Heiset and Bnei Knesset

Zavim (3:2) | Yisrael Bankier | 3 years ago

The Mishnah discusses several cases where a zav and another tahor person are performing an activity together. One case is where they are opening or closing a door at the same time. The Chachamim maintain that the other person remains tahor provided that they were not acting in opposite directions, e.g., the zav was opening the door while the other was closing it. To explain, a zav makes something else tameh by way of heiset -- causing the other item to move. Consequently, when acting in opposite directions, the zav makes the other person tameh by way of tumat heiset.

The Mishnah however continues that while it is true the second person is tameh when it comes to handling the terumah, they tahor for "bnei kenesset".

The Bartenura explains that bnei kenesset refers to individuals that are strict to eat even regular food in a state of tahara. The Bartenura explains that they are tahor for regular food because the interactions described in the Mishnah are not really heiset. Furthermore it is still doubtful whether the movement even occurred. In other words, we find the tumah that applies to the terumah in our Mishnah is a rabbinic stringency.

The Mishnah Achrona cites the Tosfot Yom Tov (5:5) who explains that tumat heiset is where the moved object or party is completely raised and move from their locations. The cases in our Mishnah however are where the zav and the other person are leaning on one another.

The term bnei kenesset however requires some thought. It would seem that the term is a positive one; it refers to people that are strict to eat all food in a state of tahara. The Tosfot (Nidah 7a) however notes that in Bechorot (36b) it has a seemingly negative connotation. As we have learnt in the past, a bechor (first born kosher animal) must be offered as a korban. If however it develops a blemish disqualifying its uses as a korban, it is simply given to a kohen. The Mishnah teaches that if the blemish was obvious, e.g., the leg was amputated or eye gauged out, then the blemish can be confirmed by three bnei kenesset. Rashi explains that it refers to individuals that are not chachamim. In other words, regular people and not experts. How do we resolve these two meanings of the terms?

The Tosfot explains that even in our context the expression can be understand as implying individuals that are subpar. In both cases the term refers to individuals that are of a lower standard than others mentioned in the Mishnah. In Bechorot it referred to people who were not experts. In our Mishnah too, these people are deficient in that they cannot eat terumah.

The Aruch LaNer however understands that the bnei kenesset is a positive term. He explains that it refers to chaverim in contrast to amei ha'aretz (uneducated and/or not particular with the laws of tumah and maaserot). The Aruch LaNer therefore explains that when the Mishnah in Bechorot explains that for certain blemishes even three bnei kenesset would suffice it certainly was not allowing anybody - amei ha'aret would not qualify². It is true, that talmidei chachamim fluent in all of shas are not required, yet a chaver is. This understanding is then consistent with the Tifferet Yisrael who explains that the bnei kenesset mentioned in bechorot are people of some knowledge -- "ketzat bnei Torah".

¹ Not that the Rambam read that they are tahor le'beit hakenesset and therefore has a different understanding of our Mishnah.

² The Aruch LaNer cites the Gemara (Pesach 49) the amei ha'aretz are pasul le'edut to support the position that they would not qualify in bechorot.

Download