Torah Community Connections

Week 80 - Wednesday - 6 June 2001

SOTAH: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 2

On that day R. Akiva expounded: "And any earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be unclean" (Lev. 11:33); it does not say: "be tame - unclean" but "yitma - shall render unclean" - to render others unclean. This teaches that a loaf of the second degree renders a third degree. R. Yehoshua said, Who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai! For you used to say, another generation is destined to declare a third degree loaf clean, since there is no verse in the Torah that it is unclean. But does not your pupil Akiva adduce a verse from the Torah that it is unclean, as it is said, "whatever is in it shall be unclean!"

Kehati

Throughout the Mishnah, the phrase "on that day" refers to R. Eleazar ben Azariah's appointment as Nasi of the Yeshivah in Yavneh (see Ber. 28a). While in office, Rabban Gamliel insisted that any scholar who is insincere be kept out of the Bet Midrash. When R. Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed Nasi, all students were granted permission to enter. The Torah flourished on that day and problematic halakhic issues were resolved at that session ("the vast influx of students led to a general sharpening of wits" - Rashi). In the wake of R. Akiva's exposition in the previous mishnah, three (unrelated) lessons taught by R. Akiva "on that day" are presented in this chapter. Rashi suggests that the "She is defiled" "And she is defiled" (see previous mishnah) exposition was likewise delivered "on that day," which accounts for the combination of these mishnayot.

To understand our mishnah, we must first note that a sheretz (one of the eight creatures whose carcasses convey tum'ah), is av hatum'ah, a primary source of uncleanness. A person or vessel touching it becomes a rishon letum'ah, "first degree uncleanness", which can render only food and drink unclean. Food coming into contact with rishon letum'ah becomes a sheni letum'ah, "unclean in the second degree." According to the halakhah, a sheni letum'ah renders terurnah a shelishi letum'ah, "unclean in the third degree," but not non-sanctified food, and shelishi letum'ah renders kodesh (sanctified things) revi'i letum'ah, "unclean in the fourth degree." However, R. Akiva derives from a verse in the Torah that sheni letum'ah renders also non-sanctified food shelishi letum'ah.

On that day when R. Eleazar ben Azariah became Nasi of the yeshivah in Yavneh, as explained above, R. Akiva expounded: "And any earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be unclean" - this means that if a sheretz fell into an earthen vessel, i.e., into the hollow of the vessel (an earthen vessel becomes unclean when uncleanness enters its inner space), the vessel becomes rishon letum'ah which renders the food within it sheni letum'ah; R. Akiva thereupon expounds: it does not say "be tame - unclean" - the verse does not state: "whatever is in it shall be tame, unclean" but "yitma - shall render unclean" - i.e., read y'tame (by changing the vocalization, it becomes transitive), to render others unclean - hence, this teaches that a loaf of the second degree - e.g., if placed in an oven (ovens in those days were earthenware) into which a dead sheretz fell, which renders such a loaf sheni letum'ah (see above), renders a third degree - this loaf renders another loaf which touches it sheni letum'ah.

R. Yehoshua said, Who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai! - Would that you were still living! For you used to say, another generation is destined to declare a third degree loaf clean - i.e., future scholars will render the shelishi letum'ah loaf clean even if it is terumah, since there is no verse in the Torah that it is unclean - the third degree impurity of terumah has no basis in the Torah, but was inferred by a fortiori reasoning, which has been refuted (see Sot. 29a). But does not your pupil Akiva adduce a verse from the Torah that it is unclean - that a second degree loaf renders unclean even unsanctified food, which contracts third degree uncleanness as it is said, "whatever is in it shall be unclean!" - as explained above. However, the halakhah is not according to R. Akiva.

SOTAH: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 3

On that day, R. Akiva expounded: "And you shall measure from outside the city, the east side two thousand cubits," etc. (Num. 35:5), whereas another verse states (ibid., v.4): "From the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about." It is impossible to say a thousand cubits, since it is also stated, two thousand cubits; and it is impossible to say two thousand cubits, since it is already stated, a thousand cubits; how can this be? The thousand cubits are vacant land, and the two thousand cubits are the Sabbath limit. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose HaGelili says, The thousand cubits are vacant land, and the two thousand cubits are fields and vineyards.

Kehati

This mishnah deals with the issue of the Sabbath limit, teaching us that R. Akiva derived from Scripture that it measures two thousand cubits; i.e., The Torah forbids us to walk beyond two thousand cubits from one's place of residence on the Sabbath. However, most Tannaim consider this Sabbath limit as a Rabbinic restriction.

On that day, R. Akiva expounded - one verse concerning the Levitical cities states: "And you shall measure from outside the city, the east side two thousand cubits," etc. - and the verse concludes: "This shall be to them the vacant land about the cities,"whereas another verse states - "And the vacant land about the cities, which you shall give unto the Levites from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about" - these two verses evidently contradict each other. It is impossible to say a thousand cubits, since it is also stated, two thousand cubits; and it is impossible to say two thousand cubits, since it is already stated, a thousand cubits; how can this be? - How can we resolve these two contradictory verses? R. Akiva answers: the verse "a thousand cubits round about," refers to the thousand cubits which are vacant land - a space unbuilt and unplanted to enhance the city's views and ventilation (Rashi), and the two thousand cubits are the Sabbath limit - i.e., the instruction, "And you shall measure from outside the city...two thousand cubits," does not apply to the Levites, but rather sets a Sabbath limit, indicating that one may walk outside the city a maximum of two thousand cubits on the Sabbath, which limit thus constitutes a Torah law.

R. Eliezer son of R. Yose HaGelili says - both verses refer to the granting of open land to the Levites, the thousand cubits are vacant land, and the two thousand cubits are fields and vineyards - i.e., two thousand cubits surrounding the city were accorded to the Levites - one thousand cubits as open land, and the remainder for field and vineyards (Rashi; Bartenura; see also Eruv. 56b): however, according to Rambam, the Levites were given 3,000 cubits outside the city (in accordance with the plain sense of the mishnah), the first thousand for open land, and two thousand measured beyond the open land for fields and vineyards (Hil. Shemitah Veyovel 13:1-2). At any rate, R. Eliezer son of R. Yose HaGelili disagrees with R. Akiva by regarding the two thousand cubit Sabbath limit as Rabbinic, rather than Torah law.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives