Mishnah Makhshirin

1:1. Any liquid that is desired at the start, even though it is not desired at the end, or, if it is desired at the end, even though it was not desired at the start, [it] comes under the law of if water is put [on it] (Leviticus 11:38). Impure liquids transfer impurity [whether their presence] is desired or not desired. [ . . . ]

3:5. [If] one dampens [fruit] in dried clay, R. Simeon says: If there is liquid dripping onto it, it comes under the law of if water is put [on it], and if not, it does not come under the law of if water is put [on it].

[If] one sprinkles [water] in his granary, he need not worry that he put wheat in it that became damp.

[If] one plucks grass with dew on it in order to dampen wheat with it, that does not come under the law of if water is put [on it]; but if he intended it for that, it comes under the law of if water is put [on it].

[If] one takes wheat to grind and rain falls on it, if he is happy [with this] it comes under the law of if water is put [on it]. R. Judah says: It is impossible not to be happy, but if he stood [in the rain intentionally, it comes under the law of if water is put (on it)].

6. [If] one’s olives were placed on the roof and rain fell upon them, if he is happy [with that] it comes under the law of if water is put [on it]. R. Judah says: It is impossible not to be happy, but if he plugged the gutter or turned them [i.e., the olives, it comes under the law of if water is put (on it)].

7. [If] donkey drivers were crossing a river and their sacks fell into the water, if they were happy [with that], it comes under the law of if water is put [on it]. R. Judah says: It is impossible not to be happy, but if they turned [the sacks, it comes under the law of if water is put (on it)].

[If] one’s legs were covered in mud as were the legs of his animal [and] he crossed the river, if he is happy [with being cleansed], it comes under the law of if water is put[on it] [if the water subsequently falls from him onto fruit]. R. Judah says: It is impossible not to be happy, but if he stood [in the river] and washed, then in the case of a person [it later comes under the law of if water is put (on it)]. In the case of a nonkosher animal, it is always impure [the water makes food susceptible to impurity].

8. [. . . If] one takes an animal down [to the river] to drink, the water that comes into its mouth [comes under the law of] if water is put [on it], but the water on its legs does not come under the law of if water is put [on it].

If he hoped that [the water] would wash its legs, even the water that comes up on its legs comes under the law of if water is put [on it]. At a time when [the animal’s legs] are sore or it is threshing, the [water that touches its legs] is always impure.

[If] a deaf-mute, a legally incompetent person, or a minor took [the animal] down [to drink], even if he hoped that [the water] would wash its legs, it does not come under the law of if water is put [on it], because they can act but they have no intention.

Translated by Christine Hayes.

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 2: Emerging Judaism.

Engage with this Source

According to Leviticus 11:34–48, foods contract ritual impurity only when wet. Because impure foods cannot be consumed, it would be inconvenient and uneconomical to declare any and every drop of moisture capable of rendering food susceptible to impurity. Tractate Makhshirin regulates the conditions under which, and the specific fluids by which, food can be made susceptible to impurity. Here again, a nominalist orientation to law that focuses on intention helps the rabbis create a reasonable and workable law. Liquid creates susceptibility to impurity only if it is intentionally introduced by a human agent, in line with Leviticus 11:38. Alternatively, if a liquid is introduced in some other way, it creates susceptibility to impurity only if a human agent is pleased by the liquid’s presence and thus retroactively “intends” for it to be present. Thus, susceptibility to impurity requires not just moisture but also a specific human intention concerning the presence of that moisture—a typically nominalist approach. Note that not all humans are capable of forming intentional states that have legal effect—namely the deaf-mute, the legally incompetent, and the minor in 3:8 are not. In these exceptional cases, the act of moistening has legal effect without the proper intention.

Read more

You may also like