Sukkah, Daf Nun, Part 2

 

Introduction

The mishnah ruled that if the water left over in the Temple was uncovered, it cannot be used the next day in the Temple. The reason is that we are concerned that a snake might have put its poison into it. In general it is forbidden to ever drink water that was left uncovered and unwatched. Our section discusses this subject.

 

נשפכה או נתגלתה כו‘. ואמאי? ליעביר במסננת! לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי נחמיה, דתניא: מסננת יש בו משום גילוי. אמר רבי נחמיה: אימתי – בזמן שהתחתונה מגולה. אבל בזמן שהתחתונה מכוסה, אף על פי שהעליונה מגולה – אין בה משום גילוי. מפני שארס נחש דומה לספוג, צף ועומד במקומו.

If it was poured away or uncovered, [he would refill it from the laver, for wine or water which has become uncovered is invalid for the altar.]

But why? Let him filter it through a strainer? Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Nehemiah, for it has been taught, [Liquid that has passed through] a strainer is forbidden under the law of uncovering. R. Nehemiah said: When does this apply? Only when the receptacle underneath was uncovered, but when the receptacle underneath is covered, even although the upper one was uncovered, the law of uncovering does not apply, since the venom of a serpent is like a fungus which floats on the surface and remains where it is.

 

The Talmud questions why we couldn’t just filter the water to remove the snake’s venom (I know this sounds unlikely). The Talmud cites a baraita which describes a liquid that has passed through a strainer. According to the first opinion, the strainer does not remove the poison, and therefore the water in the lower vessel remains forbidden. R. Nehemiah says that this is true only if the water in the lower receptacle was uncovered. If the lower receptacle was covered, the water in it is permitted because the strainer would remove the poison. The poison of a snake is like a fungus that remains floating on the surface of the water.

The fact that the mishnah does not advocate using a strainer implies that a strainer would not remove the poison, like the first opinion in this baraita.

אפילו תימא רבי נחמיה, אימר דאמר רבי נחמיה – להדיוט, אבל לגבוה – מי אמר? ולית ליה לרבי נחמיה +מלאכי א+ הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך אמר ה‘ צבאות? הדרן עלך לולב וערבה.

 

You may even say that it agrees with R. Nehemiah. Say that R. Nehemiah’s ruling referred to ordinary use, but for divine use, did he really say this? Does not R. Nehemiah uphold [the lesson of the verse,] "Just offer it to your governor: Will he accept you? Will he show you favor? said the Lord of hosts" (Malakhi 1:8).

May we return to you Chapter: Lulav and Aravah

 

The Talmud says that the mishnah might even follow R. Nehemiah. R. Nehemiah allows one to strain water for regular ordinary drinking. But not for holy purposes. For as the prophet Malakhi states, when it comes giving something to God, one must be extra cautious, and give only the best items. Not just the minimum things that a person himself would normally eat.

And that my friends, is the end of this chapter. Congrats! One more to go and we’ll have finished Daf Shevui’s first tractate.