Torah Community Connections

Week 127 - Wednesday - 1 May 2002

EDUYOT: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 8

Menahem b. Signai testified that the rim of the cauldron of the boilers of olives is unclean but that of dyers is clean; though they used to say the contrary.

Kehati

Boilers of olives (they used to boil the leftovers after the crushing) and dyers (who dyed wool) used a large cauldron for their work, generally made from metal. They would then add a rim of clay some two handbreadths high around the edge, to prevent the water from boiling over the edge. The question raised in this mishnah is whether this rim is considered part of the cauldron, and susceptible of uncleanness. This mishnah is in Kelim (5:5).

Menahem b. Signai - Some explain the name as a resident of the town of Signah (which is mentioned in Kelim 5:4), testified that the rim of the cauldron of the boilers of olives - as explained above, is unclean - that it can become unclean, just as the cauldron itself. It is used for the cauldron, and the Torah said about stoves and ovens (Lev. 11:35), "they shall be unclean to you." Our Sages commented: "to you" - whatever is used by you, or, in other words, any part of the utensil which you need and must use can become unclean (Bartenura); but that of dyers - but the rim of the cauldron of dyers, is clean - I.e., it cannot become unclean, as the dyers do not use it. They ensure that the water does not come up to the rim lest the clay spoil the dye. Some explain that the wool in the cauldron floats on top of the water, and prevents the water from overflowing so that the rim is not necessary (Ravad); though they used to say the contrary - For before Menahem b. Signai testified, they thought the reverse; that the cauldrons of those who boiled the olive leftovers could not become unclean, and of dyers' could become unclean, for they thought that dyers needed the rim more than did those who boiled olives, as the dyers were more concerned about not having the dye overflow. Menahem b. Signai, who was a dyer by trade and was aware of the practical aspects involved, then came and testified the reverse.

EDUYOT: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 9

Rabbi Nehuniah ben Godgada testified about the deaf-mute who was married off by her father, that she goes out with a bill of divorce; and about a minor, the daughter of an Israelite, who was married to a priest, that she eats terumah; and if she died, her husband inherits her; and about the stolen beam that he built into the palace, that he is to give its value; and about the stolen sin-offering which is not known to the public, that it effects atonement, for the sake of the altar.

Kehati

This mishnah is in Gittin (5:5), and deals with various laws upon which R. Nehuniah b. Godgada testified; though there the name given is R. Yohanan b. Godgada.

Rabbi Nehuniah ben Godgada testified - About the following laws, about the deaf-mute who was married off by her father - while she was still a minor. Her father received money for her and married her off, and she is a fully married woman, that she goes out with a bill of divorce - that she herself accepts her bill of divorce, even though she is a deaf-mute and is not able to give her consent. Since a woman can be divorced against her will, her consent is unnecessary; and about a minor, the daughter of an Israelite, who was married to a priest - A female minor who was orphaned of her father and was married off by her mother and brothers, whose marriage is not binding by Torah law but by Rabbinic law, and who may refuse him (see our explanation at the beginning of chapter 6, above). The law nevertheless is that she eats terumah - provided that it is terumah by Rabbinic decree, and the Sages do not forbid this lest she eat terumah which is such by Torah law; and if she died - and left property, her husband inherits her - by a decree of the Sages. A court has the right to declare a person's property ownerless, as it is said, "These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the children of Israel distributed..." (Josh. 19:51) - why are "heads" mentioned together with "fathers"? This teaches you that just as fathers bequeath to their children whatever they wish, so too do heads bequeath to the people whatever they wish (Yevamot 89b).

And about the stolen beam - If someone stole a beam from his fellow, that he - if the thief, built into the palace - later he built the beam into a large building which he constructed, that he is to give its value - The thief must pay the original owner the value, and need not return the actual beam itself. In Gittin the reason for this is explained: it is to encourage people to repent, for if a person was forced to destroy his building to return such a beam, he would not repent; and about the stolen sin-offering - If a person stole an animal and offered it up as a sin-offering, which is not known to the public - which the public does not know was stolen, that it effects atonement - for its owner who need not bring another, for the sake of the altar - so that the altar should not be idle. If we were to say that a stolen sin-offering which is not known to the public does not effect atonement, the priests would be grieved that the animals they offer might be stolen and would not effect atonement and not be valid sacrifices at all, in which case they would be eating hullin slaughtered in the Temple court. As a consequence they would stop offering sacrifices, and the altar would be left desolate. The Sages therefore decreed that a stolen sin-offering which is not known to the public effects atonement for its owner, as the Sages declared it ownerless, and then transferred its ownership, as we explained above.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives