Why is a tanner's intention not effective to induce susceptibility to tumah?tumah and tahara davening takanas EzraTumah tahara mikvaHow does tumah work in the sale of an oven between a householder and a baker?Why does an upside-down sealed pot save everything below it from tumah?Tumah of liquids: a question on BartenuraTumah after deciding not to “finish” an objectWhy compare zimmun to the tumah of broken/repaired vessels?Tumah of stuffed objectsWhy be stringent on Rabbinic tumah for sacrificial meat?Why is a leather belt susceptible to tumah?
Can ads on a page read my password?
Based on what criteria do you add/not add icons to labels within a toolbar?
What is the German idiom or expression for when someone is being hypocritical against their own teachings?
Is a switch from R to Python worth it?
Can external light meter replace the need for push/pull?
Responding to Plague Engineer
What is a Casino Word™?
Is it true that control+alt+delete only became a thing because IBM would not build Bill Gates a computer with a task manager button?
Making pause in a diagram
How to help new students accept function notation
How can I refer to something in a book?
Was Richard I's imprisonment by Leopold of Austria justified?
Do any languages mention the top limit of a range first?
If someone else uploads my GPL'd code to Github without my permission, is that a copyright violation?
Should I self-publish my novella on Amazon or try my luck getting publishers?
How do I get the =LEFT function in excel, to also take the number zero as the first number?
Is it a bad idea to offer variants of a final exam based on the type of allowed calculators?
Traveling from Germany to other countries by train?
Validation and verification of mathematical models
Is DC heating faster than AC heating?
How can glass marbles naturally occur in a desert?
Why do private jets such as Gulfstream fly higher than other civilian jets?
What word best describes someone who likes to do everything on his own?
Probably terminated or laid off soon; confront or not?
Why is a tanner's intention not effective to induce susceptibility to tumah?
tumah and tahara davening takanas EzraTumah tahara mikvaHow does tumah work in the sale of an oven between a householder and a baker?Why does an upside-down sealed pot save everything below it from tumah?Tumah of liquids: a question on BartenuraTumah after deciding not to “finish” an objectWhy compare zimmun to the tumah of broken/repaired vessels?Tumah of stuffed objectsWhy be stringent on Rabbinic tumah for sacrificial meat?Why is a leather belt susceptible to tumah?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
In Keilim 26:8, we read about how intention can in some cases bring about susceptibility to tumah.
עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן.
The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. [from Sefaria]
Bartenura explains that we suspect that the tanner will change their mind and thus the tanner's intention is not considered sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah.
However, in Keilim 25:9, we see that intention cannot override intention.
כָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָן עוֹלִים מִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֶׂה מְבַטֵּל מִיַּד הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה, וּמַחֲשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מְבַטֶּלֶת לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה:
All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.
For example (as given in Kehati), if a person decided to use an animal's ring for a person, then it becomes susceptible to tumah, and if that person subsequently changes their mind, it doesn't lose its susceptibility.
Why don't we apply the principle that intention doesn't annul an earlier intention for a tanner, and say that their intention is sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah? If the object in question will only ever be susceptible d'Rabbanan, I case see why the Rabbis might have made a distinction in this case (due to the perceived fickle nature of the tanner's intention); but when the object will become susceptible from Torah law, how can we be lenient here due to a doubt about the tanner's true intention?
tamei-tahor-ritual-purity maseches-keilim
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
add a comment |
In Keilim 26:8, we read about how intention can in some cases bring about susceptibility to tumah.
עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן.
The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. [from Sefaria]
Bartenura explains that we suspect that the tanner will change their mind and thus the tanner's intention is not considered sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah.
However, in Keilim 25:9, we see that intention cannot override intention.
כָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָן עוֹלִים מִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֶׂה מְבַטֵּל מִיַּד הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה, וּמַחֲשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מְבַטֶּלֶת לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה:
All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.
For example (as given in Kehati), if a person decided to use an animal's ring for a person, then it becomes susceptible to tumah, and if that person subsequently changes their mind, it doesn't lose its susceptibility.
Why don't we apply the principle that intention doesn't annul an earlier intention for a tanner, and say that their intention is sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah? If the object in question will only ever be susceptible d'Rabbanan, I case see why the Rabbis might have made a distinction in this case (due to the perceived fickle nature of the tanner's intention); but when the object will become susceptible from Torah law, how can we be lenient here due to a doubt about the tanner's true intention?
tamei-tahor-ritual-purity maseches-keilim
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
If you're only half sure what you'll use it for, is that even called intention?
– Double AA♦
Jul 28 at 12:35
add a comment |
In Keilim 26:8, we read about how intention can in some cases bring about susceptibility to tumah.
עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן.
The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. [from Sefaria]
Bartenura explains that we suspect that the tanner will change their mind and thus the tanner's intention is not considered sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah.
However, in Keilim 25:9, we see that intention cannot override intention.
כָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָן עוֹלִים מִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֶׂה מְבַטֵּל מִיַּד הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה, וּמַחֲשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מְבַטֶּלֶת לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה:
All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.
For example (as given in Kehati), if a person decided to use an animal's ring for a person, then it becomes susceptible to tumah, and if that person subsequently changes their mind, it doesn't lose its susceptibility.
Why don't we apply the principle that intention doesn't annul an earlier intention for a tanner, and say that their intention is sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah? If the object in question will only ever be susceptible d'Rabbanan, I case see why the Rabbis might have made a distinction in this case (due to the perceived fickle nature of the tanner's intention); but when the object will become susceptible from Torah law, how can we be lenient here due to a doubt about the tanner's true intention?
tamei-tahor-ritual-purity maseches-keilim
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
In Keilim 26:8, we read about how intention can in some cases bring about susceptibility to tumah.
עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן.
The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. [from Sefaria]
Bartenura explains that we suspect that the tanner will change their mind and thus the tanner's intention is not considered sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah.
However, in Keilim 25:9, we see that intention cannot override intention.
כָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָן עוֹלִים מִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֶׂה מְבַטֵּל מִיַּד הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה, וּמַחֲשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מְבַטֶּלֶת לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה:
All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.
For example (as given in Kehati), if a person decided to use an animal's ring for a person, then it becomes susceptible to tumah, and if that person subsequently changes their mind, it doesn't lose its susceptibility.
Why don't we apply the principle that intention doesn't annul an earlier intention for a tanner, and say that their intention is sufficient to induce susceptibility to tumah? If the object in question will only ever be susceptible d'Rabbanan, I case see why the Rabbis might have made a distinction in this case (due to the perceived fickle nature of the tanner's intention); but when the object will become susceptible from Torah law, how can we be lenient here due to a doubt about the tanner's true intention?
tamei-tahor-ritual-purity maseches-keilim
tamei-tahor-ritual-purity maseches-keilim
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
asked Jul 28 at 5:53
magicker72magicker72
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
4,21811 silver badges38 bronze badges
If you're only half sure what you'll use it for, is that even called intention?
– Double AA♦
Jul 28 at 12:35
add a comment |
If you're only half sure what you'll use it for, is that even called intention?
– Double AA♦
Jul 28 at 12:35
If you're only half sure what you'll use it for, is that even called intention?
– Double AA♦
Jul 28 at 12:35
If you're only half sure what you'll use it for, is that even called intention?
– Double AA♦
Jul 28 at 12:35
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This Mishna is best explained using Rashi in Bava Kama 66b:
מחשבה מטמאתן - בעל הבית אינו עשוי למוכרן ועושה מהן מטות ודולבקאות וקטבלאות ומשחשב עליהן לדבר שראוי לו בלא חסרון מלאכה מקבלין טומאה מיד:
The householder can make his hides susceptible to uncleanness once he thinks about using them for something which requires no further work on the leather.
ושל עבדן - העשוי למכור אין מחשבתו מטמאתו דעביד דממליך ומזבין והלוקח יעשה מהם מנעלים ועדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתן לכך:
The Tanner does not make his hides susceptible to uncleanness by thinking about using them, since the buyer may use them for something else that requires further work on the leather.
The key here is the concept of גְמַר מְלָאכָה - an object does not become susceptible to uncleanness until it reaches גְמַר מְלָאכָה - a final state. As long as it still requires workmanship, it's not yet ready and not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the key to understanding a lot of Mishnayot related to utensils in the process of being manufactured.
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This Mishna is best explained using Rashi in Bava Kama 66b:
מחשבה מטמאתן - בעל הבית אינו עשוי למוכרן ועושה מהן מטות ודולבקאות וקטבלאות ומשחשב עליהן לדבר שראוי לו בלא חסרון מלאכה מקבלין טומאה מיד:
The householder can make his hides susceptible to uncleanness once he thinks about using them for something which requires no further work on the leather.
ושל עבדן - העשוי למכור אין מחשבתו מטמאתו דעביד דממליך ומזבין והלוקח יעשה מהם מנעלים ועדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתן לכך:
The Tanner does not make his hides susceptible to uncleanness by thinking about using them, since the buyer may use them for something else that requires further work on the leather.
The key here is the concept of גְמַר מְלָאכָה - an object does not become susceptible to uncleanness until it reaches גְמַר מְלָאכָה - a final state. As long as it still requires workmanship, it's not yet ready and not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the key to understanding a lot of Mishnayot related to utensils in the process of being manufactured.
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment |
This Mishna is best explained using Rashi in Bava Kama 66b:
מחשבה מטמאתן - בעל הבית אינו עשוי למוכרן ועושה מהן מטות ודולבקאות וקטבלאות ומשחשב עליהן לדבר שראוי לו בלא חסרון מלאכה מקבלין טומאה מיד:
The householder can make his hides susceptible to uncleanness once he thinks about using them for something which requires no further work on the leather.
ושל עבדן - העשוי למכור אין מחשבתו מטמאתו דעביד דממליך ומזבין והלוקח יעשה מהם מנעלים ועדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתן לכך:
The Tanner does not make his hides susceptible to uncleanness by thinking about using them, since the buyer may use them for something else that requires further work on the leather.
The key here is the concept of גְמַר מְלָאכָה - an object does not become susceptible to uncleanness until it reaches גְמַר מְלָאכָה - a final state. As long as it still requires workmanship, it's not yet ready and not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the key to understanding a lot of Mishnayot related to utensils in the process of being manufactured.
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment |
This Mishna is best explained using Rashi in Bava Kama 66b:
מחשבה מטמאתן - בעל הבית אינו עשוי למוכרן ועושה מהן מטות ודולבקאות וקטבלאות ומשחשב עליהן לדבר שראוי לו בלא חסרון מלאכה מקבלין טומאה מיד:
The householder can make his hides susceptible to uncleanness once he thinks about using them for something which requires no further work on the leather.
ושל עבדן - העשוי למכור אין מחשבתו מטמאתו דעביד דממליך ומזבין והלוקח יעשה מהם מנעלים ועדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתן לכך:
The Tanner does not make his hides susceptible to uncleanness by thinking about using them, since the buyer may use them for something else that requires further work on the leather.
The key here is the concept of גְמַר מְלָאכָה - an object does not become susceptible to uncleanness until it reaches גְמַר מְלָאכָה - a final state. As long as it still requires workmanship, it's not yet ready and not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the key to understanding a lot of Mishnayot related to utensils in the process of being manufactured.
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
This Mishna is best explained using Rashi in Bava Kama 66b:
מחשבה מטמאתן - בעל הבית אינו עשוי למוכרן ועושה מהן מטות ודולבקאות וקטבלאות ומשחשב עליהן לדבר שראוי לו בלא חסרון מלאכה מקבלין טומאה מיד:
The householder can make his hides susceptible to uncleanness once he thinks about using them for something which requires no further work on the leather.
ושל עבדן - העשוי למכור אין מחשבתו מטמאתו דעביד דממליך ומזבין והלוקח יעשה מהם מנעלים ועדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתן לכך:
The Tanner does not make his hides susceptible to uncleanness by thinking about using them, since the buyer may use them for something else that requires further work on the leather.
The key here is the concept of גְמַר מְלָאכָה - an object does not become susceptible to uncleanness until it reaches גְמַר מְלָאכָה - a final state. As long as it still requires workmanship, it's not yet ready and not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the key to understanding a lot of Mishnayot related to utensils in the process of being manufactured.
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
answered Jul 28 at 8:14
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
36.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you're only half sure what you'll use it for, is that even called intention?
– Double AA♦
Jul 28 at 12:35