We are in chapter 4, mishnah 6, and we return to the subject of tumah and taharah. The first case in the mishnah deals with hechsher for receiving tumah - preparing food so that it becomes capable of contracting tumah.
Background: 'Hechsher' for receiving tumah:
There are four categories of things that can contract tumah. People and utensils - if they come into direct contact with a source of tumah, such as a dead mouse, they become tamei immediately. Foods, however, do not become tamei through contact alone: even if an apple touched the dead mouse, the apple remains tahor, unless it was first prepared - 'hechsher' - to be able to receive tumah.
This susceptibility is created when the apple becomes wet with one of the seven liquids, the shivah mashkin, which enable food to receive tumah. The mnemonic for remembering them is "yad shochat dam" (literally: a hand that slaughters blood), and they are:
Y - yayin (wine, or grape juice).
D - devash (honey).
Sh - shemen (olive oil).
Ch - chalav (milk).
T - tal (dew).
D - dam (blood).
M - mayim (water).
The precise wording of the verse:
When the Torah discusses this matter it uses a distinctive expression: "vechi yutan mayim al zera venafal minivlasam" - "and if water is placed upon seed and part of their carcass falls upon it." "Yutan" is in the passive form, meaning: it was placed, that the water came upon the food on its own. But the word is written in a defective spelling, without a vav, and so when read it closely resembles "yiten" - meaning that a person is the one who puts the water there.
From here Chazal learned that it is not enough for the food to become wet with one of the seven liquids; it is also required that the person be pleased with the wetting, as though he himself had put the water there. He need not do it with his own hands, but he must consent to it and want it. If the food became wet against his will, this is not a hechsher, and the food does not become capable of receiving tumah.
One more point to know: the food does not have to stay wet. If the apple was rinsed with water in accordance with the person's wishes, then even after it has dried completely, from now on and forever it can receive tumah.
The case in our mishnah: a barrel of olives:
The mishnah deals with olives. One of the ways of making them fit to eat was to leave them in a vessel of salt, which softened them and made them more edible. This process would also draw out some of their olive oil. Olive oil is one of the seven liquids, and therefore: if the person wants the oil to remain on the olives, so that they will be full, tasty and juicy - that is a hechsher, and the olives become able to receive tumah. But if he does not want the oil resting on the olives, so that they will not turn soft and mushy, and he wishes to get rid of it - that is not a hechsher.
Hence the question: when olives sit in salt for a period of time, and oil inevitably comes out of them, is that a hechsher? It depends on the person's wishes, and on this point Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree:
Beis Shammai: A person generally does not want the oil to come out, since as long as it remains inside it keeps the olives juicy and full, though on the other hand it causes them to stick together and become soft and gummy. Therefore we assume that he does not want the oil that seeps out, and it is not coming out with his consent - so the olives do not become susceptible to tumah.
Beis Hillel (who are stringent here): There are people who actually do want the oil to come out, and therefore an external act is required to demonstrate that the person has no interest in the oil and is not preserving it: he must bore a hole in the bottom of the vessel in which the olives are being salted. The hole at the bottom shows that he is glad for the oil to drain away and be lost, and since he does not want the oil on the olives - it does not render them susceptible.
The words of the Mishnah:
"Chavis shel zeisim megulgalim" - a barrel of olives that still roll. For if the olives sit in salt too long, they soften, stick together and congeal into one mass until they do not roll at all, becoming a sort of olive porridge; therefore they are salted lightly and for a short time.
"Beis Shammai omrim eino tzarich linkov" - there is no need to bore a hole in the bottom of the barrel, since a person does not want the oil that comes out, and the olives do not become susceptible to tumah.
"U'Beis Hillel omrim tzarich linkov" - one must bore a hole in the bottom, so that the oil will run out, and by doing so he shows that he does not want it. This is required so that the olives will not become susceptible to tumah.
"U'modim she'im nikvah u'setamu shemarim - shehi tehorah" - even Beis Hillel agree that if he bored the vessel so the oil would flow out, but the dregs, the waste matter that comes out of the olives, blocked up the hole, so that in practice the oil did not spill out but is sitting around the olives - the olives are tahor and cannot become susceptible. For by the very act of boring the bottom he showed that he does not want the oil, and therefore it makes no difference whether it actually spilled out or not.
This is the first point in the Mishnah, and the halachah follows Beis Hillel, stringently: one must bore a hole in the bottom.
The second section: one who anoints himself with oil:
From here the Mishnah moves to a new case, which has nothing to do with susceptibility but rather with the status of the olive oil itself in relation to the person. A person spreads olive oil on his body, like a moisturizing cream for his skin. The question is whether the oil becomes subordinate to the person and absorbed into him, to the point that it has lost its identity as olive oil and become part of his skin, no longer considered an entity in its own right. And how does the halachah deal with this?
The power of the mikvah:
A mikvah purifies and removes tumah from people and from vessels only. Even within this there is an exception, an earthenware vessel, which is not purified in a mikvah. Foods, however, are not purified in a mikvah: a tamei apple placed in a mikvah - remains tamei. The only exception, if it can be called that, is water itself, which is considered part of the mikvah and therefore becomes tahor. But in general, food or drink does not become tahor by entering a mikvah.
