Its dough-offering1 is in a suspended condition2 and it may neither be eaten nor burned. In respect of what doubt did they3 give this ruling?4 In respect of a doubt applicable to the dough-offering.5 What is meant by 'a doubt applicable to the dough-offering'? — Both Abaye and Raba explained: That one should not assume that the ruling6 applies only to7 a case of likely uncleanness8 such as that of the two paths,9 for in that case even mere common food contracts uncleanness;10 but that it applies also in the case
actual terumah which is subject to the same restrictions as hallowed things where only 'leaning' might be assumed;11 for we learnt: If a zab12 and a clean person were unloading an ass or loading it, if the load was heavy13 [the latter] is unclean; if it was light14 he is clean and in either case15 he is regarded as clean16 [even if he is] of the members of the Synagogue17 but as unclean18 in respect of terumah,19 and 'unconsecrated food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering' is regarded as dough-offering.20 But have we not learnt:21 A woman who is a tebulath yom22 may23 knead her dough and cut off from it its dough-offering24 and put it on an inverted basket of palm-twigs or on a board,25 and then26 bring it close [to the major portion of the dough] and designate it [as dough-offering;27 this procedure being permitted] because the uncleanness of the dough28 is only of the third grade,29 and the third grade is regarded as clean in common food.30 Now if you were to maintain that 'common food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering is regarded as dough-offering' [the objection would arise:] Did she not in fact convey uncleanness to it?31 — Said Abaye: In regard to any object,32 that conveys certain uncleanness to common food, uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure, even in a doubtful case, where common food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering is concerned,33 but in regard to the woman who is a tebulath yom, since she does not convey certain uncleanness to common food,34 no uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure in a doubtful case where common food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering is concerned.33 But is there not the case of the retrospective uncleanness of the twenty-four hours [preceding the observation] of a menstrual flow which35 conveys certain uncleanness to common food and in connection with which, nevertheless, no uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure in a case of doubt36 where common food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering is concerned;33 for has not the Master said, 'R. Samuel son of R. Isaac accepted from him this [teaching, and explained it] as applying to common food that was prepared under conditions of hallowed things and not to common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah'?37 — In the former case38 no terumah is kneaded up with the common food39 but in the latter case terumah40 is kneaded up with the dough.41 And if you prefer I might reply: Leave out of the question the retrospective uncleanness of the twenty-four hours, since it is merely a Rabbinical measure.
MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER RULED: IN THE CASE OF FOUR CLASSES OF WOMEN IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR [PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW]: A VIRGIN,42 A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY,42 A NURSING WOMAN,42 AND AN OLD WOMAN.42 R. JOSHUA SAID: I HAVE ONLY HEARD [THE RULING43 APPLIED TO] A VIRGIN.44
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Though it was prepared in cleanness.
- On account of the doubt that had arisen earlier before the offering had been set aside.
- The Rabbis.
- That the dough-offering is in a suspended state of uncleanness.
- And not to common food, hullin (v. Glos.). This is explained presently.
- Concerning the uncleanness of the dough.
- Lit., 'we learnt'.
- Lit., 'evidences'.
- One of which was clean and the other unclean, and a person walked through one of them and it is unknown which one it was (Rashi). For a different interpretation cf. Tosaf.
- And is applicable to common food which is prepared under conditions of levitical purity. Much more then would this uncleanness apply to the common food from which dough-offering must be, set aside, and the ruling would he superfluous.
- Sc. (cf. next n. but one) where the likelihood of uncleanness is rather remote and not applicable to common food prepared under conditions of levitical purity.
- V. Glos.
- Since it is possible that on account of its heavy weight one of the men leaned on the other and was thus shaken by him, 'shaking' (hesset) being a means of conveying the uncleanness of a zab (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri).
- Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
- Lit., 'and all of them', i.e., even in the case of a heavy load (Rashi); a light load (Tosaf.).
- Since (a) there might have been no shaking at all and (b) if there was it could not obviously have been a proper shaking.
- Who observe levitical cleanness in common food also.
- Zabin III, 2. Similarly in the case of the dough-offering under discussion the expression 'a doubt applicable to the dough-offering' means a doubtful uncleanness that does not apply to members of the Synagogue in respect of common food but applies to common food from which the dough-offering has to be taken.
- Which is in the same category as terumah and consequently subject to uncleanness arising from doubtful leaning.
- So MS.M and marg. n. Cur. edd., 'it was taught'.
- Fem. of tebul yom (v. Glos.).
- Though she, as cleanness could not be completely attained before sunset, is still subject to an uncleanness of the second grade.
- Without designating it as such, so that it still retains its status of common food.
- Sc. on an object that is not susceptible to ritual uncleanness. Neither the board, nor the basket in its inverted position, has a receptacle, and it is only 'vessels' with proper receptacles that are susceptible to uncleanness.
- Since the dough-offering when being set aside must be close to the dough for which it is offered.
- By that time the uncleanness of the woman can no longer be imparted to it since the object on which it rests (cf. prev. n. but one) intervenes.
- Lit., 'it'; that had been touched by the woman who (v. supra) is of the second grade of uncleanness.
- A clean object touched by an unclean one being always (with some exceptions) subject to a grade of uncleanness that is by one grade lower than the latter.
- T.Y. IV, 2; such as the dough is presumably before the dough-offering had been taken from it.
- When she first touched it. What then was the use of the entire procedure and precaution after that?
- Such, e.g., as the load carried by a zab.
- Lit., 'on account of'.
- A third grade of uncleanness, as stated supra, being regarded as clean.
- During the actual period of the flow.
- I.e., during the twenty-four hours preceding the observation of the flow when the uncleanness is only doubtful.
- Supra 6b ad fin. 'Common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah' being presumably in an analogous position to 'common food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering' both should be subject to the same restrictions. Why then was the former exempted from the restriction while the latter was subjected to it?
- Cf. prev. n. Lit., 'there'.
- Lit., 'in them'.
- Sc. the dough-offering.
- The latter must consequently be subject to greater restrictions.
- This is explained presently.
- Of R. Eliezer that IT SUFFICES etc.
- But not to the other three classes.
THE HALACHAH, HOWEVER, IS IN AGREEMENT WITH R. ELIEZER.
WHO IS REGARDED AS 'VIRGIN'? ANY WOMAN, EVEN THOUGH SHE IS MARRIED, WHO HAS NEVER YET OBSERVED A FLOW. 'A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY'? ONE WHOSE EMBRYO CAN BE DISCERNED. 'A NURSING WOMAN'? A WOMAN BEFORE SHE HAS WEANED HER CHILD. IF SHE GAVE HER CHILD TO A NURSING WOMAN, IF SHE WEANED IT, OR IF IT DIED, R. MEIR RULED: SHE CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS;1 BUT THE SAGES RULED: IT SUFFICES FOR HER2 [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW]. WHO IS REGARDED AS 'AN OLD WOMAN'? ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE 'ONAHS3 HAVE PASSED4 NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE.5 R. ELIEZER6 RULED: FOR ANY WOMAN7 OVER WHOM HAVE PASSED4 THREE 'ONAHS IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVING OF A FLOW]. R. JOSE RULED: FOR A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY AND A NURSING WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE 'ONAHS HAVE PASSED8 IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON THEIR PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF THEIR [OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW].9
AND OF WHAT DID THEY10 SPEAK11 WHEN THEY LAID DOWN12 THAT 'IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW]'? OF A FIRST OBSERVATION,13 BUT AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION14 SHE CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. IF, HOWEVER, SHE SUFFERED THE FIRST FLOW ON ACCOUNT OF AN ACCIDENT15 IT SUFFICES FOR HER EVEN AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION [TO RECKON HER UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVING OF THE FLOW].
GEMARA. It was taught: R. Eliezer said to R. Joshua, 'You have not heard16 but17 I have heard; you have only heard one tradition but I have heard many;18 people do not ask him who has not seen the new moon to come and tender evidence19 but only him who has seen it.' Throughout the lifetime of20 R. Eliezer the people acted in accordance with the ruling of R. Joshua, but after the passing away of R. Eliezer, R. Joshua re-introduced the earlier practice.21 Why did he22 not follow R. Eliezer during his lifetime? — Because R. Eliezer was a disciple of Shammai23 and he24 felt that if they25 would act in agreement with his ruling in one matter26 they25 would act in agreement with his rulings in other matters also27 and that out of respect for R. Eliezer no one could interfere28 with them; but after the passing away of R. Eliezer, when the people29 could well be interfered with, he24 re-introduced the original practice.
Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four cases. One is that which has just been mentioned.30 The other is that about a woman who was in a hard travail31 [concerning whom it was stated:] For how long must she be relieved from pain32 so as to be regarded a zabah?33 Twenty-four hours;34 so R. Eliezer.35 And the halachah is in agreement with his view.36 And the third37 is the following: If a zab and a zabah38 examined themselves on the first day39 and found themselves clean and on the seventh day also40 and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other days,41 R. Eliezer ruled: Behold these42 are in a presumptive condition of cleanness,43 and R. Joshua ruled: They are entitled [to reckon as clean] only the first day and the seventh day,44 while R. Akiba ruled: They are entitled [to reckon as clean] the seventh day alone,45 and it was taught: R. Simeon and R. Jose stated, 'The view of R. Eliezer46 is more feasible than that of R. Joshua,47 while that of R. Akiba is more feasible than those of both,48 but the halachah agrees with that of R. Eliezer'.49 And the fourth is the following.50 For we have learnt: If the outer sides51 of vessels were rendered unclean52 by liquids,53 R. Eliezer ruled, they convey uncleanness52 to other liquids54 but they55 do not render foodstuffs unfit.56 'They convey uncleanness to liquids' even where the latter are common, but they 'do not render foodstuffs unfit', even where the latter are terumah. R. Joshua ruled: They convey uncleanness to liquids and also render foodstuffs unfit.57 Said R. Joshua: This may be inferred a minori ad majus: If a tebul yom who58 does not convey uncleanness to a common liquid,59 nevertheless renders foodstuffs of terumah unfit how much more then should the outsides of vessels which do convey uncleanness to an unconsecrated liquid render foodstuffs of terumah unfit. And R. Eliezer?60 — The uncleanness of the outsides of vessels61 is only Rabbinical62 while that of a tebul yom63 is pentateuchal;64 and, where it is a question of deducing a Rabbinical from a Pentateuchal law, no inference a minori ad majus can be applied.65 For in accordance with Pentateuchal law no foodstuff conveys uncleanness to a vessel and no liquid conveys uncleanness to a vessel, and it is only the Rabbis that have ordained such uncleanness as a preventive measure against possible laxity in the case of the fluid66 of a zab or a zabah;67 hence it is only in the case of liquids, which are prone to contract uncleanness, that the Rabbis have enacted a preventive measure, but in that of foodstuffs, since they are not prone to contract uncleanness, the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure. What, however, is the reason for the mention of the outsides of vessels?68 — Because their restrictions are lighter.69 For we have learnt: If the outside of a vessel came in contact with unclean liquids,70 its outside becomes unclean while its inside, its hanger,71 its rim and its handles remain clean, but if its inside has become unclean all of it is unclean.72
But what does Samuel teach us,73 seeing that in all these cases we learnt that the law [was in agreement with R. Eliezer]? And should you reply that he mainly informed us about the 'outsides of vessels' concerning which we did not learn [elsewhere what the law was], why [it could be retorted] did he not simply state, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in the case of the outsides of vessels'? — The fact is that it is this that he informed us:74 That the halachah may not be derived from a theoretical statement.75
But are there no more [than the four rulings]?76 Is there not in fact another, since we have learnt: R. Eliezer ruled,
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Preceding the time of her observation of the flow.
- During the twenty-four months after the child's birth throughout which she is expected to suckle it (v. Gemara infra).
- 'Periods'. This is explained in the Gemara infra.
- Without her observing of a flow.
- This is explained in the Gemara infra.
- Var. lec., 'Eleazar'.
- Even a young one.
- Without her observing of a flow.
- If three consecutive 'onahs, however, have not passed, there applies the law of retrospective uncleanness, contrary to the view of R. Eliezer and the first Tanna supra.
- The Rabbis, supra.
- So BaH. Cur. edd. 'he spoke'.
- Supra in the case of the CLASSES OF WOMEN. This is discussed in the Gemara infra.
- After the three 'onahs have passed over the virgin, the woman in pregnancy or the old woman.
- Lit., 'at the second', since her natural proneness to the flow is re-established.
- So that it cannot be ascribed to the woman's natural disposition (cf. prev. n.).
- Cf. R. Joshua's statement in our Mishnah.
- Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. omit the waw.
- Reading harbeh. Var. lec. arba' ('four') sc. women, cf. BaH.
- That he has seen it. Such evidence was essential to enable the Great Beth-din in Jerusalem (who regulated the lengths of the months and the fixation of the festival dates) to proclaim the beginning of a new month.
- Lit., 'all his days'.
- Lit., 'restored the thing to its old (state)', when the practice was in agreement with the view of R. Eliezer.
- R. Joshua.
- So R. Tam and Rashb. (contra Rashi who, referring to B.M. 59b, renders shamuthi 'one placed under the ban'). Wherever Beth Hillel differed from Beth Shammai the law (with a very few exceptions) is always in agreement with the former.
- R. Joshua.
- Lit., 'we'.
- I.e., the one mentioned in our Mishnah where the law in fact is in agreement with his view.
- Sc. even in those where the law is in agreement with Beth Hillel.
- Lit., 'we are not able to prevent'.
- If they were to follow R. Eliezer in other matters (cf. prev. n. but one) also.
- Cf. supra n. 6.
