. it is private property with respect to the Sabbath and public domain with respect to uncleanness, and if not, it is private property with respect to both. T. 7:8 (p. 308, ls. 4-8)

A-D augment M. 6:7. E-G speak of the rainy season. The fields are private property. But since the fields are clear of seed, people may walk through them, and if the field is not large, and near public domain, it is regarded as part of public domain (TR IV, p. 78).

6:8 A. A basilicaB. is private domain in respect to the Sabbath and public domain in respect to uncleanness. C. R. Judah says, "If one stands at this en:trance and sees those that enter and leave through that entrance, D. "it is private domain for both; E. "and if not, it is private domain for the Sabbath, and public domain in respect to uncleanness." M. 6:8

156

TOHOROT

CHAPTER SIX

6:8

A. The forum (PRN)B. is private domain for the Sabbath, and public domain for uncleanness. C. And so too the sides. D. R. Meir says, "The sides are private domain for both." E. The colonnades are private domain for the Sabbath, and public domain for uncleanness. F. A courtyard which the public enters through one entry and leaves through another is private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness. M. 6:9 (E: b. Shah. 6a)

M. 6:8A-B say that a basilica is a private domain for the Sabbath, so we may carry there, and a public domain with regard to uncleanness, so if there is a matter of doubt, it is deemed dean. Judah qualifies this ruling. If the basilica is small so that we may see from one side to the other, it is wholly private domain, since use of the basilica is under supervision. M. 6:9 has an undisputed rule, A-B, and a dispute about the sides, C-D. E and F are autonomous rulings. A. A basilica which they open by day and locked by night-so long as it is open, it is public domain. B. [When} it is locked, it is private domain. C. You come out to rule: By day it [ = doubt} is clean, and by night it is unclean. D. A basilica the doors of which are directly opposite one another, E. and so too a stoa which is fenced on either side, and there is a space between the pillarsF. R. Judah says, "If one may stand on one side and see those that enter and leave by the other side, it is private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness. G. "And if not, it is private domain for both [ vs. M. 6:8CJ." T. 7:12 (p. 309, ls. 1-8)

T. supplements M. 6:8; F-G = M. 6:8C-E. If one can see the whole area, it is public domain. See TR IV, pp. 79-80. A. A basilica, the two doors of which are directly opposite one anotherB. "The middle area of it is private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness, C. "and the sides are private domain for this and for that," D. the words of R. Meir.

TOHOROT

CHAPTER SIX

6:8

157

E. And sages say, "All the same is the rule applying to the middle and to the sides: F. "it is private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness." T. 7:13 (p. 309, Is. 9-13)

G. And R. Meir agrees with the sages concerning a basilica, the two doors of which are not directly opposite one anotherH. for example, the courtyard of Bet Gabbi and I;IammataI. that all the same is the rule of the middle and the side: J. they are private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness. K. And sages agree with R. Meir concerning a courtyard belonging to an individual which is interrupted by the public wayL. for example, the courtyard of Bet GaddiM. the middle is public domain for uncleanness, and private domain for the Sabbath, and the sides are private domain for this and for that. T. 7:14 (p. 309, Is. 14-19)

H gives an example of a private domain used by the public. In this case Meir will agree with sages.

CHAPTER SEVEN

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN The subtractate beginning the present chapter deals with the relationships between the paver and the cam ha'aref in respect to cleanness, a theme continuing through Chapter Eight. The main problem has to do with deciding questions of cleanness in which an object has been left in the care of an cam ha-:,aref.We do not know for sure that the cam ha aref has touched said object, so we have nothing other than a matter of doubt. Since most of the problems before us take place in private property, we should expect that we deem matters of doubtdid the cam ha'aref touch the object?-to be deemed unclean. But what is amazing is not only that that is not the case, but also that we suppose the cam ha'aref is concerned not to contaminate clean things belonging to a paver. The supposition of the law is that the cam ha-:,arefknows full well the affects of his touch and takes into consideration the situation of the paver. The limits of the law, time and again under dispute, are set by our conception of what the cam ha-:,arefwill and will not routinely do. The form of the chapter is strikingly disciplined. Each unit begins with a substantive present participle: he who ... , followed by an apocopated predicate, referring not to the him who has done so and so, but to the state of the objects or food to which he has done it: M. 7:1, the potter who left, M. 7:2, he who leaves, M. 7:3, he who leaves, M. 7:4, the wife of a paver who left, M. 7:5, he who leaves, M. 7:6, the tax-collectors who entered, M. 7:7, he who leaves, M. 7:8, he who was ... and who (not the same pattern), M. 7:9, the woman who entered .... A mark of the commencement of subunits within the pericopae will be the reversion to the primary introductory form. T.'s counterparts do not make use of the same formal and disciplined pattern, more commonly depending upon an unstated if, e.g., [if] one did so-and-so-a quite different pattern. M. 7: 1 deals with a potter who left his pots in the public way and who went for a drink of water, a case glossed by Yose. A further, autonomous pericope within the same unit deals with giving over the key of a house to an cam ha'arer The house remains clean; it is assumed that the cam ha'aref will not go in. M. 7:2-3 carry forward the same

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

159

problem, now in a dispute between Meir and sages. The issue is whether we take for granted the cam ha'aref will touch whatever comes to hand or will restrain himself. Meir holds the former, sages the latter. M. 7:4 asks about leaving the wife of an cam ha'aref in the house while she is grinding wheat, again including a dispute of Meir and sages. M. 7:5 deals with leaving an cam ha"aref in the house as a guard, and the affects of such guardianship on food, liquid, and unsealed clay utensils, which are deemed unclean, and on couches, seats, and sealed clay utensils, which are deemed clean. At M. 7 :6 we turn to the special case of tax-collectors who enter the house and how we assess their testimony that they have not toqched anything. There is a clear elision of texts between M. 7: 5 and M. 7 :6, but we shall explain the matter as though the text does not repeat what we have already been told in connection with a different problem entirely. M. 7 :7 again presents a special case, one somewhat complicated at T., this time about a person who leaves his garments ("utensils") in a niche in the bath-house: how do we assess their condition as to cleanness when he picks them up? Eleazar b. cAzariah says they are clean, assumed therefore not to have been touched by an cam ha"aref, and sages say that, if we have some evidence that they have not been, or will not be, touched, they are clean; but otherwise they are unclean. M. 7:7-8 introduce a quite distinct matter, not related to the foregoing. How do we decide the cleanness of food if a person declares that he changed his mind about eating it, therefore was no longer concerned about its cleanness. Judah says that the food nonetheless is clean, since others will protect it, or the man nonetheless is clean, since others .will avoid making him unclean-the exact referent of the pronouns is impossible to determine with certainty. The concluding unit asks a woman who went into the house to bring out a piece of bread for a poor man and went out and found him standing beside loaves of bread of heave-offering. cAqiva declares the bread unclean, sages hold it is clean. Only M. 7 :7 and M. 7 :9. are attributed to Yavnean authorities; interestingly, neither refers directly to the /;;aver/ cam ha-aref distinction, though both take for granted that only a few people are interested in preserving the cleanness of f 09d or clothing. Attributions and attestations are as follows: M. 7:1, Yose, T. 8:1, Simeon attests; M. 7:2-4, Meir; M. 7:6 is attested by Meir, 8:6; M. 7:7, Eleazar b. cAzariah, attested also at T. 8:7B by Judah; M. 7:8, Judah; M. 7:9, cAqiva. M. 7:5 is unattested.

160

TOHO ROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 1

7:1 The potter [ who is a /paver] who left his pots and went down to drinkB. the innermost ones are clean. C. And the outermost ones are unclean. D. Said R. Yose, "Under what circumstances? When they are untied. But when they are tied up, the whole is clean [Maimonides: A.

unclean]."

