Quoting%20commentary for Shabbat 127:23

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה הוצרכו ישראל שבאותו הדור כפרה מפני

And I know this only in the case of a reptile: how do we know it in respect to defilement by the dead? But it is logical:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 302, n. 11; the same applies here. ');">²²</span> [Scripture] declares uncleanness through the dead, and also declares uncleanness through reptiles: just as when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow as that which is made of goats' hair, so when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow as that which is made of goats' hair. How so! If it [Scripture] includes [this] in defilement until evening, which is extensive, shall we include [it] in seven days' defilement, which is limited?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Uncleanness through a reptile ceases on the evening after the defiled object is subjected to ritual immersion, but uncleanness caused by the dead lasts seven days (v. Lev. XI, 32; Num. XIX, 11 seq.). Now, defilement until evening is extensive, in that it can be caused by many agencies, e.g., reptiles, the carcase of all animal (nebelah), semen, the touch of a zab and the touch of one who is himself unclean through the dead. Therefore it is logical that many objects too shall be susceptible to such uncleanness. But seven days' defilement is limited to the direct action of a corpse; hence it is probable that it does not extend to many objects either. Therefore the fact that what is made from the tail of a horse or cow is subject to defilement by reptiles is no warrant that it is also liable to defilement through the dead. ');">²³</span> Therefore 'raiment and skin' are stated twice, to provide a <i>gezerah shawah</i>. 'Raiment and skin' are stated in connection with reptiles, and 'raiment and skin' are stated also in connection with the dead; just as raiment and skin,' which are stated in connection with reptiles, that which comes from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair. And this must be redundant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a gezerah shawah the word used as a basis of deduction must be redundant (mufneh). Otherwise the deduction may be refuted if a point of known dissimilarity is found between the two subjects which are linked by the gezerah shawah. On this redundancy there are two views: (i) the redundancy is required in one passage only; (ii) the redundancy is necessary in both subjects. — There is a third view, that of R. Akiba, that no redundancy at all is required in order to make the deduction conclusive and incapable of being refuted. ');">²⁴</span> For if it is not redundant, one can refute [the deduction]: as for a reptile, that is because it defiles by the size of a lentil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the smallest portion of corpse to defile must be the size of an olive. In this matter defilement by a reptile is more stringent, and thus it may also be more stringent in the matter under discussion. ');">²⁵</span> In truth, it is redundant. For consider: a reptile is likened to semen, for it is written, a man whose seed goeth from him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">²⁶</span> in proximity to which it is written, or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (Ibid. 5. Proximity indicates likeness in law. ');">²⁷</span> while in respect to semen it is written, and every garment and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 17. Thus raiment and skin are defiled by semen, and therefore by reptiles too. ');">²⁸</span> then what is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with reptiles? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the gezerah shawah. ');">²⁹</span> Yet it is still redundant [only] on one side:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in one of the two passages. ');">³⁰</span> this is well on the view that where it is redundant on one side we can learn [identity of law] and cannot refute [the deduction]; but on the view that we can learn, but also refute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 656, n. 2. ');">³¹</span> what can be said? — That [stated] in connection with the dead is also redundant. For consider: the dead is likened to semen, for it is written, 'and whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him'; while in respect to semen it is written, 'and every garment and every skin, whereon shall be the seed of copulation. What then is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with the dead? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant. And we have brought the Lord's oblation, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, ankle chains, and bracelets, signet-rings, ear-rings, and armlets.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 50. ');">³²</span> R. Eleazar said: 'Agil is a cast of female breasts; kumaz is a cast of the womb. R. Joseph observed: Thus it is that we translate it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Metargeminan, i.e., in the Targum, the Aramaic version of the Scriptures. The citation given here by R. Joseph is from the Targum ascribed to Onkelos the proselyte. ');">³³</span> mahok, [meaning] the place that leads to obscenity [gihuk]. Said Rabbah to him, It is implied in the very Writ itself: Kumaz=here [Ka-an] is the place [Mekom] of unchastity [Zimmah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Treating Kumaz as an abbreviation. ');">³⁴</span> And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14. ');">³⁵</span> R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Moses said to Israel: 'Maybe ye have returned to your first lapse [sin]?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they sinned with the daughters of Moab; v. Num. XXV. ');">³⁶</span> 'There lacketh not one man of us,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 49. ');">³⁷</span> they replied. 'If so,' he queried, 'Why an atonement?' 'Though we escaped from sin,' said they. 'yet we did not escape from meditating upon sin.' Straightway, 'and we have brought the Lord's offering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 50, to make atonement for their impure thoughts. ');">³⁸</span> The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why were the Israelites of that generation in need of atonement? Because

Explore quoting%20commentary for Shabbat 127:23. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.