[Avodah] Tum'at Yadayim

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 08:30:45AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
:> Given that at the time of the beraisa's quotes, both were TSBP, it can
:> not be ruled out in principle that tum'ah doesn't affect words.
:> Rather, it would seem to be about miqra, and possibly even the
:> physical scroll.

: Which "both were TSBP?" You mentioned Mishnah, what is the second TSBP 
: component being discussed according to you?

I wrote that the beraisa continued with a three way machloqes about
whether someone tamei should learn (1) mishnah and/or (2) gemara.

:> Which may be why Shabbos 14a describes the gezeira as being about a
:> seifer Torah being metamei. MideOraisa, only a tamei can be metamei.
:> But this is a gezeira. If one wants, one could have said the chakhamim
:> made everything that touches a seifer Torah tamei. But it seems from
:> the zav that the seifer Torah itself was placed mideOraisa outside the
:> realm of tum'ah.

: Pardon me, but I didn't understand you. What proof do you have from a zav that
: the ST doesn't biblically contract tum'a?

The sugya about a Torah not being metam'ei (Berakhos 22a, as cited in
the opening post) started with the story of a ba'al qeri who was giving
a shiur, and he was speaking haltingly. The presumption was that he was
nervous because he was teaching while tamei, and therefore R' Yehudah ben
Beseira steps in to reassure him that the words of Torah do not become
tamei. The BQ was reading from a seifer Torah. RYbB doesn't comment
about his holding the seifer. So it would seem the zav was not metamei it.

That BQ become a zav in the middle of my post. I got confused.
Fortunately, it doesn't impact my point.

While the SA focuses on the notion of torah thought/speech being ok
when tamei, it is unclear to me that that is RYbB's entire point.

RYbB's ra'ayah was explained to be about speech, since there is no object
to become tamei. I pointed out that if this were so, why would the proof
be Hashem saying "are not all My words like fire" (Yirmiyahu 23:29) --
about Torah in contrast to other words.

I therefore concluded from the BQ being allowed to learn from a ST that
Yeshayah haNavi is taken as meaning that a ST can /not/ become tamei, and
therefore Chazal couldn't make a gezeira that would make it tamei. Thus
they were gozerim on things that touch the ST, not the ST itself. Metamei
without being tamei.

"Metamei" is the word actually used in describing the gezeira.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha at aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507