E. He who gives over his key to an cam ha,are,r-the house is clean, F. for he gave him only [the charge of] guarding the key. M. 7:1 (A-D: b. Ket. 24b, E-F: b. A.Z. 70b) The pericope contains two rules, A-D, and E-F, both in the form standard for the chapter, the potter who left ... the innermost ones... , he who gives... the house is ... The subject of D is pots; Yose attests

A-C. The simple point of A-C is that the unguarded pots may be touched by an cam haJaref, who will render them unclean. It is taken for granted that, since the pots are in the public way, the clothing of the cam haJaref will fall upon, and into, the pots, as the ordinary folk pass by, thus contaminating the airspace. Yose then says that if the pots are tied together, this will not happen, with the mouths blocking one another up (TYY). Or the main consideration is that the cam haJareJ will take up and examine the pot; but when the pots are tied together, he will not do so, in which case even the outer ones are clean. Maimonides' text reads unclean, and he supposes that the primary consideration is that the cam haJare1will pick up or move the pots; if they are tied together, perhaps a gentile will pick up the entire bundle, and, by moving them, will contaminate the whole. At E-F we do not assume that the cam haJaref will enter the house, not wanting to be considered a thief, so the utensils of the house remain clean. E-F introduce the next set, M. 7 :2-6, all of which deal with leaving an cam ha,aref in one's house. What is curious is that the important principle of the preceding chapters, about doubts in public domain, seems not to play any role. We do not know for sure that an cam ha,aref has touched the pots, and we clearly have the public domain, yet even though this is only in doubt, we declare the outermost pots unclean. If Maimonides' ruling is valid, then Yose's saying is even more blatantly in contradiction to the assumption that doubts in public domain are deemed clean. Not only so, but we should have supposed that doubts in connection with the private domain are deemed unclean, but E-F explain why this is not

TOHO ROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 1

161

the case, again a striking difference from the established presupposition. MA postulates, therefore, that here, the path is narrow, so there can be no doubt of an cam haJare,!'shaving direct contact with the pots, thus contaminating their airspace. Maimonides (Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 12:23B) gives the rule of A-C as follows: If a potter who is an Associate brings his pots in to sell and goes down to drink, the innermost pots remain clean, but the outer ones become unclean. This applies if he leaves them near a public domain, because the passers-by will touch the outer row as they walk along. But if they are far from a public domain, and he has the tools of his craft with him ( = b. Ket. 24b ), the jars will all become unclean because the presence of his tools shows that the pots were laid out for sale, and the hands of all would be apt to handle them. But if he has not the tools of his craft with him, they all remain clean, the presumption being that no one has touched them. A. A /;aver who left foods and liquids on a well and went down to drinkB. they are clean, C. for others do not handle them. D. But a !;aver who was selling foods and liquids at the door of his shop and went inside [ the shop ]-lo, these are unclean, E. because others do handle them. T. 9:3 (p. 314, ls. 18-21)

Our pericope is part of a series pertinent in theme to M. 8: 1, but this one clearly relates to the present Mishnah. T. rejects the distinction important at M., and its presupposition is made explicit. Neither M.'s basic rule nor Yose's gloss is acceptable to T. For the remainder of the set, see below, p. 185. A. R. Simeon says, "He who gave a key to an cam haJaref-the house is unclean." B. [If] he gave him the [key to the] outer [room] and did not give him [the key to] the inner [room], the outer one is unclean. C. And as to the inner, unclean is only (the space] up to the place to which he can stretch out his hand and touch. D. [If) there were there shelves ten handbreadths high and niches [or: projections] ten handbreadths high, unclean is only [the space] up to the place to which he can stretch out his hand and touch. E. [If] the outer room belongs to one [person] and the inner room to another [person), even though the clean things are placed on the side of the door of the inner [room], lo, they are clean. II

162

TOHOROT

CHAPTER SEVEN

7: l-il

F. He who enters without permission, even though he stands at the side of clean thingsthey are clean. G. And so in the case of a gentile, one does not take into consideration [ the possibility of his touching things] in connection with wine used for purposes of idolatry. T. 8:1 (p. 310, ls. 3-11) (y. Pes. 2:2, b. A.Z. 70b) T. supplements M. with Simeon's opinion, contrary to M. 7:lE-F. Since B follows from Simeon's reasoning-M.'s authority would have told us that the charge is over the key, and the man is not going to touch what is in the room, any more than he touches what is in the house,-the development of B-D should be assigned to Simeon as well. The point is that we assume the man will touch what is in the room to which he has a key, but not in the room lxcyond. In the latter case, we do suppose he will touch what he can, however, and that explains C. In D we add that we do not suppose the man will get a ladder or a chair and climb up to high places in the room. E further limits the foregoing. We also do not suppose that a person ,vill go into property not entrusted to his care, and F says the same thing. G applies the same principle to the gentile. Once again we observe that the primary issue of our subtractate is the assessment of what the cam ha'are; and the gentile are apt to do and not to do. \'>Vhatis striking is that all laws assume both parties are well aware of the laws of cleanness and, while not observing them themselves, take precautions in behalf of those who do keep them.

