S. [126a] And it was taught
regarding this: R. Yosé declares
clean. To which case does this apply? If you say to the case in the latter
text, the first Tanna also declares it clean. Rather it applies to what the
first Tanna stated: uncleanness is in
it, the house is unclean either because [he held the view that] the way of uncleanness is to exude or
because [he held the view that] covered uncleanness does break forth.
T. And
what R. Yosé said to him [was as follows], “What you stated, “the way of uncleanness is to exude”
[does not apply] because one can remove
it in halves or burn it in its place.
And what you stated, “covered uncleanness does break forth” [does not apply
because in fact] covered uncleanness does not break forth.
U. And
one view of R. Yosé contradicts another: For it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: A dog which ate the flesh of the corpse,
and the dog died and was lying on the threshold — R. Meir says, “If his neck is
a handbreadth wide, he brings the uncleanness, and if not, he does not bring
the uncleanness.”
V. R.
Yosé says, “We examine the uncleanness. [If the dog's belly is] from directly
beneath the lintel and inside, [toward the house], the house is unclean. [If it
is] from directly beneath the lintel and [towards the] outside, the house is
clean.”
W. R.
Eleazar says, “[If] his mouth is inside, the house is clean; [if] his mouth is
outside, the house is unclean, for the uncleanness exudes through his
hindparts.”
X. R.
Judah b. Beterah says, “One way or the other, the house is unclean” [M. Ohalot
11:7 A-E].
Y. Is
it not the case that, If his neck is
not a handbreadth wide is the view
that R. Yosé disputes? And we derive from this [that Yosé holds the view that]
hidden uncleanness does break forth.
Z. Said
Raba, “We examine the space that
contains the uncleanness, is what
was taught [in the Mishnah in Yosé's name]. And R. Yosé disputes on two
accounts. And he says to R. Meir: What you stated, If his neck is a handbreadth wide, he brings the uncleanness, we
[dispute because to determine the matter] we follow the location of the space
[that contains the uncleanness]. And what you stated [that the dog] was lying on the threshold, that all of
the house is unclean, [we dispute and hold that], [If the dog's belly is] from directly beneath the lintel and inside,
[toward the house], the house is unclean. [If it is] from directly beneath the
lintel and [towards the] outside, the house is clean.”
AA. R.
Aha the son of Raba taught [that the Mishnah stated] plainly: R. Yosé says, “We examine the space that
contains the uncleanness...”
I.3
A. [Returning now to the earlier
statement at I.2 G, that R. Yosé holds the view that with regard to imparting
uncleanness, a case of overshadowing is equivalent to a case of touching]: And who is the Tanna who disputes his view?
It is R. Simeon. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Simeon says, [126b] “Three [cases] of uncleanness
that derive from a corpse — two forms [of imparting uncleanness pertain] to
each one and the third form [of imparting uncleanness] does not pertain to
them. And they are: (1) a ladleful of corpse mould, (2) and a bone the size of
a barleycorn, and (3) the upper-stone and edge-stones [of a grave].”
B. A ladleful of corpse mould imparts
uncleanness through carrying and through overshadowing but not through
touching. And where does imparting uncleanness through touching pertain? To
either of the other two [cases].
C. A bone the size of a barleycorn
imparts uncleanness through touching and through carrying but not through
overshadowing. And where does imparting uncleanness through overshadowing pertain?
To either of the other two [cases].
D. The upper-stone and edge-stones [of
a grave] impart uncleanness through touching and overshadowing but not through
carrying. And where does imparting uncleanness through carrying pertain? To
either of the other two [cases].
II.1
A. The
marrow bone of carrion and the marrow bone of a creeping thing [M. 9:5 E] — Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority:
“[And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches] its carcass
[shall be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:39) — but not [if he touches] a
stopped up marrow bone. You might infer that even if they are hollowed out [he
who touches it is not unclean]. It comes to teach, “He who touches [its
carcass] shall be unclean.” [That implies]: What is possible to touch is
unclean. What is not possible to touch is clean.
B. Said
R. Zira to Abayye, “But on this basis we should infer that an animal in its
hide would not impart uncleanness.” [Said Abayye,] “Come and take a look at how
many hollowed openings it has!”
C. Said
R. Pappa to Raba, “But on this basis we should infer that a kidney [from
carrion] encased in its fatty tissue would not impart uncleanness.” [Said
Raba,] “Come and take a look at how many strands issue from it.”
