Impurity supplier
A doubt about impurity in a pure Rabbi
The reason for this was given by the Ram and the Rav from the Tosefta De’Tharot, p. 6.
They asked Ben Zuma why a doubt is considered impure by the Rabbi. (He said to them, “What is it for her husband, certain or doubtful?” They said to him, “Question.” He said to them, “We have found that it is forbidden for her husband.” From here you judge the reptile. What is here the Rabbi, even here the Rabbi, and what is here there is a reason to ask. Even here there is a reason to ask. From here they said something there is a reason to ask. Rabbi, they said, “I have made it impure.” Rabbi, they said, “I have made it pure.”) And why a doubt is considered impure by the Rabbi, he said to them, “Because the congregation observes Passover in impurity while most of them are impure, and if there is definite impurity, it is permitted for the congregation to doubt.” Rabbi Ben Gamliel says, “Why is a doubt in the authority of an individual impure and a doubt in the authority of many pure?” Because it is possible to ask an individual, but it is not possible to ask many.
The connection between rejecting impurity in public from the public to the public is not so well understood. Even the Rashbag who explains that it is not permissible to ask for many, his reasoning is not clear, since doubting impurity in the Rabbinical Council is an individual doubt about one person who has been defiled, not about many who have been defiled, and in general the reasoning is a bit strange – and should we be relieved of the fear of impurity because we cannot ask?
The truth is that the simple rule of “there is no reason to ask” is also difficult, so why make it easier because of that?
In short… what is the difference between doubting a prohibition and doubting impurity?
Perhaps the questions are not difficult and the Lord doubted that impurity is a matter that is not so serious and that the Sages all made light of it.
Where necessary or when there is no reason to ask? Sounds a bit superficial and not profound.
I would love to hear the Rabbi’s opinion.
I used to think that impurity in its essence is a type of death (dead is the ancestor of impurity). A woman who gives birth becomes impure, she is also emptied of the life that was within her. And a leper is as important as dead, etc. Therefore, perhaps impurity does not belong to the public because the public does not die (as is known, the latter have provided evidence and sources for this. For example, Toss. Meila 9:22 and many others). Although according to this, there was certainly room to discuss impurity in the Rabbinical tradition, and there is still more to discuss, since we are talking about the place where the impurity is located and not the person who became impure. But the two questions must be resolved in Hada Mahta: impurity does not belong to the public, as is seen in the case of a Pesach sacrifice that was not postponed to the second Pesach. But even when the impurity is in the public domain, the claim that it is impure essentially means that all the public who pass there become impure, or alternatively, they cannot pass there. This is a statement about the public and therefore is not said. Hence, you will understand that it is only when it comes to doubting impurity. If this is definitely impurity, then there is a decision here regarding every person who passes there separately as being unclean, and therefore this is a statement about individual people and not about the public.
But this is of course a proposal that requires clarification. Is this a fence or just a matter of reading? What is the connection between the ability to ask and the reasons of the sages? And more.
Incidentally, as is known in the Torah, a distinction is made between the prohibition and impurity in the case of a generative impurity, meaning that in the same thing it can be decided that it is impure with respect to the prohibition and not impure with respect to impurity, and vice versa.
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.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
