Shabbat 27

Chapter 27

א לא מטמו אמר רבה בר בר חנה ר' יהושע היא דתנן ר' אליעזר אומר האוכל אוכל ראשון ראשון ואוכל אוכל שני שני אוכל שלישי שלישי ר' יהושע אומר האוכל אוכל ראשון ואוכל שני שני שלישי שני לקודש ואין שני לתרומה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה

1 but does not defile?1 — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, It is R. Joshua. For we learnt: R. Eliezer said: One who eats food of the first degree is [himself defiled in] the first degree; of the second degree, is [defiled in] the second degree, of the third degree, is [defiled in] the third degree.2

ב אוכל אוכל ראשון ואוכל אוכל שני מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה דזימנין דאכיל אוכלין טמאין ושקיל משקין דתרומה ושדי לפומיה ופסיל להו

2 R. Joshua said: One who eats food of the first or of the second degree is [defiled in] the second degree;3 of the third degree, [he enters] the second degree in respect of hekdesh,4

ג שותה משקין טמאין מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה דזימנין דשתה משקין טמאין ושקיל אוכלין דתרומה ושדי לפומיה ופסיל להו היינו הך מהו דתימא הא שכיחי והא לא שכיחי קמ"ל

3 but not in respect of terumah,5 this referring to hullin subjected to the purity of terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' People (particularly perushim, v. p. 51, n. 1) voluntarily treated hullin as terumah; then it could become unfit in the third degree, but not otherwise (v. p. 55, n. 6), and this is the only way in which it is possible for a person to eat hullin of the third degree, v. Hul. 33b. ');">6

ד והבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה א"ר ביבי אמר רב אסי שבתחלה היו טובלין במי מערות מכונסין וסרוחין והיו נותנין עליהן מים שאובין התחילו ועשאום קבע גזרו עליהם טומאה

4 When one eats food of the first or of the second degree, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? Because one may sometimes eat unclean food [hullin] and take a liquid of terumah and put it in his mouth and thus render it unfit.7 When one drinks unclean liquid, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? — Because he may sometimes drink unclean liquid and take food of terumah and put it in his mouth, and thus render it unfit. But it is the same thing!8

ה מאי קבע אמר אביי שהיו אומרים לא אלו מטהרין אלא אלו ואלו מטהרין אמר ליה רבא מאי נפקא מינה הא קא טבלי בהנך אלא אמר רבא שהיו אומרים לא אלו מטהרין אלא אלו מטהרין

5 — You might argue, The first is usual but not the second:9 therefore he informs us [that it is not so].

ו וטהור שנפלו על ראשו ורובו שלשה לוגין מים שאובין מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה דאי לא הא לא קיימא הא

6 And one who comes with his head and the greater part of his body] into drawn water, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? — Said R. Bibi in R. Assi's name: Because originally people performed tebillah10 in collected pit water, which was stagnant [noisome], and so they poured drawn water upon them selves.11

ז וספר מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה אמר רב משרשיא שבתחלה היו מצניעין את אוכלין דתרומה אצל ס"ת ואמרו האי קדש והאי קדש כיון דקחזו דקאתו לידי פסידא גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה

7 [But when] they began to make this a fixed [law], the Rabbis imposed uncleanness thereon. What is meant by 'a fixed [law]?'Abaye said: They maintained, Not this [pit water] purifies, but both together purify. Said Raba to him, Then what did it matter, seeing that they did perform tebillah in this [the pit water]? But, said Raba, they maintained, Not this [the pit water] purifies but that [the drawn water].12 And a clean person upon whose head and the greater part of his body there fell three logs of drawn water, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? For if not this, the other would not stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A general measure had to be enacted that three logs of drawn water defiled a person, whether it came upon him by his intention or accidentally. Had the Rabbis drawn a distinction, the former too would have remained unobserved. ');">13

ח והידים מפני שהידים עסקניות הן תנא אף ידים הבאות מחמת ספר פוסלות את התרומה משום דר' פרנך דא"ר פרנך א"ר יוחנן האוחז ס"ת ערום נקבר ערום ערום ס"ד אלא א"ר זירא ערום בלא מצות בלא מצות ס"ד אלא אימא ערום בלא אותה מצוה

8 And why did the Rabbis impose uncleanness upon a Book? Said R. Mesharsheya: Because originally food of terumah was stored near the Scroll of the Law, with the argument, This is holy and that is holy.14 But when it was seen that they [the Sacred Books] came to harm,15

ט הי גזור ברישא אילימא הא גזור ברישא

9 the Rabbis imposed uncleanness upon them.16 'And the hands'? — Because hands are fidgety.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are active and apt to touch things. Hence unless their owner has taken care that they should not touch a ritually unclean object after he washed them, they are treated as unclean. ');">17 It was taught: Also hands which came into contact with a Book18 disqualify terumah, on account of R. Parnok['s dictum]. For R. Parnok said in R. Johanan's name: One who holds a Scroll of the Law naked19 will be buried naked. 'Naked!' can you really think so? Rather said R. Zera, [It means] naked without good deeds.20 'Without good deeds!' can you really think so?21 Rather say, naked, without that good deed [to his credit].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he took it for Study or to wrap it up after the public reading likewise a 'good deed'-it is not accounted to him (Tosaf.). Tosaf. also observes that presumably this applies to any of the Books of the Bible.-The reference is to the actual parchment; but there is no objection to the modern practice of elevating the uncovered Scroll whilst holding it by the rollers on which it is wound. The Sephardi Jews, i.e., the descendants of the Spanish Jews, have the entire parchment of the Scroll from end to end shielded with silk or cloth. ');">22 Which was first enacted? Shall we say that the former was first enacted?23

Previous Chapter Next Chapter