7:2-4 A. He who leaves an cam ha'are}'inside his house awake and found him awake [in which case the man assumes the householders will be watchful ( GRA) JB. asleep and found him asleep [ = M. 3: 5]C. awake and found him asleepD. the house is dean. E. [If) he [left himJ sleeping and found hirn awake, F. "the house is unclean," the words of R. Meir. G. And sages say, "Unclean is only [the space] up to the place to which he can stretch out his hand and touch." [Danby: "Only that part is unclean which he could touch by stretching out his hand."] M. 7:2

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

A. B. C. which

7:2-4

163

He who leaves workers in his house--"the house is unclean," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Unclean is only [the space] up to the place to they can reach out their hands and touch." M. 7:3

A. The wife of a !;averwho left the wife of an cam ha0are! grinding [grain] in her house--B. [if the sound of] the millstones ceasedC. the house is unclean. D. The millstones did not cease--E. unclean is only [the space] up to the place to which she can reach out her hand and touch. F. [If] they were two, one way or the other [whether or not the grinding ceased], "the house is unclean, H. "for one grinds, and one snoops about," the words of R. Meir. I. And sages say, "Unclean is only [the space] up to the place to which they can reach out their hands and touch." M. 7:4

The three pericopae conform to the established patterns of apocopated diction, best illustrated at M. 7:3. We have in all five units dealing with the same point, M. 7:2A-D, which prepares the way for E-G; M. 7 :3, which makes exactly the same point for Meir and sages; M. 7:4A-E, and M. 7:4F-I. If we have no reason to believe that the cam ha0 aref has touched objects in the house, M. 7:2A-D, then we evidently do not even stand in doubt. The house simply remains dean. Or, as before, we deem the doubt as clean; we are not sure the cam ha 0 aref has not touched anything, but we rule that, since we have no reason to suppose he has, the house is dean. The authority behind M. 6 :6A will have been astonished by this ruling, for it makes no provision for the sort of certainty demanded by him. Since M. 6:4 has told us that in connection with private domain, we should take account of doubts about doubts, Meir's position is apt to stand in accord with that principle, and sages would seem not to wish to introduce too many dubious considerations. The dispute comes at M. 7 :2E-G. Do we declare the whole house unclean when the man is found awake? Yes, says Meir, the house is unclean. The cam ha'aref is apt to touch everything in the house. TYY, n. 9, GRA, and MA (followed by Albeck) explain that the man imagines, "The householder will not return soon, since he left me sleeping, and is apt to suppose I am still sleeping." Sages say that the man is presumed to remain in the place in which he was sleeping. Therefore

164

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7:2-4

we suppose only objects he can touch while in that place are going to be touched by him. Meir's view in M. 7: 3 is consistent, and of course in the same words; all that changes is the superscription, M. 7:3A, with the necessary revisions in sages' saying, C. The homely case of M. 7 :4 does not change the picture. So long as we can hear the sound of the millstones, we do not suppose the woman can make much unclean beyond what is within reach ( M. 7 :4D-E). If the millstones ceased, the whole house is unclean. Interestingly, Meir will find M. 7 :4B-C congenial, sages, D-E, but, selfevidently, Meir need not reject D-E and sages, B-C. This is a fine and subtle example of a compromise, effected by making use of the language distinctive to each party in the dispute. The dispute at F-1 then takes up the same sayings, with an explanation, H, for Meir, but none for sages. But the difference is as before. The five units, therefore, prepare the way for three disputes, M. 7:2A-D for E-G and M. 7:3, M. 7:4A-F for G-1, and the whole intends to articulate Meir's opinion. For M. 7:3, Maimonides (Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 12 :9B) adds explanatory language: So too if he leaves craftsman within his house, only that part becomes unclean which they could touch by stretching out their hands, and it may not be said, 'Perchance they climbed on a chair or a ladder and touched a vessel or foodstuffs hanging on the wall [ = 8:1D].'

So too for M. 7:4 (Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 12:10): And it may not be said, 'Perchance only one was grinding while the other examined everything in the house,' or, 'Perchance she pulled herself up and climbed to the higher places.' A. A };averwho was sleeping in the house of an cam ha,are1, with his utensils [ clothing] folded up and lying under his head, and his sandals and his jug before him-lo, these are clean, B. because they are in the presumption of being guarded. T. 8:2 (p. 310, ls. 12-14)

M. 7:2 has told us about a sleeping cam hrraref. T. now speaks about a sleeping !;aver. The rule is clear. Maimonides ( Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 12:6) adds, "Since the presumption is that they are guarded by their owner, and the common person would not touch them, since he would say, 'He may wake up now and see me.' "

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7:2-4

165

A. A !;aver who said to an cam haJaref, "Go and sleep in the house" B. the whole house is in his [the cam ha'arels] domain [and unclean]. C. "Go and sleep on such-and-such a bed"-D. unclean is only that very bed, and the space up to which, from the bed, he can reach out his hand and touch. E. {If] he said to him, "Keep this cow for me, that it not enter the house"F. "Keep this heifer for me, that it not break the utensils"G. lo, these arc dean, H. for he gave him only the task of guarding the cow alone. I. But if he said to him, "Guard this house for me that the cow should not enter it" J. "Guard these utensils for me that the cow should not break them"K. lo, they are unclean. L. Rabbi says, "Workers whose way is to gather pebbles and sherds in the house--all the house is regarded as in their domain [ and unclean]-" T. 8:3 (p. 310, ls. 15-22, p. 311, ls. 1-2)

T. (through K) continues its supplementary materials. The point of the opening set, A-K, is clear. When ·we tell the cam ha'aref to sleep in the house, not specifying a particular place, then the whole house is subject to the cam hcPc1re/scontrol. But when we specify a particular bed, then we assume the cam ha'aref will use that bed only. Likewise at E-K, when we give the cmn ha'are,r the responsibility of guarding the heifer, we do not assume the cam ha,aref is going to touch the utensils, in accord with the stipulation of M. 7 :1. But when we tell him to gLtard the house against the cow, or guard the utensils so that the cow will not break them, then we place the house or utensils in the hands of the cam ha,aref. Rabbi (L) supplements M. 7: 3C' s sages' ruling. Since Meir says the house is unclean, Rabbi need hardly specify his rule. But sages say the house is unclean only insofar as the workers will touch certain places. Rabbi now adds to sages' ruling that if the workers clean up after themselves, then they are apt to clean up-and contaminate-the whole house, a fine qualification of sages' ruling. A. The wife of an cam ha~arel grinds [grain] with the wife of a !;aver when she [the former] is unclean, but when she is dean, she should not: grind [wheat with her]. B. R. Simeon [b. Eleazar] says, "Even when she is unclean, she should not grind,

166

TOHORO'f CHAPTER SEVEN

7:2-5

C. "for even though she does not eat, she gives to other women, and they will eat." T. 8:4 (p. 311, ls. 3-6)

The wife of the cam ha)are,rhelps the wife of the paver when the wife of the cam ha are,r is unclean, for then she will not touch anything, knowing that she is unclean and makes the food unclean. But when she is clean, she will not take care not to move or toucli anything [ = Yose, M. 10 :1: the camme ha)are,rare not informed about the laws of contamination through carriageJ. 7:5 He who leaves an cam haJare.yin his house to guard itwhen he [the owner] sees those that enter and those that leave, the foods, liquids, and open clay utensils are unclean. But the couches and seats and clay utensils which are sealed tight seal are clean. And if he does not see either those that enter or those that leave, even if he [the cam haJare.y]was immobilized, even if he was tied up, everything is unclean [Maimonides, Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 12:5: "because it is under the control of an cam haJare,r"]. M. 7:5

A. B. C. D. with a E. F. G. H.

What is the difference between A-D and E-H? In the former instance, the householder knows who enters the house. All we take account of, therefore, is the possibility that the guard himself has contaminated objects in the house by his touch. But the objects specified at D are clean, because the contaminating effect of the cam haJare,r does not extend to the couch and seat or sealed jar ( this last through carriage, without contact). Through contact alone the cam haJare,rwill not make the sealed jar unclean, because, as we know, a clay utensil is not made unclean from its outer parts. On the other hand, E-H add, if the owner does not supervise those that enter and leave, then, even though the guard cannot move about, and even though he is tied up so that there is no consideration of his stretching out his hand and touching something, we declare the whole contents of the house to be unclean. Why? Because a gentile may enter, and he is equivalent in contaminating power to a Zab. Or a woman in her menstrual period may enter, and, if she sits down on a couch or moves a clay utensil sealed with a tight cover, she makes these things unclean. The difference, therefore, between A-D and E-H is the power of contamination of those presumed to enter the house. In the former

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7:5-6

167

instance, we take account only of the contaminating power of the cam haJarey, defined at C, but in the latter, we take account also of the contaminating power of gentiles and women (Sens). If we immobilized the guard in the case specified at B, presumably we should add that all the objects in the house are deemed clean, there being no way for the guard to touch anything. But that point is self-evident. He who leaves an cc1mhc1Jarefin his house to guard it, and this one is immobile or tied upC. when he can see those that enter and those that leave, D. unclean is only [the space] up to the place which they can make unclean. T. 8:7A (p. 311, ls. 18-20) A. B.

T. supplements M. 7:5A-B, by reading into M. A-B the condition of M. 7:5F-G. If the guard is immobilized and the owner sees those that enter or leave, we have only to ,vorry about the guard, who now does not contaminate the whole house, even the items of Ivf. 7: SC, but only what he himself can touch (TR IV, p. 84).

7:6 The [Israelite J tax-collectors who entered the house--the house is unclean. C. If there is a gentile with them, D. [Katsh #123, N, V, PB, P, Maimonides, Pa, C, K, lack:] they are believed to state, "We did not enter." E. But they are not believed to state, "We entered, but we did not touch [anything}." [So T in parentheses; M has, "If there is a gentile with them, they are believed to state, we did not enter, but he is not believed to state, we did enter, but unclean is only the place ... "]. [Katsh #123, N, V, PB, P, Maimonides, Pa, C, K: They are believed to state, "\Y/e entered ... "J F. The thieves who entered the house---G. unclean is only the place [trodden by] the feet of the thieves. H. And what do they render unclean? I. The foods, and the liquids, and clay utensils which are open. J. But the couches and the seats and clay utensils which are sealed with a tight seal are clean. K. If there is a gentile with them, or a woman, L. everything is unclean. M. 7:6 (A-E: M. Hag. 3:6, b. Hag. 26a) A. B.

Formally, the pericope clearly means to balance A and F. That is, if tax-collectors go into a house, the whole house is unclean. If thieves go

168

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7:6

into a house, they contaminate only the place they actually touch. The difference, self-evidently, is that the latter do their business in haste, while the former methodically search out the house ( = b. Hag. 26a: "They are afraid of the government"). We proceed to the development of this fundamental unit of tradition. C and K develop A-B and F-G, respectively. Clearly, K poses few problems, and the contrast is clear. If thieves go in by themselves, they make haste. If a gentile is with them, everything is unclean. Why? They work more methodically, as b. Hag. says. What about C's development of A-B? Obviously, C cannot yield everything is unclean (L), because B has already said so. Accordingly, it is difficult to reject something like D-E, and the substance of A-B calls for such a conclusion. The problem of the reading of C-D cannot be solved in the present context; all we can say is that some apodosis is required for the protasis, if there is a gentile with them. I tend to prefer a brief one, but L cannot impose a syllabic count on D. What is self-evident is that H-J simply do not belong. The intrusion is self-evident. The introduction, H, tells us that what is to follow is out of place and requires some sort of joining language. And I repeats what we already know, a distinction applicable not only to thieves, therefore not belonging to our pericope at all. On formal grounds, therefore, we are able to isolate as the primary exegetical difficulty the various versions of D-E. It is clear that we face a textual problem. All available MSS omit D-E as translated from the printed text, and instead, go from C to they are believed to state, "We entered but we did not touch anything." Let us first, however, consider the printed text. The case involves Jewish tax-collectors who are not f;averim. They enter a house, and, since they are assumed to search thoroughly, they contaminate everything in the house. But if a gentile is with them, then we believe their testimony if they state, "We did not, in fact, enter the house at all." Why? Because the gentile government official is there to supervise their work. If they claim that, nonetheless, they did not enter the house, then they are to be believed, since there is possibility that that is the case. If, however, they did enter the house, then, with the gentile' s supervision, they are not going to be believed when they claim that they did not touch anything. The supervisor is there to make certain that they search thoroughly, and it is not possible to suppose that they have not done so. What if there is no gentile? Then we accept their claim that they entered but did not touch anything. Slotki follows the MSS, but, following TYY, translates, "Even

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7:6

169

though an idolator was with them, they are believed if they say, 'We have entered but touched nothing.' " Accordingly, the point is that the presence of the idolator does not diminish the credibility of their testimony. Maimonides has, "If there is a gentile with them, they are believed to say, "We entered but did not touch," to which he adds (Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 12:12), "since they are in fear of the gentile." The difference between the two versions is explicable, therefore, in terms of who we conceive the tax-collectors to be. If they work for the government, and a gentile supervisor is with them, then we take for granted they have touched everything. We believe them when they say they did not enter, but we cannot believe them when they say they did enter but did not touch anything. The presence of the gentile assures us to the contrary. If the collectors are there to collect taxes, by contrast, then they will hesitate to search thoroughly in the presence of the gentile, and his role is to limit their willingness to touch everything in the house (Maimonides). That is why we believe them when they say they entered but did not touch anything; the gentile will inhibit their collection of charity-funds or objects. The second case, F-G, tells us that the thieves do not search thoroughly. The contrast at K is for a different reason from the foregoing. The thieves can contaminate food, liquid, and open clay utensils, since they are camme haJare.f. But they do not contaminate couches, seats, and sealed clay utensils, just as at M. 7:5. On the other hand, the gentile or the woman does contaminate these things. It seems to me that F-G and H-I + J disagree with one another, since G is clear that the thieves contaminate only the area in which they walk, and I wishes to make the contrast with J, and assumes the thieves do contaminate whatever is within the house which is subject to the contamination of the cam halare.y. A. The tax-collectors who went into the houseB. If they said, "We entered the house, but we did not touch anything," C. lo, these are believed, D. for the mouth which prohibited is the mouth which permitted. E. If there were others giving testimony concerning them that they entered the house, and they said, "We did not touch anything," they are not believed. F. When the pledge is in their hand, even though others do not give testimony about them, they are not believed, because the pledge [itself] gives testimony about them.

170

TOHOROT

CHAPTER SEVEN 7 :6

G. If there was a gentile with them, even though the pledge is in their hand, H. even though the gentile gives testimony concerning them they that they entered, I. and they said, "We did not touch anything," J. lo, these are believed, K. because the fear of the gentile is upon them. T. 8:5 (p. 311, ls. 7-12) T. G-K has the MS reading of M. 7:6C-E. That is, the gentile's presence will inhibit a careful search. The theory of T., A-F, is that if the tax-collectors on their own admit to entering the house but claim they have not touched anything, they are believed. For they need not have admitted even that they entered the house. Since we believe them when they say they did, we also believe them when they say they touched nothing. But if we do not rely wholly on their testimony, E adds, we cannot accept any part of it. The others now give testimony. And F says, the fact that they have taken something from the house--the pledge or surety-is as adequate testimony as that of people who have seen them enter the house. F follows Sens' version (TR IV, p. 82). G-K, as noted, confirm the MS reading of M. 7:6C-E. It flows naturally from the foregoing. We have a gentile' s testimony and a surety. Nonetheless, the tax-collectors are believed. Maimonides gives the rule as follows (Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 12:12): If taxgatherers of the government enter a house to seize a pledge, everything in the house becomes unclean. If there was a gentile wtth them, they may be believed if they say, 'We have touched nothing,' since they are in fear of the gentile. This applies if there were witnesses to prove that they entered or that the pledge was in their hands; but if they said of themselves, 'We entered but we touched nothing,' they still may be believed, since 'the mouth that made a thing forbidden is the mouth that made the thing permitted.' Lieberman, TR IV, pp. 82-3, proves that T.'s version and that of the MSS is at y. Hag. 3 :6. He observes that we have two distinct traditions, Babylonian and Palestinian. The Babylonian is as in the printed texts. That which reads, "If there is a gentile with them, they are believed to say, 'We entered but did not touch anything' " is supported by T. It is, in fact, y. 's reading at y. Hag. 2 :6, "The tax collectors who entered the house-the

TOHOROT CHAPTER SEVEN

7:6-7

171

house is unclean. If there is a gentile with them, they are believed to state, 'We entered but did not touch.'" Albeck, p. 572, here cites TR. A. The thieves who entered the house"all the house entirely is unclean," the words of R. Meir. C. And sages say, "Unclean is only [the space] up to the place to which they can stretch out their hands and touch from the place of the robbery." [TR IV, p. 84: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "The whole house is unclean because of the robbery." Rabbi says, "Unclean is only the place of the robbery."] D. R. Meir agrees concerning shelves and niches, that a "place for the feet of the thieves" does not apply to them, E. that unclean only is [the space] up to the place to which they can reach out their hands and touch. T. 8:6 (p. 311, ls. 13-17) B.

A assigns M. 7:6A-B to Meir. But Meir agrees, D-E, that the thieves are not going to get up on ladders and search out high shelves and niches. Following TR, we have a second and parallel dispute after A-C, with Simeon b. Gamaliel in agreement with Meir, Rabbi with sages. Simeon holds that whatever is of the sort of thing which has been stolen is unclean, the thieves being assumed to have taken the best of the lot, touching, in the meantime, every object of the sort which they have actually stolen. Rabbi says the thieves touched only what they grabbed.

7:7 A. He who leaves his utensils [ clothing] in the wall-niche of the bath-houseB. R. Eleazar b. cAzariah declares clean. C. And sages say, "[They are not clean] unless one will give him [the attendant] the key or a seal, or unless he will make a mark." [MA prefers place on it a key .... ] D. He who leaves his utensils [Sens, Rosh, Bert., TYT, TYY: with a gentileJ from one vintage to the next vintage-his utensils are dean. E. And in the case of [Sens, Rosh, Bert.: leaving them with J an Israelite [they are not cleanJ unless he will testify, "In my heart was [the intention] to guard them.'' M. 7:7 We have two separate matters, A-C and D-E. In the former, the man leaves his clothes in a locker. Eleazar b. cAzariah holds that once the clothes are put away, no one is going to touch them. Sages' view is that one must give the key to the locker to the attendant, since he

172

TOHOROT

CHAPTER

SEVEN

7:7

may he assigned the guardianship of the key alone, as at M. 7:1. Or one must put a seal on the door or make some other mark which will indicate that the locker has been opened. If the seal is not damaged, then the clothes are clean. Albeck, p. 323, has the attendant give the key to the man. D-E pose some problems, since we do not know who is the subject of D. Since E refers to an Israelite, does D mean to say the subject is a priest? Or is D's point that we leave the utensils with a gentile, and in E, we leave the utensils with an Israelite? Maimonides sees the subject of D to be a priest ( Rendering Co1tch and Seat Unclean 13 :1): If a priest has made his vessels clean for one season's wine press and left them until the next season's wine press, they may still be presumed to be clean, because common folk will not have touched any vessels of this priest which were in his wine press, since they know that he eats only what is prepared in cleanness. But if they are the vessels of a (lay) Israelite, they become unclean, unless he can say, 'I was at pains to watch any common person who entered the wine press that he should not touch the vessels.'

Accordingly, Maimonides contrasts D's priest with E's Israelite, explaining why, in the case of the Israelite's utensils, we require an additional bit of evidence of the cleanness of the objects. In behalf of Maimonides' view it must be said that all MS evidence omits reference to "gentile" at D. Rosh interprets D's reference to mean that we leave the objects with a gentile, who, knowing the Israelite's concern, will not touch them. But an Israelite is required to say he has not touched them. Since his mode of contamination is less severe than the gEntile's, he is more likely to touch the objects. E. Said R. Judah, "R. Eleazar b. cAzariah agrees with the sages concerning the niches of the bath house, which are open from one to another [at the back or si