[Avodah] Tum'at Yadayim

[Arie Folger]

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

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

Aha. In the time of the Beraita, there was likely no published mishnah, hence 
the terms likely refer to halakhah pessuqah and sevarah, both transmitted 
without a book.

> : 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.

Thanks for the correction, I now understand that you mean that a BQ isn't 
metamé an ST. Well, why should he. After all, *IIRC*, a BQ is a vlad hatumah, 
which shouldn't be metame keilim. A ST is a keli, I would presume.

Hence, an ST might very well be meqabel tumah (in fact, I don't see why not) 
but the BQ wouldn't impact it.

As I wrote, IIRC.

KT, good week
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com