Talmud su Levitico 11:34

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Does a dry piece of flour-offering start a count⁸⁰A flour offering in general needs to be mixed with oil. As noted later, food becomes susceptible to impurity only by contact with water or one of the fluids compared to water in a biblical verse, including olive oil. This contact is called “preparation for impurity”, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 141. The question now is whether flour never in contact with a fluid, which becomes disqualified by being in a combining vessel, also becomes impure to count derivative impurity of degrees 1,2,3,4 or not. Babli Ḥulin 36a.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is it not written⁸¹Lev. 11:34., of all foodstuff which is edible on which comes water is susceptible to impurity. Any whose impurity is caused by water starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by water starts a count. Rebbi Yose objected: Is there not a carcass of a kosher bird which causes impurity of foodstuff without preparation and without impurity, because it ends up causing severe impurity⁸²The meat of a kosher bird which was not slaughtered once it is in the mouth makes not only the eater but also his garments causes of original biblical impurity. The garments cause impurity to anything potentially susceptible to impurity, without “preparation.”? What about this? Of all foodstuff which is edible, any whose impurity is caused by the category of edibles⁸³Even if the particular item is not kosher to eat. starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by edibles the category of starts a count.

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.⁴⁰Lev. 11:34: “Any food that can be eaten, if water comes upon it it may become impure, and any drink that can be drunk can become impure in any vessel.” For the notion of preparation for impurity based on this and the nearby verses, cf. Note 26.
The argument ascribed here to the rabbis is difficult to understand and is not found in any of the parallel sources; it is not followed up and is superseded later by the documented opinion of the rabbis. The emphasis is only on the arguments of R. Eliezer, to show that R. Eliezer’s position in the Mishnah is not practice, even if R. Eliezer’s position in the Tosephta would be accepted because he is supported by R. Meїr and R. Eliezer ben Jacob. {Maimonides, Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin 2:14, follows R. Eliezer; the interpretation here follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.}
In Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(1), fruit juices are excluded since the verse speaks only of “water”. It is concluded that only drinks described by a single noun can be meant. Blood is included [loc.cit. 8(4)] since it is compared to water in Ps. 110:7. Fruit juices are excluded since they are called “fruit water”.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included⁴¹“A general statement followed by a particular one” is the heading of one of the 13 hermeneutical rules of R. Ismael, listed in the Introduction to Sifra. The detailed description of the rule, that a general statement followed by a particular one applies only to that particular one, is no longer connected with the name of R. Ismael; it represents the opinion of the Sages. For an application, cf. Kilaim Chapter 8, Note 20.
It is asserted here and in Nazir 6:2 that R. Ismael disagrees with the interpretation of the Sages and holds that the particular statement is only an illustration. The concurrence of both mss. here and the one available ms. in Nazir shows that the statement cannot be amended away and that in the Introduction to Sifra, only paragraphs 1 and 2 are attributable to R. Ismael.
