Talmud su Levitico 11:32

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food³⁷The question is whether profane pure food touched by something impure in the second degree remains pure or becomes impure in the third degree.. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile³⁸See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food.. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food³⁹The Babli, 29a, knows only that Rav holds that tertiary impurity does not exist for profane food. It does not mention any contrary opinion.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁴⁰Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1.“If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid⁴¹Solid food can become impure only if it was in contact with either water or human body fluids under certain circumstances; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141. and a ṭevul yom⁴²A person who was impure and cleansed himself by immersion in water during daytime. It is explained in Lev.22:6–7 that impurity is removed by immersion in water during daytime “and when the sun disappears he will be pure; afterwards, he may eat sanctified food.” (The Babli, Berakhot2a/b, discusses whether וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ means “the sun disappears” or “the sun rises”). The ṭevul yom therefore is no longer impure but before sundown he is not pure for sanctified food; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 138; Terumot Chapter 2, Note 51. Since he is forbidden only sanctified food, one may assume that he is pure for profane food. In rabbinical terms, the ṭevul yom after immersion but before sundown is treated as impure in the second degree. or unclean hands⁴³Unwashed hands, of an otherwise pure person, are always rabbinically impure in the second degree until washed with at least a revi‘it (135 cl) of water; cf. Bikkurim Chapter 2, Note 4; Demay Chapter 2, Note 160. touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary⁴⁴Tithe food in the hand of a Levite is totally profane. The Levite is required to give 10% of the tithe to the Cohen as heave of the tithe, which is sanctified food. While the tithe before the separation of the heave is forbidden as ṭevel, it is not sanctified and any impurity, even secondary, would eliminate the tithe as a source of heave (cf. Ḥallah, Chapter 3, Notes 43–44). If the ṭevul yom may touch tithe from which no heave was given it proves that tertiary impurity does not apply to profane food., and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field⁴⁵A “broken field” is agricultural property of which it is known that it once contained a grave. The position of the grave is unknown; also it is unknown whether bones from the grave have been dispersed on the field by ploughing. Since there are doubts whether any impurity still exists or where it might be, and it is an open field (where a doubt of impurity is inactive, cf. Chapter 1, Notes 87–96), a person walking over the field is only rabbinically impure.. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”⁴⁶Lev. 11:32 has expressions of purity and impurity: “It shall be immersed in water, be impure until evening, and be pure”. This implies that a ṭevul yom vessel is both impure and pure; it is according to tradition that one decides in which domain it is pure and in which impure. In 22:6–7, the ṭevul yom person is only forbidden sanctified food in his intermediary state.. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating⁴⁷Since the distinction of the influence of a ṭevul yom on profane or sanctified food is one of interpretation, could one not understand from the verses that the ṭevul yom contaminates any food but is free to touch?? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating⁴⁸The rules of purification in stages by immersion in water (Lev.11:32) deal with vessels, which are inedible.?