- For three days (during the 'eleven days' between the menstrual periods) on each of which there was a discharge of blood. If the discharge was not due to the travail she, having observed the blood on three consecutive days, would be subject to the restrictions of a zabah; but if it was due to travail she would be exempt from these restrictions. If a zabah she would have to count after childbirth seven days (as a zabah) in addition to the number of days prescribed for a woman after childbirth, and she would also have to bring two sacrifices one as a zabah and the other as one after childbirth.
- After the three days mentioned (cf. prev. n.) and before the birth of the child.
- Retrospectively, on account of the discharges on the three days. If the pain had continued until delivery it would have been obvious that the discharge on the three days mentioned was also due to the same cause, but if it ceased some considerable time before birth it may well be concluded that that discharge had no connection with the childbearing and the woman would consequently come within the category of zabah (cf. prev. n. but one).
- If such a period has intervened it is obvious that the discharge mentioned was in no way due to travail.
- Infra 36b.
- Though R. Joshua differs from him.
- Lit., 'and the other'.
- Sc. the same law applies to either.
- After the flux had ceased.
- Cf. prev. n. Seven days without any discharge must pass before a zab or a zabah can attain cleanness.
- The intermediate five.
- Since on the first and the last day they were definitely clean.
- And on performing immersion at the close of the seventh day they became clean.
- Sc. two days only. As the cleanness of the intermediate days is a matter of doubt they must count another five days to make up the prescribed number of seven. In the case of a certain discharge on any of the days all the prescribed seven days must, of course, be counted all over again.
- Infra 68b; since it is possible that there was a discharge on the sixth day, when there was no examination (cf. prev. n. last clause).
- Who is consistent in disregarding completely the possibility of a discharge on any of the five days that intervened between the first and last clean ones. Cf. following n.
- Who (cf. prev. n.) is inconsistent, seeing that he assumes the possibility of a discharge during the intermediate days and at the same time allows counting the first day as one of the seven clean days.
- A possible, like a certain discharge (cf. supra n. 11, last clause) on the sixth day might quite reasonably be regarded as sufficient ground for cancelling all the previous days counted, including the first.
- Infra 68b.
- Lit., 'and the other'.
- In a case where the insides are not affected (as explained infra) lit., 'backs'.
- Rabbinically (cf. following two notes).
- Through contracting uncleanness from a dead creeping thing. The latter being a primary uncleanness causes the liquids to be an uncleanness of the first grade which (though Pentateuchally, since their uncleanness is not a primary one, it cannot, as explained in Pes. 18a, convey uncleanness to vessels) renders the vessels unclean Rabbinically. As the uncleanness that is conveyed to vessels by liquids is merely Rabbinical, and as it was desired to make a distinction between Pentateuchal and Rabbinical uncleanness, it was enacted that, in such a case, only the outsides of vessels and not their insides shall contract the uncleanness.
- Because liquids are prone to uncleanness. In consequence they contract from the vessels a first grade of uncleanness, the same grade as that of the outer sides of the vessels themselves.
- Since Pentateuchally (cf. prev. n. but one) they are deemed to be clean.
- Toh. VIII, 7; much less do they render them unclean. (This is explained presently.)
- Toh. VIII, 7.
- Being subject to a secondary grade of uncleanness only (v. following n.).
- As explained in Pes. 14b.
- How in view of this inference can he maintain his ruling?
- Contracted from liquids.
- Cf. supra n. 3.
- In respect of conveying uncleanness to foodstuffs of terumah.
- As deduced from Scripture in Yeb. 74b.
- Since it is obvious that Pentateuchal uncleanness should be subject to greater restrictions.
- E.g., spittle.
- Which is a primary uncleanness Pentateuchally (cf. Lev. XV, 8).
- Lit., 'wherein is the difference … that he took up', sc. why should not the Mishnah equally speak of the insides of vessels that similarly contracted from liquids Rabbinical uncleanness?
- Than those that govern the insides of vessels. In the latter case R. Eliezer agrees that terumah is rendered invalid.
- Lit., 'a vessel whose back became unclean by liquids'.
- Lit., 'its ear'.
- Kelim XXV, 6.
- By stating supra that 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four cases'.
- By laying down the halachah (cf. prev. n.) in the case of rulings where a similar statement was actually embodied in the Mishnah.
- Talmud, lit., 'learning'. All statements as to what is the halachah added by a Tanna to a ruling in a Mishnah or a Baraitha must be regarded as a mere opinion or theory which a disciple expressed with reference to a ruling of his master. It is only the carefully considered decisions of the later Amoras that, being based on a minute examination and thorough analysis of their predecessor's views that may be relied upon as authoritative in determining the halachah (cf. Rashi).
- Referred to supra by Rab Judah in the name of Samuel, concerning which the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer.