meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom
  
  Introduction
  
  The word "tevul yom" refers to a person who has immersed in a mikveh but will not become pure until the evening. The concept is derived by the rabbis from the following two verses:
  Leviticus 11:32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. 
  Leviticus 22:6-7 6 The person who touches such shall be unclean until evening and shall not eat of the sacred donations unless he has washed his body in water. 7 As soon as the sun sets, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, for they are his food. 8 He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts, thereby becoming unclean: I am the Lord. 
  According to rabbinic law, a kohen goes to the mikveh before the sun sets but cannot eat terumah until after the sun has set. This is the meaning of Leviticus 22:7. So too a vessel which has become impure through a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) is immersed in a mikveh and then can be used with terumah in the evening, when the sun has set. Until the sun has set, both the person and the vessel are called a "tevul yom."
  A "tevul yom" is not actually impure. Once he or the vessel has been in the mikveh, he or the vessel is pure. If a tevul yom touches terumah he disqualifies the terumah from being eaten, but it is not impure. Indeed, there is a special leniency with terumah that has been disqualified because it was touched by a tevul yom. Generally, disqualified terumah will disqualify sacred food it touches. But in this case, the terumah does not disqualify sacred food.
  This tractate is highly technical, dealing with the nitty-gritties of impurity law. But by now, those of you who have been following along are real experts in these laws, so it shouldn't be difficult at all ☺. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first mishnah in Tevul Yom deals with the issue of whether things that are loosely connected to each other are considered to be one thing, such that if a tevul yom touches one side the whole thing is impure, or many independent things, such that the other side is pure. The issue of "connectives" is something we saw several other times in the Mishnah, including chapters 18-21 of Kelim.
  If one had collected hallah  [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected.  A priest collects pieces of hallah that he has been given by other people. He intends to keep them separate and bake them separately. However, they end up getting stuck together. According to Bet Shammai, since they are stuck together, if one of them is touched by a tevul yom, then they are all impure. Bet Shammai looks at the situation purely by what is going on physically. Since the pieces of hallah are touching each other, they count as one piece of dough. If the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all disqualified. Bet Hillel, in contrast, takes the person's intention into account. Since he intended to bake them separately, the fact that they temporarily made contact with each other does not mean they count as being connected. Only the piece that the tevul yom actually touched is impure.
  Pieces of dough [of terumah]  that had become stuck together, Or loaves  that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth  on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum  that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of: Bet Shammai say: they are connected  in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected.  In all of the cases described here there are two or more things that could be looked at as connected or not. In all of these cases, the substance is of terumah and the question is if part was touched by the tevul yom, is it all impure? Some of these require a bit more explanation: Or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven: This person will definitely separate the cakes because they will form a crust better when they are separate. Or if there was froth on the water that was bubbling: This refers to a case of a watery dish which is boiling and has bubbles rising from it. Since the dish is watery, the bubbles don't count as being attached to the dish, at least according to Bet Hillel. Or the first froth that rises when boiling groats of beans: the beans were crushed and made into groats. When they are boiled for the first time, a froth comes up. Rabbi Judah says: also that of rice: Boiled terumah rice. In all of these cases Bet Shammai says that all of the parts are considered to be connected. If a tevul yom touches one part, for instance the froth, the whole thing is disqualified. Bet Hillel says that they are considered separate and therefore the part that wasn't touched remains valid terumah.
  They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.  The disagreement between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel is with regard to the tevul yom. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis (at least Bet Hillel) treated a tevul yom somewhat leniently, since he had already been to the mikveh. However, when it comes to other forms of impurity, both serious and lenient forms, all of the things listed in this mishnah are considered to be connected. Bet Hillel was lenient only with regard to the tevul yom.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah contains mostly the opposite scenarios of yesterday's mishnah objects that are considered to be connected, such that if the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all defiled.
  If one had collected pieces of hallah without the intention of separating them afterwards,  Since he didn't intend to separate them, they count as connected.
  or a batter-cake that had been baked on another after a crust had formed in the oven,  Since the crust had already formed he won't separate them so that they bake better.
  or froth had appeared in the water prior to its bubbling up,  Prior to boiling the froth is considered connected to the water.
  or the second scum that appeared in the boiling of groats of beans,  The second scum that rises on the surface of boiling groats is connected to the dish.
  or the scum of old wine,  The scum on top of old wine is considered connected only the new scum was considered separate.
  or that of oil of all kinds,  The scum that emerges on the top of boiling oil is always considered connected to the oil.
  or of lentils, Rabbi Judah says: also that of beans;  The same is true with lentils and beans, according to Rabbi Judah.
  All these are defiled when touched by a tevul yom. And there is no need to say, [this is the case if touched] by other sources of uncleanness.  A tevul yom, and all the more so a truly impure person, who touches any of these things defiles the whole thing because all of the parts are considered to be connected.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The nail shaped knob   on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt,   or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom].  If there is a lump of bread on the back of a loaf of terumah bread, or a small globule of salt or a small burnt piece on the crust, they are all considered as being part of the loaf, because when one goes to eat the loaf, she will eat these parts too. If the tevul yom touches one of these parts, the entire loaf of terumah is disqualified.
  And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things.  If the law is stringent with regard to the tevul yom, who is really pure, all the more so the law will be stringent with regard to other defiling things. If they touch such parts of the loaf, the entire loaf is impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. It describes things that are attached to the loaf but are not considered connected to it for matters of impurity.
  A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity;  A person eating a loaf of bread would pick these things out before eating the loaf. A "lupine" is a type of bean. One would not generally eat a lupine stuck onto his loaf of bread. If the piece of burnt crust is too big, he wouldn't eat that either. He wouldn't eat a pebble or a big lump of salt. Therefore, if even a "father of impurity," meaning one with a very high level of impurity, touches this part of the loaf of terumah, the remainder stays pure. It is not considered connected to the loaf.
  And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom.  All the more so, if a tevul yom touches this part of the loaf, the rest stays pure. Note how this mishnah is the opposite structure of yesterday's mishnah. Today, since the loaf stays pure, the relationship of the clauses shifts the tevul yom is less defiling than a father of impurity.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida,  silrhium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity.  This section lists pieces of grains or other foods that are not considered to be part of loaf of bread if found mixed up in there. If the loaf is terumah, and a tevul yom or a person with another type of impurity touches them but not the loaf, the loaf remains pure. In other words, these things won't be eaten with the loaf so they are not part of the loaf. I admit that I don't know what some of these things are. But from what we can learn from this mishnah, they are not food commonly consumed. The other sages are lenient when it comes to a tevul yom, for he is not truly impure. However, they rule stringently when it comes to people who are actually impure. If such a person touches these things, he defiles the entire loaf of terumah.
  Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.  This list contrasts with that in section one. These foods will be eaten with the loaf. Therefore if even a tevul yom touches them, the rest of the loaf is defiled. We can see that these foods were considered more edible shelled barley or spelt, wheat, spices. Interesting that Rabbi Judah thinks black beans are less edible than white beans. Bean racism?
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement.  Liquids that come out of a person include one's spit and one's urine. Our mishnah deals with the defiling power of such liquids. For a tevul yom, a person who has been to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, those liquids are pure. They are like liquids that he touches and a tevul yom does not defile liquid such in order to give it first degree impurity. We should note that while a tevul yom would disqualify terumah that he has touched, as we saw in yesterday's chapter, he does not defile non-sacred produce.
  With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor  or major  [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity.  In contrast, other people who are actually unclean, do defile liquids to give them first degree impurity and the liquids that come out of their body have first degree impurity. It doesn't matter whether these people have high or low levels of impurity. The liquids that they touch or that come out of their body would defile food and vessels but they wouldn't defile people.
  Except for liquid that is a "father of impurity."  The exception to this rule are the few cases where liquids that come out of a person are themselves considered to be "fathers of impurity." This would include the spit or urine of a zav (see Zavim 5:7). Such liquids would even defile people and things.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean.  As we have learned, a tevul yom disqualifies liquids but he does not cause them to be defiled. So a tevul yom who touches liquid in a pot, the liquids themselves are disqualified (if they are terumah), but they don't have the power to defile the pot. And if the liquids are not terumah, then all is clean, because as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, a tevul yom does not defile non-sacred liquids.
  If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean.  In contrast, defiled hands (the topic of the next tractate) do defile liquids. These liquids will now in turn defile the pot in which they are in.
  This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.  The mishnah now compares the halakhot governing defiled liquids with those governing defiled hands. In the above matter defiled hands were treated more stringently than the tevul yom. However, there is another halakhah in which tevul yom is treated more stringently than defiled hands. Any case of doubt regarding the tevul yom is treated stringently. For instance, if we are not sure if a tevul yom touched something of terumah, the terumah cannot be eaten. However, if a person has unclean hands and we are not sure if he touched something, the thing remains pure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing;  There is a thick soup, a porridge, made of terumah that has in it hullin (non-sacred) garlic and oil. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, all of it is disqualified because the porridge is the main thing. We look at the porridge as if it was all one dish of terumah and the whole thing is disqualified.
  But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched.  However, if the porridge itself is of hullin and the garlic and oil are terumah, then the garlic or oil are looked at is if they are not connected. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, only the part he touches is disqualified.
  If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority.  If there is more garlic than oil, then we look at the oil as if it is secondary to the garlic. If he touches the garlic, the oil will also be disqualified.
  Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered.  Rabbi Judah says we follow the majority of the garlic or oil only if the garlic has not been mashed and it sticks to the oil and becomes one lump. However, if the garlic has been mashed up and scattered in the pot, then the garlic pieces are not connected to the other pieces.  The part of the garlic he touches is impure, but the rest remains clean.
  [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.  This section is a bit confusing. According to Albeck two different versions of this mishnah have been combined. I will explain according to his commentary. The first version should read thusly: But with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids or those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that if there was a food that people don't usually mash up with liquids but he nevertheless did mash it up with liquid or if there was a food which is normally mashed up with liquids but he didn't mash it up with liquids, even if they form one cohesive lump in the pot, they are treated like a cake of preserved figs. Only the part he touched is impure. The other version should read: [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that other mashed foods that he mashed with liquids are also treated like garlic mashed with oil. If they make a cohesive mass, they are treated as connected. But if they are normally mashed with liquids and he mashed them without liquids, even if they form a cohesive mass, they are not treated as if they are connected.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil.  Since the oil is floating on top of the porridge or batter-cake it doesn't count as being part of the larger base. This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. So if he touches the oil, the rest can be eaten.
  If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified.  If he mixes the oil into the porridge or batter-cake, then any part of the larger dish that contains the terumah oil is disqualified.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective the one with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other.  Sanctified meat, meaning meat that was part of a sacrifice, has been cooked in a pot with some porridge. The porridge crusts over the meat. According to the first opinion, the meat is not considered part of the crust. Thus if a tevul yom touches the crust, the meat is still permitted. It has not been disqualified. However, if he touches the meat itself, the meat and any part of the crust that would be lifted out of the dish with the meat is disqualified. The other parts of the porridge can still be eaten. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that the entire porridge and meat is considered connected. Thus if he touches any part of the porridge, the meat is disqualified.
  Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread.  The same rule as in section one applies to a case where beans have been cooked in a pot with some bread made of terumah.
  Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted.  Having mentioned beans, the mishnah now discusses general cases of beans or other foods cooked in a pot. If the pieces of the food are still separate from one another, they don't count as connected. But a solid mass is connected and if he touches one part of the mass, it is all disqualified. If there are several solid masses, then the one he touches has first degree impurity. The mass that is next to it and touching it, has second degree impurity and the third mass will be disqualified if it is of terumah. When the mishnah says "counted" it means that the usual process of counting impurity begins from the mass he touched.
  If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.  This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. If the oil floats on the wine, only the oil is disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri again disagrees and holds that the substances are considered to be connected.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective.  Our mishnah describes an open jug of terumah wine that sinks into a cistern containing hullin (non-sacred) wine. If the tevul yom touches the wine that is inside the rim of the jug, even if this wine came from the cistern, all of the wine in the jug is connected. The terumah wine will all be disqualified. However, if he touches outside of the rim of the jug, then the wine is not connected to the wine in the jug, even if it is the same height as the jug and may indeed be intermingling. The jug in the wine remains pure and can be used as terumah wine.
