Impurity supplier

Thank you for the response
I didn't quite understand why, when it's certainly unclean, isn't this a statement about the public?
Whether in doubt or certainly, many won't pass there, and if they do, they will be defiled.

Surely impurity is a question about anyone who passed there, and the answer is that he was defiled. In doubting impurity, there is essentially a question of whether to pass there or not, that is, the question is what the status of the place is. And this answer concerns the public and the public place.

I didn't understand the suggestion (in the language of "maybe") regarding the public. Impurity is related to death and the public does not die, meaning it does not produce impurity, so the public does not receive impurity? In other words, the suggestion is that only those who can produce impurity are harmed by being close to it? Why does this mean that utensils receive impurity?

The ability to produce impurity is a sign, not a cause. Impurity does not belong in the public (death does not belong in it because in essence it is alive). A vessel or food is not dead, but it is not alive either. In other words, that which does not produce impurity is not because it is alive, but because it is not human.

Thank you! A follow-up question is yours – The Jewish community is not dead. This is a general claim about communities or specifically about Israel. If we assume that all the descendants of Gergashi died, is the Jewish community dead or does the abstract community in its validity stand and only have no details to be realized in them. Among the Jews, perhaps a Ger could be the first Jew like Abraham or Adam, and this is simply a sign that the Jewish community survives even the disappearance of all the details.

In my opinion, this is true in every community. Although only in Israel is there a promise that the eternal Israel will not lie, and other communities might have been able to survive. But it seems to me that this is not a relevant distinction. Therefore, a community is also considered a community for some things, even though a community can become extinct.
I don't think that if Judaism becomes extinct, there might be a descendant who will continue it.

I hope I'm not asking too many questions and too densely, and this will be the last one. Can you explain a little about the idea of a Ger who cannot continue an extinct Judaism?
A. Does it mean that he cannot be a Jew at all (i.e., commit to the commandments) or that he will be a Jew but actually open a new collective?
B. (It seems that you expected me to understand this on my own, but I didn't succeed) What you mean by a public that does not die is in every public. I understand that the collective that emerged at a certain time remains in existence even without details, and so why can't a Ger continue?

Although our mathematical cousins treat an empty set as a set, there is no people without the individuals that compose it. Once the individuals have disappeared, there is no more people. The claim that a people does not die is not purely metaphysical, meaning that the spirit of the people does not depend at all on the individuals and exists in the heavens (Hegelianism), but even if the individuals have changed (not disappeared), it is still the same people.

By the way, if all the Jews were extinct and there is no one to convert them, then there is no exodus either. It is possible that God will convert and declare that he is continuing the people of Israel in some sense. My smallness.

I understand. Thank you very much.

In the case of doubt about impurity in the individual's possession in general, one must ask what the similarity is between the impurity of a pervert, in which a hidden place is necessary for the execution of a plot, and therefore even in a hidden place that is not defined as an individual's possession regarding Shabbat, for example, but as an exempt place, for example, in the valley, we will also consider it as an individual's possession regarding impurity. It turns out that they understood that there is a special decree of Scripture here regarding impurity. The question is whether the fact that the public's possession in impurity is a novelty or whether the private possession is the novelty, and this depends on the group of the rabbis and the Rashba, as explained in the Rechava in Shev Shema'ata.

Tam, did you mean to say that if the rabbi is the innovation, then there is no need to bother with explanations for the law of the rabbi? But before you, they brought a study for both the rabbi (from the deviated) and the rabbi (from the public unclean). That is, even if, for example, the question of impurity is impure is the innovation, and from an external explanation we would say that every question of impurity is pure, then after there is a verse that is impure (from the deviated) we would be supposed to make a broad parent building for every question of impurity (and the rabbi is the rabbi, it would not even be a rabbi for every dehu), but there is a counter-study from the public (which perhaps acts as a rabbi for the rabbi study). How do you understand the need for both studies?

In this itself, they extended the blessing to Sh”sh there and more recent ones.

Just a note: The use of the quote “The everlasting Israel will not lie” is, in my opinion, incorrect in this context. Because the verse refers to God, who is “the everlasting Israel” as opposed to a human being who is not “the everlasting Israel” and it is certainly not appropriate to say of Him that He will not lie or be comforted. As the verse continues, “The everlasting Israel will not lie or be comforted, for He is not a man that He should be comforted”

Indeed, this is just a shilling.