D. R.
Oshaia posed a question: If one thought about hollowing it [a marrow bone] and
did not hollow it, what is the law [as to whether it imparts uncleanness]? Is
the failure to [actually] hollow it analogous to the failure to perform an
action or not? [Does the thought suffice?] He then answered his question:
Failure to hollow it is not analogous to the failure to perform an action. [And
the thought alone suffices to make it capable of imparting uncleanness.]
Unit
I.1 analyzes M.'s first operative concern regarding the marrow bone. I.2 cites
a related passage from M. Ohalot and examines at length its implications for
the issues. Goes on to consider the implications of passages related to another
M.-Ohalot-passage. Establishes that Yosé held that with regard to uncleanness,
overshadowing is equivalent to touching. I.3 returns to the statement at I.2 G
to determine that Simeon was the Tanna who held the alternative view. II.1
analyzes the premise of 9:5 E regarding the marrow bone of carrion or a
creeping thing.
9:6
A. The egg of a creeping thing [in
which the foetus is] formed is clean.
B. [If] it was pierced in any measure
at all, it is unclean.
C. A mouse, half of which is flesh and
half dirt —
D. he who touches the flesh is unclean.
E. [He who touches] the dirt is clean.
F. R. Judah says, “Also: He who touches
the dirt which is over against the flesh is unclean.”
I.1
A. Our
rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “[These are the] unclean [to you among
all that swarm; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until
the evening]” (Lev. 11:31) — [this language is used] to include [in the law] the egg of a creeping thing and the
thigh-bone of a creeping thing.
B. You might infer that [we include]
even [an egg in which the foetus] is not formed. It comes to teach [to the contrary
by using the definite article,] “the unclean.” What is the case regarding the
creeping thing [that is subsumed in the rule]? It is formed. So even the egg of
a creeping thing [to be included, the foetus in it must be] formed.
C. You might infer that even if it was
not pierced [it is unclean]. It comes to teach, “Whoever touches them when they
are dead shall be unclean.” Whatever you can touch shall be unclean. Whatever
you cannot touch shall not be unclean.
D. And how much must it be pierced [in
order for it to be unclean]? The breadth of a strand of hair — so that it is
possible to touch it [inside] with a strand of hair.
II.1
A. A
mouse, half of which [is flesh and half dirt — he who touches the flesh is
unclean] [M. 9:6 C-D]. Said R. Joshua b. Levi, “This is so if it turned
into a creeping thing along the whole length [of its body].”
B. There
are those that teach [this view of R. Joshua b. Levi] pertains to the latter
text of the Mishnah [F as follows]: R.
Judah says, “Also: He who touches the dirt which is over against the flesh is
unclean.” Said R. Joshua b. Levi, “This is so if it turned into a creeping
thing along the whole length [of its body].”
C. The
authority who teaches that it pertains to the former text of the
Mishnah-passage [C-D, would hold the view that] it certainly pertains to the
latter text of the Mishnah-passage [F]. And the authority who teaches that it
pertains to the latter text of the Mishnah-passage [would hold the view that he
limits his opinion to that case]. But with regard to the case of the former
text of the Mishnah-passage, even if it did not yet turn [along the length of
its body] into a creeping thing [—
he who touches the flesh is unclean].
III.1
A. Our
rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: Because [the rule] was stated for a mouse, I derive from this that [the
rule applies] to even the mouse of the sea because its name has in it “mouse.”
But it is logical [to argue that this is not the case as follows]: [The Torah]
declared the weasel unclean and declared the mouse unclean. What is the case
regarding the weasel? [The rule applies only to] a species that inhabits the
land. So too [regarding the mouse the rule must apply only to] a species that
inhabits the land.
B. Or
you may follow this line of reasoning: [The Torah] declared the weasel
unclean and declared the mouse unclean. What is the case regarding the weasel?
[The rule applies to] all that are called “weasel.” So too [regarding the]
mouse [the rule applies to] all that are called “mouse.” Even the sea mouse [is
classified for the present purposes as a] “mouse” because that is its name.
C. It comes to teach us, “[And these
are unclean to you among the creeping things that creep] upon the earth: [the
weasel, the mouse, the great lizard according to its kind] (Lev. 11:29). If [it
taught only], “upon the earth” you might infer that when it was “upon the
earth” it could render unclean [but] if it went down to the sea it could not
render unclean. [127a] It comes to
teach, “that creep.” Wherever it creeps to [it can render unclean].
No comments:
Post a Comment