  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective.  Again, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules strictly concerning connectives. Even if there is a tremendous amount of wine in the cistern above the jug of terumah, the entire height of a man, and the tevul yom touched the wine directly above the jug, the wine above the jug and the wine in the jug are disqualified. Basically, this would seem to mean that the entire contents of the cistern are disqualified. If he touched the wine in the cistern on the sides of the jug, the jug's content would not be disqualified.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean.  The jug has in it terumah wine and is sealed from above, but there is a hole elsewhere on the jug. According to the first opinion, no matter where that hole is, if a tevul yom touches the hole, all of the contents are disqualified. Rabbi Judah says that the contents are disqualified only if he touches either the hole on the top, at its neck, or the whole at the bottom. If he touches the hole at the top, all of the wine below is a base for the upper wine, so it is all considered connected. And if he touches the hole on the bottom of the jug then all of the wine will flow out of the hole below, so all of the wine is connected. But if he touches on one of the sides, the rest of the wine remains pure. Only the wine on the side he touches is disqualified. However, if there is a ratio of 100 parts pure wine to 1 part disqualified wine, then the disqualified wine is nullified and it is all pure, as we will learn in section two.
  If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.  If the tevul yom touches the stream flowing from one vessel to the other, he only disqualifies that part that he touches. If there is a 100 to 1 ratio of pure to disqualified liquid, then the part he touched is nullified and it is all pure. This is a similar situation to that in section one.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah discusses a jug that has a bubble in the clay on the side. The bubble is pierced such that there is a passageway from the inside of the jar to the outside. The question is whether or not impurity can come from the outside and get in.
  A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below:  This section describes the scenario.
  If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse.  If the two holes are opposite one another, then the entire contents are susceptible to impurity. If a "father of uncleanness" touches the liquids at the hole, then the entire contents of the jug are impure. And if the jug is found in a tent in which there is a corpse, the contents are unclean even if the jug is tightly sealed up top. Since there is an opening, the jug is considered to be open and not protected from impurity.
  If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness," and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.  The same is true if the inner hole is below and the outer hole is above. This is because the liquid the father of uncleanness touches on the outside would go down and defile all of the liquid on the inside.
  If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a "father of uncleanness," but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.  However, if the inner hole is above and the outer hole is below, the liquid he touches will not go up and defile the inner liquid. Therefore, the contents remain pure. But in all cases since the jug is open through both sides, the contents are defiled by being in a tent with a corpse.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom.  The mishnah refers here to food that is picked up by using a "handle," a piece of the food. We will explain this more when we learn Tractate Oktzin 1:3. If this part is touched by a "father of uncleanness" the entire piece of food is defiled. Similarly, if the food was touched by a tevul yom, the entire thing is defiled.
  If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it.  The mishnah now begins to discuss pieces of food that have been broken into two, and yet are still slightly connected. The question is if one touches part of the disconnected piece, is the entire thing defiled? Rabbi Meir says that for the two parts to be connected all that must occur is that the smaller part would be picked up with the larger part. This would mean that it would be quite to consider the two parts connected. Rabbi Judah rules more leniently. Unless the larger part can be lifted with the smaller part, then the two are not considered connected.
  Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion.  Rabbi Nehemiah and the sages say that it doesn't matter which part is large or small, what matters is which part was pure and which part was impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, we examine the part not touched by the tevul yom. If a person picks up the pure part and the impure part that was touched by the tevul yom comes up with it, it is considered connected. . According to the sages, we examine the part that was touched by the tevul yom. If when one picks up the impure part the pure part comes up with it, then it too is impure.
  In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.  For other types of food, such as vegetables and fruit, the test is performed by holding the part usually held. If the vegetable/fruit is usually held by the leaf then if he picks it up by the leaf and the vegetable/fruit is lifted up as well, then it is all connected. The same is true if the fruit is usually held by the stalk.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer.  The mishnah discusses an egg that was fried and put on top of some terumah vegetables. If the tevul yom touches the egg, he doesn't disqualify all of the vegetables just the stalk that was directly below the part of the egg he touched. Rabbi Yose says that he disqualifies the entire upper layer of vegetables which touch the egg.
  But if it was arranged like a cap  it does not serve as a connective.  If the egg was arranged like a hat over the vegetables, and the egg did not touch them, then touching the egg doesn’t count as touching the vegetable. They remain pure. I think I'm going to go make myself an egg (I'm writing this on Pesah, and there really isn't much else to eat).
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective.  The streak of an egg is the white of an egg that trailed behind when cracking the egg. It is congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touches it. If he touches the streak that is in the pot, then all of the contents in the pot are disqualified (if they are of terumah). But if the streak is outside the pot, the contents of the pot remain pure.
  Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective].  Rabbi Yose says that if the tevul yom touched the streak within the pot, only the parts of the dish that would be picked up with the streak are disqualified. The rest is not considered connected. And if the tevul yom touches the streak outside of the pot, it is never considered connected.
  The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot.  Beans congealed on the rim of the pot have the same rule as does the streak of egg.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit.  This section refers to hullin dough (non-sacred dough) that had been mixed up with some terumah dough or terumah yeast (starter dough). According to the first opinion, this dough is treated as if it were hullin dough and it is not disqualified if a tevul yom touches it. This is another leniency with regard to the rules governing a tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that since there is terumah mixed in with this dough, it is disqualified.
  Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Barthotha says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.  The dough was originally made susceptible to impurity by contact with a liquid. Then the dough was kneaded together with fruit juice, which does not cause produce susceptible to impurity. The question is: is all of the dough considered to be connected? According to Rabbi Joshua, this dough is all considered connected and if the tevul yom touches one part, it is all disqualified. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. He holds that just as fruit juice does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity, it does not cause the dough to be connected. The only part that tevul yom disqualifies is the actual part that he touches.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched. This is a very similar mishnah to yesterday's similar debate, similar people arguing. Rabbi Elazar holds that since the oil spread onto each vegetable, they are all disqualified. The vegetables, covered with the oil, now have the status of the oil. Rabbi Akiva says that terumah oil that comes into contact with hullin vegetables does not give the vegetables the status of terumah. However, contact with the tevul yom does disqualify the vegetable that he touches because he might have touched oil. In other words, the oil and vegetables are not considered to have the same status but we do have to be concerned lest he actually touched terumah oil.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a person who is chewing food and the food falls out of his mouth. First it falls onto his clothes and then onto a terumah loaf of bread (and then my poor meatball, it rolled out the door!). The question is does the moisture on the food cause the loaf of terumah to be susceptible to impurity.
  A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness.  The person did not want this food to end up on his clothes. Therefore, this is considered a case of liquids that are "not to his liking." For liquid to make food susceptible to impurity it generally has to be that he wanted the liquids to come into contact with his food (see introduction to Makhshirin). We should note that the mishnah describes a terumah loaf even though the same halakhah is true even if the loaf is hullin. As far as liquid causing susceptibility to impurity, it makes no difference whether the food is terumah or hullin. The reason the mishnah mentions a terumah loaf is that in section four the tevul yom is discussed and a tevul yom disqualifies terumah.
  If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness.  In this case he gathered up a lot of spit in his mouth in order to get the pit out of the olives or dates. Thus the spit was originally something he wanted. Even though later he didn't want the food to fall on his clothes, since originally he did want this spit, it causes the loaf to be susceptible.
  If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness.  In this case, the dates or olives were dry and he didn't want to (or perhaps couldn't) suck out the pit. Since he didn't need the liquid of his own spittle it does not cause the loaf to be susceptible to impurity.