In our case, “any drink” is taken as a general statement, “that can be drunk” as a particular one.? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included⁴²This is a theoretical statement, not of relevance here, since the particular is not followed by a second general statement. However, it opens a window for a possible study of the development of the hermeneutical rules.. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea⁴³He is mentioned only here. Greek παρήγορος “comforting”, a sobriquet for Menaḥem; cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins (Hoboken, NJ, 1992; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996), entry Perigord.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food⁴⁴Sifra Šemini Pereq 9(1). Since spoiled food is no longer food, it is not subject to the impurity of food., so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start⁴⁵The expression is unclear since foodstuffs spoiled when coming into being never were food and, therefore, never subject to impurity of food., what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure⁴⁶This argument refers to the quote from Sifra, Note 50, that water is subject to impurity as long as it is acceptable to animals and birds.? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about⁴⁷Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:1: “All that is exclusively human food needs preparation [for impurity] but no thought.” Once prepared for impurity it automatically is ready to accept impurity. Tosephta Ṭevul Yom 1:5: “Foodstuffs [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than drinks, and drinks [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than foodstuffs. Food may have handles [the peduncles of apples, pears, etc. become impure with the fruit], they do not need thought to be food.” Any fluid other than water is a “drink” only if made for human consumption.? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure⁴⁸Since nobody will want them as human drink.! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought⁴⁹This refers to vetch which is human food only in times of famine and, according to R. Jehudah in Tosephta Uqeẓin 3:13, and the Sages in Mishnah Ḥallah 4:10, is treated as standard food if prepared as such. This means that vetch becomes human food only by a combination of intent and action, never by intent alone, in contrast to drinks., what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus⁵⁰Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(4).: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is not food, so no food⁸³The same argument in the Babli, 21a. The interpretation of the rabbis’ position is quite different in the Babli.. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is detached, so everything detached⁸⁴This refers to Mishnah 4 where it is stated that a bill of divorce cannot be written on anything connected to the ground. The bill of divorce cannot be written on the walls of a house and the house given to the wife.. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food⁸⁵The stalks of fruits which usually are harvested together with the fruits have the status of fruits in the laws of impurity; this is the theme of Tractate Uqeṣin. The question is whether R. Yose the Galilean will forbid these inedible stalks as materials for bills of divorce since they are subject to the impurities of foodstuffs.? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers⁸⁶This baraita must be attributed to R. Yose the Galilean since for the rabbis the entire deer could have been given to the wife. The antlers are inedible bony structures attached to the living deer just as stalks are inedible wooden structures attached to fruits., shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to him⁸⁷This should be “her”, correctly in the Geniza text. As explained in the next Halakhah, “signing” covers not only the signatures of the witnesses but also the insertion of the necessary data into the formulaic text; cf. Note 100., it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off⁸⁸This proves that the antler is an integral part of the deer for R. Yose the Galilean. It is reasonable to assume that a stalk for him is an integral part of the fruit.
This rule also follows the rabbis of Mishnah 4 whose position is explained in the Babli (21b) from Deut. 24:1: “he writes and hands over to her” that no necessary action may intervene between signing and delivery of the document.. Rebbi Abba⁸⁹In the Geniza text: Aḥa. While it is known that R. Aḥa was a student of R. Miasha’s, the reading of the Leiden ms. cannot be rejected out of hand since Rabbis Abba and Aḥa were contemporaries. in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn⁹⁰This refers to horns of cattle and goats rather than deer. These horns consist of a horny sheath (the female horn) over a bony spur (the male).. But if he wrote on the sheath⁹¹Greek νάρθηξ; cf. Berakhot 5:2, Note 67. it is as if separated⁹²The rabbis of Mishnah 4 would certainly object and require that the entire animal be handed over to the wife; cf. Note 88. and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce⁹³While food is under rules of impurity that are much stricter than those for vessels, etc., harvesting alone does not transform produce into food for these rules; only intentional moistening will have that effect, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136–141.? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dropped from the animal on food⁹⁴In this case, the moistening was desired by him for the animal but not for the food. Mishnah Makhširin reads: Any fluid which at the start is desired, even if at the end it is not desired, or if at the end is desired, even if at the start it was not desired, fulfills the condition “that it be given” (i.e., it prepares for impurity by the terms of Lev. 11:38: “If water be given on seeds … it shall be impure for you”.) For the anonymous rabbis it is obvious that drops from water which was desired for the animal will prepare food for impurity by this Mishnah. But R. Yose the Galilean, who disqualifies animals as writing materials for bills of divorce, might equate animals to things connected to the soil which are disqualified for bills of divorce in Mishnah 4, and for objects of desire which act in impurity as explained in the following.. There, Rebbi Yose said “a scroll”, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so⁹⁵Does he exclude animals from the category of objects which prepare for impurity if watered? There seems to be no reason why this should be so.? There is a difference since it is written⁹⁶Lev. 11:34., “any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure”. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: “a vessel”⁹⁷A similar text is in Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(2): “I could think also [if it rained] into cisterns, ditches and caves? It is written: ‘a vessel’; since one of the characteristics of a vessel is that it is separated from the ground, so only things separated from the ground.” Everybody agrees that water collected in cisterns, etc., does not prepare for impurity; the reason for this has nothing to do with the controversy over writing materials..