Case one - oil that was tahor from the outset:
Everything began in a state of purity: the person is tahor and the oil is tahor, and he anoints his skin with it. Afterwards the person became tamei, and consequently the oil on his skin became tamei as well, since it is part of him. So far this is straightforward. But then he went down and immersed in a mikvah and became tahor. Now, if after he emerges from the mikvah the oil drips off him and collects, for example, on an apple - has the oil returned to its independent status, so that since it became tamei while on his body and the mikvah could not purify it, it is a source of tumah and will render the apple tamei? Or do we say that the oil lost its identity, everything was purified, and the mikvah removed every trace of tumah, so that even if it drips onto the apple nothing has happened?
Beis Shammai (lenient here): Even though it drips off him - it is tahor. Even if there is so much oil on him that it drips off, whatever drips is tahor, since at the moment he was in the mikvah it was subordinate to him and no tumah remained in it, and the dripping afterwards changes nothing.
Beis Hillel (stringent here): "Kedei sichas eiver katan" - there is a threshold, namely the amount of oil needed to anoint a small limb. If an amount that is significant and usable drips off him, enough to anoint a limb, the tumah reawakens.
The measure of a "small limb" - two approaches:
The Bartenura: The limb in question is not spelled out here, but in Shabbos it is stated that it refers to the toe of a baby on the first day of his life - the tiniest toe there is. It is a minute amount, but it is not nothing; it is more than a single drop. For simplicity, let us call it one cc. That measure itself is still tahor, and anything more than it is tamei. If it reaches one point zero one cc, at that point the tumah is aroused and the apple becomes tamei.
The Rambam (and this, apparently, is the halachah): The limb in question is a person's little finger, his pinky, which is of course larger than a toe. Let us say, for the sake of the discussion (and this is certainly an exaggeration, but it makes no difference to the point itself), that the amount needed to anoint a small pinky is two cc. According to the Rambam that measure itself is already tamei, and in order for it to remain tahor there must be slightly less than it - one point nine nine.
It emerges that the Rambam and the Bartenura differ on two points: whether the measure itself is included in the tahor side or has already crossed over into the tamei side, and whether we are speaking of the toe of a baby or the pinky of an adult.
Case two - oil that was tamei from the start:
Here not everything begins in a state of taharah: "V'im hayah shemen tamei mitechilah" - the oil a person anointed himself with was tamei at the time of the anointing. There is no problem with that, and one may anoint himself with oil that is tamei. The only question is whether now, after the oil has lost its status while sitting on his skin, and the person has gone down and immersed in a mikvah and come out, and it is still dripping from him - does it transmit tumah? And how much dripping or moisture is considered a problem?
Beis Shammai: "K'dei sichas eiver katan" - here is where the measure of the small limb enters the picture, whether it is the pinky or the toe: with such a quantity the tumah can return, but with less than that, such as hands that are merely oily, there is no problem. Once he has entered the mikvah, oily hands make no difference, and everything is tahor when he comes out, since the oil no longer belongs to the person; and if his hands touch the apple, the apple remains tahor.
Beis Hillel: "Mashkeh tofei'ach" - here there are two versions of Beis Hillel's position.
The two versions of Beis Hillel's opinion:
The Tanna Kamma - "mashkeh tofei'ach": The threshold is that his hands are oily to the point that if he places them on a piece of paper, the paper will show oil marks. 'Tofei'ach' means that the moisture is able to pass onward. The person anointed his hands with tamei oil, went down and immersed, and afterward dried off, and there is no longer any water on his hands - but he is still oily from the olive oil. If he touches something and leaves oil marks on it, the oil is still coming off his hands and being transferred, and therefore it will make things tamei again. The piece of paper itself does not become tamei, since we say that it is not a vessel, but if he touches the apple, the apple, being food, receives tumah from that oil.
Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Beis Hillel - "tofei'ach al menas l'hatpi'ach": Beis Hillel were somewhat more lenient than this. The line is the amount of moisture left on the hand such that it will not only pass over to a piece of paper, but that piece of paper will be able to transfer oil to a second piece of paper. If there is still that much oil on his hand, the oil can transmit tumah again, if it eventually reaches an apple or the like; but with less than that, no.
The halachah in practice:
The halachah follows the Tanna Kamma in Beis Hillel's opinion, and we are dealing with 'mashkeh tofei'ach' alone. According to the Bartenura, if all the oil can do is 'tofei'ach', it is already tahor, and more than that is needed for it to be tamei. According to the Rambam, even if there is only enough to be 'tofei'ach' and to make something else oily in turn, it is tamei. It emerges that according to the Rambam the halachah is that if a person's hands are oily with tamei oil, even after he has immersed in a mikvah, if he transfers oily moisture to other things, the tumah returns and reappears and can make things tamei once more.
In summary: In this mishnah we learned two matters. The first is the law of hechsher for receiving tumah: foods do not become tamei unless they have been wet with one of the seven liquids ('yad shachat dam') with the person's consent, as implied by "v'chi yutan," which is read as "yitein"; and from there we came to the dispute about a barrel of crushed olives, whether one must pierce a hole in its bottom in order to show that he does not want the oil that comes out - and the halachah follows Beis Hillel, that one must pierce it, and even if the sediment sealed the hole it is tahor. The second is the law of one who anoints himself with oil and immerses: when the oil was tahor from the start, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree whether he is tahor even though he is dripping, or whether with enough to anoint a small limb the tumah returns, and the Bartenura and the Rambam disagree about the size of the limb and where the line is drawn; and when the oil was tamei from the start - according to Beis Shammai it is enough to anoint a small limb, according to Beis Hillel it is 'mashkeh tofei'ach', and according to Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Beis Hillel it is 'tofei'ach al menas l'hatpi'ach'.