  This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.  According to the first opinion, the above halakhot are true even if the person was a tevul yom. A tevul yom is not treated as if he were impure as we see in the sages' response to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says that a tevul yom is considered like an impure person, and an impure person who causes liquids to come into contact with produce causes the produce to be susceptible (and impure) regardless of whether it was to his liking. This halakhah was taught in Makshirin 1:1. While this debate is about one particular and obscure case, we see here a broad dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that a tevul yom, a person who went to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, is treated as if he was impure. The sages disagree.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe  may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin. A tevul yom or one who has unwashed hands touches tithe. Both of these people are considered as having second degree impurity. They will cause the food to have third degree impurity. However, third degree impurity counts as clean if the food is hullin non sacred. It only disqualifies terumah. Since tithe is considered hullin, the produce remains pure. Therefore, one may remove the terumah from this tithe, as is always done. In other words, although we will separate terumah from it in the future, right now it does not have the status of terumah. Hence it is not disqualified.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket,  or on a tray, and then bring it near  and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The woman is a tevulat yom (the feminine form of tevul yom). When she touches the dough, it will have third degree uncleanness, which is not unclean when it comes to hullin. The problem is that if she touches the hallah, the part of the dough that is removed and given to the priest, she will disqualify it. Hallah is holy and therefore a tevul yom touching it would defile it and a priest couldn't eat it. To prevent the hallah from being defiled she first separates it but doesn't yet call it hallah. Then she puts it on a type of tray that can receive impurity or an Egyptian basket which also cannot become impure. Then she has to bring the other dough near and then, without touching it, she can call the hallah by its name Hallah!  This way she can give pure terumah to the thankful priest. Pretty cool, huh?
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This is the third mishnah in which we learn that something that has third degree impurity does not defile hullin.
  A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin. The kneading trough itself is a "tevulat yom" it was immersed in the mikveh to cleanse it, but the sun had not yet set. The person taking the hallah is pure, so she can simply remove the hallah, bring it near the dough without allowing it to touch the trough and call it by its name. Since the person is pure she doesn't need to first arrange it on a vessel that cannot receive impurity. And as we have learned before, since the trough has  third degree impurity, it doesn't defile the dough itself, which is hullin.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken:  There is a cask of tithe of some sort of produce. The terumah which must be taken from tithes has not yet been removed from the produce. They then filled up a flagon which was a tevul yom (it had been immersed but the sun had not yet set). The question is how to separate terumah without defiling it by contact with the tevul yom flagon?
  If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe.  The solution is for the person to say that the terumah of tithe will only come into being after nightfall. In such a way the terumah will remain pure because by then the flagon will be pure.
  But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing.  In this section, the person wants to use the contents of the flagon as his eruv, the shared meal that will allow him to carry in a courtyard. The problem is that the eruv must be placed before the sun sets and before the sun sets this produce is still tithe from which terumah has not been removed, which cannot be used for an eruv (see Eruvin 3:2). Therefore, if he tries to use this as his eruv, it doesn't work.
  If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.  If either the cask or the flagon breaks before the sun sets, before the statement he made in section two has had time to become operative, then the contents of the other container remain tithe that has not had terumah removed. In other words, until the sun sets his statement doesn't succeed in separating terumah from the tithe.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Originally they said: one may redeem [second tithe] for the produce of an am ha-arez. Later they reconsidered and said: also for money of his.Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they reconsidered and said, even if he were leaving on a sea voyage or on a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill.  Originally they said that a "haver" a person who observes the tithing and purity laws can take produce from an am haaretz and redeem the second tithe that is in it. Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. To make this easier, one is allowed to redeem the second tithe for money and then use that money to buy food in Jerusalem. In this way the produce becomes desacralized. The mishnah describes an am haaretz, one who doesn't observe these laws, who then gives his produce to a haver so that the haver can redeem the second tithe. The haver can then take out the second tithe and redeem it for money. He need not be concerned that all of the produce that the am haaretz gave him was tithe from which second tithe cannot be redeemed.
  They then were more lenient and said that even if the am haaretz gave him money to redeem, meaning instead of giving him the produce the am haaretz gave him the money so that the haver could turn it into maaser sheni (second tithe) the haver could still do this. We are not concerned that the money the am haaretz gave him was already second tithe money, which could not be used to redeem produce. Besides the particulars of this mishnah, which are always interesting, I think it is interesting that the mishnah portrays an am haaretz coming to the haver to receive help in separating second tithe. While I can't promise that this is historically accurate, it at least shows that the rabbis imagined themselves as providing religious services for the general, uneducated populace.
