משנה: הוֹסִיף רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִימֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַדְלִיק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם בְּנֵר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִטְמֵא מֵת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין לוֹ טוּמְאָה עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ׃ MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba added and said, the Cohanim never refrained from burning oil which became disqualified by a ṭevul-yom163A person who is cleansed from impurity by immersion in a miqweh, who is no longer impure but prevented from touching sancta before the sundown following his immersion (Lev. 22:7). in a lamp impure by the impurity of the dead even though they added impurity to it164The oil was heave which became disqualified from being consumed by the touch of a ṭevul-yom but is biblically pure. By being filled into an impure lamp it becomes biblically impure..
הלכה: עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּמָּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. וּבָא לְהוֹסִיף פְּסוּל תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבַּר קַפָּרָה תַּמָּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת דִּבְרֵיהֵן עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. וְהָכָא פְּסוּל תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה לֹא בָא אֶלָּא לִפְחוֹת. תִּיפְתָּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם מִבֵּית פְּרָס. שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֵן. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים שְׁנָייָהּ מִשֵּׁם בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. HALAKHAH: 7190It seems that in this tradition the statement of R. Aqiba in Mishnah 7 was a separate Mishnah.: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there191“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He192R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah. comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there191“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish193This is unlikely.. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical194In the interpretation of Bar Qappara, the rabbinic impurity mentioned by R. Ḥananiah is secondary or tertiary impurity derived from biblical original impurity whereas R. Aqiba adds rabbinic impurity which has no biblical source.. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel174For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel..
אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יִטְמָא יִטְמָא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף עַל גַּו דְּלֵית לֵּיהּ לְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל יִטְמָא יִטְמָא בְּאוֹכְלִים. אִית לֵיהּ יִטְמָא יִטְמָא בְּכֵלִים. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aqiba follows his opinion, since Rebbi Aqiba said, shall be impure, shall make impure by word of the Torah195As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even though Rebbi Ismael196Sotah 5:2 Notes 103–106. The position of R. Ismael on Num. 19:22 is not known from other sources. does not accept shall be impure, shall make impure, for foodstuffs, he accepts shall be impure, shall make impure, for implements.
אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. טְמֵא מֵת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בּטְמֵא מֵת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. טְמֵא מֵת. בִּכְלֵי שֶׁטֶף. מָאן דְּאָמַר. בִּטְמֵא מֵת. בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. מַה טַעֲמָא. כֹל֙ כְּלִ֣י פָת֔וּחַ וגו׳ טָמֵא֭ הֽוּא׃ [הוּא] טָמֵא [וְ]אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אַב הַטּוּמְאָה לְטַמֵּא. There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead”197This is about the wording of R. Aqiba’s statement. A dead human body is the source of original impurity. A person or vessel touching the dead becomes originally impure, carrying “the impurity of the dead”.
A vessel touching such a person or vessel becomes impure in the first derivative degree “by the impurity of the dead”.. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed198Impure clay vessels cannot be purified, but become pure only as potsherds or otherwise impossible to use as containers. The expression “vessels to be rinsed” comes from Lev. 6:21 where it characterized metal pots. In rabbinic usage, the expression is applied to all vessels that can be purified; here it applies to wooden vessels since metal vessels are excluded in the next sentence.
The separate treatment of metal in cases of impurity of the dead is based on Num. 19:16 where in the expression “slain by the sword” the mention of “sword” seems to be superfluous in the context and therefore one concludes that the sword, and by extension any metal, acquires the super-impurity of the dead to impart original impurity to its contents and anything it comes in contact with (Sifry Num. 127). The contents of the wooden vessel are impure in the second degree but those in the metal vessel in the first.. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure199Num. 19:15, referring mainly to clay vessels but also to all other non-metallic containers (Sifry Num. 126).. [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.195As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.