  This section is found word for word in Gittin 6:5. My commentary here is the same as there. Usually a husband must state that he wishes the get (the divorce document) to be written and given to the woman.  However, in extenuating circumstances where the husband seems to have been facing immanent death, it is highly unlikely that when he instructed someone to write a get, he wanted the get to be written but not given to his wife.  After all, why else would he want to write a get at this point?  Therefore, one who hears the husband says “Write a get for my wife” may write it and even give it to her.  At first the category of people facing immanent death included only a person being led out to execution. Later, they expanded the category to include one leaving for a sea voyage or a caravan journey.  These men would have wanted to write out a get that would go into effect should they not return, not an unlikely scenario.  This would prevent their wives from being left as “agunot” a woman who doesn’t know if her husband is alive or dead and therefore cannot remarry. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added that an agent who hears such a statement from a dangerously ill person may also write and give the get.  This man may want to divorce his wife in order to exempt her from levirate marriage (if he was to do childless and with a brother she would have to undergo yibbum or halitzah).  Again, it is very unlikely that a dying man would want to write a get but not give it to his wife, and therefore we are not concerned with such a possibility.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is the same as Kelim 13:7. It deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.
  The reason that this mishnah is placed here is Rabbi Joshua's comments found at the end. According to Albeck, this comment refers to all of the cases in which the sages were lenient in this chapter, and therefore his words are appropriate here. In other words, sections one and two belong in Kelim, which talks about the purity of vessels. And section three belongs more here. Somehow they were paired together and that's why both sections appear in both places.
  My commentary below is the same as it is there in Kelim.
  If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity.  Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.
  If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity.  These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.
  And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer.  Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of Tevul Yom deals with a tevul yom who is separating terumah from a cistern.
  If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled,   but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity.  The person was taking terumah from a cistern of wine. He wanted to dip a jug into the cistern, declare the contents of the jug terumah and then have the remainder of the cistern become drinkable. He stipulated that it would be terumah only if the jug came up "safely." The question is what does "safely" mean. The first opinion holds that "safely" means that the jug didn't break or its contents spill. If the jug did break and the wine fell back into the cistern, it wouldn't give the contents of the cistern the status of terumah and hullin mixed together. However, if he accidentally disqualified the terumah wine (because he was a tevul yom) then his terumah is terumah and it will be disqualified (what the mishnah calls made impure). Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. His intention of saying "safely" was that even if the contents should be defiled, the separation of terumah wouldn't count. If he brought up the jug and accidentally defiled the wine, the jug would not be terumah.
  If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah.  If the jug broke and the contents fell back into the cistern, then the contents of the cistern are not considered to have terumah in them. That is they don't have the rules of doubtful terumah due to the jug's contents, because the jug wasn't terumah.
  How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions?  Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern.  The question now is for how long does this stipulation last? In other words, how far away from the cistern can the jug go and still not be considered terumah if it is broken. The mishnah rules that if the jug breaks when it is still close enough to the cistern that it could roll back there in one push, then the terumah is not terumah. But if he takes it further away, and then it breaks, the terumah does count as terumah. If some of it falls into the cistern, the contents of the cistern will have to be considered doubtful terumah.
  Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.  Finally, the mishnah rules that even if he didn't specifically stipulate that the contents had to come up safely for them to be terumah, the stipulation is still valid. This is because it is a "court stipulation" it is something that the court dictates is understood even if not stated explicitly. A person, after all, would only benefit from making such a statement. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Tevul Yom! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. One thing that you might have been wonder about while studying this tractate was what made the sages so interested in this category. Of course you probably know by the now that the answer will not be practical i.e. this was a commonly occurring issue. Rather, I think this is another example of the sort of topic that really interested the rabbis in-between or marginal cases. The tevul yom is sort of pure, for s/he has already been to the mikveh. But s/he is also impure because the sun hasn't set. This type of category seems to have immensely interested the sages, and although we tend to prefer to see practical ramifications for everything the rabbis said, the truth is that much of rabbinic literature, and especially the Mishnah, is interested in the theoretical and not the practical. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Yadayim.