Bava Kamma 50

זובו של זב ורוקו ושכבת זרעו ומימי רגליו ודם הנדה מטמאין בין במגע בין במשא

are the gonorrhoeal discharge of <i>zab</i>, his saliva, his semen virile, his urine and the blood of menstruation, all of which defile whether by 'touching' or by mere 'carrying'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kelim I, 3. ');">¹</span> But why not maintain that the reason here is also because the semen virile of <i>zab</i> cannot possibly be altogether free from particles of gonorrhoea? — If this had been the reason, semen virile should have been placed in juxtaposition to gonorrhoeal discharge. Why then was it placed in juxtaposition to saliva if not on account of the fact that its causing defilement is to be inferred from the law applicable to his saliva?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is thus proved that semen virile of zab causes of itself defilement by 'carrying' and not on account of the particles of gonorrhoea it contains. ');">²</span> R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: Behold there is this Tanna who does not employ the principle of <i>Dayyo</i> even when the purpose of the <i>a fortiori</i> would thereby not be defeated. For it was taught: Whence do we learn that mats<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not included among the articles referred to in Num. XXXI, 20. ');">³</span>

ודלמא ה"נ לפי שא"א בלא צחצוחי זיבה א"כ לתנייה גבי זובו מ"ש דקתני לה גבי רוקו אלא משום דאתי מרוקו

become defiled if kept within the tent where there is a corpse? — It is a logical conclusion: For if tiny [earthenware] jugs that remain undefiled by the handling of <i>zab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As he is unable to insert even his small finger within. Earthenware is susceptible to levitical uncleanness only through the medium of its interior. Lev. XI, 33.] ');">⁴</span> become defiled when kept within the tent where there is a corpse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in Num. XIX, 15; and every open vessel&nbsp;… is unclean. ');">⁵</span> does it not follow that mats, which even in the case of <i>zab</i> become defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. XV, 4. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא והא האי תנא לא דריש דיו ואע"ג דלא מפריך ק"ו דתניא מפץ במת מניין ודין הוא ומה פכין קטנים שטהורים בזב מטמא במת מפץ שמטמא בזב אינו דין שיטמא במת

should become defiled when kept within the tent where there is a corpse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 84a. ');">⁷</span> Now this reasoning applies not only to the law of defilement for a single day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'defilement (until) sunset,' which applies to defilements caused by zab; v. Lev. XV, 5-11. ');">⁸</span> but also to defilement for full seven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Usual in defilements through a corpse; cf. Num. XIX, 11-16. ');">⁹</span>

וקמייתי לה בין לטומאת ערב בין לטומאת שבעה ואמאי אימא אהני ק"ו לטומאת ערב ואהני דיו לאפוקי טומאת שבעה

[days]. But why not argue that the <i>a fortiori</i> well serves its purpose regarding the defilement for a single day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As is the case with the bed of a zab (cf. Lev. XV, 4), since it is derived from zab.] ');">¹⁰</span> whilst the principle of <i>Dayyo</i> is to be employed to exclude defilement for seven days? — He [Rabina] answered him: The same problem had already been raised by R. Nahman b. Zachariah to Abaye, and Abaye answered him that it was regarding mats in the case of a dead reptile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not at all regarding corpses; the whole problem thus concerns only defilement for a day; v. infra. ');">¹¹</span> that the Tanna had employed the <i>a fortiori</i>, and the text should run as follows: 'Whence do we learn that mats<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As mats are not included among the articles referred to in Lev. XI, 32. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל כבר רמא ניהליה ר"נ בר זכריה לאביי וא"ל אביי תנא ממפץ בשרץ מייתי לה וה"ק מפץ בשרץ מניין ודין הוא ומה פכין קטנים שטהורים בזב טמאין בשרץ מפץ שטמא בזב אינו דין שיהא טמא בשרץ

coming in contact with dead reptiles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minimum quantity for defilement by which is the size of a lentil, a quantity which can easily pass through the opening of the smallest bottle. ');">¹³</span> become defiled? It is a logical conclusion: for if tiny [earthenware] jugs that remain undefiled by the handling of <i>zab</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he is unable to insert even his small finger within. Earthenware is susceptible to levitical uncleanness only through the medium of its interior. Lev. XI, 33. ');">¹⁴</span> become defiled when in contact with dead reptiles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32:&nbsp;… whether it be any vessel of wood or raiment or skin&nbsp;… it shall be unclean until the even. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא מפץ במת מניין נאמר (ויקרא יא, לב) בגד ועור בשרץ ונאמר (במדבר לא, כ) בגד ועור במת מה בגד ועור האמור בשרץ מפץ טמא בו אף בגד ועור האמור במת מפץ טמא בו

does it not follow that mats which even in the case of <i>zab</i> become defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. XV, 4. ');">¹⁶</span> should become defiled by coming in contact with dead reptiles?' But whence the ruling regarding mats<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not included among the articles referred to in Num. XXXI, 20. ');">¹⁷</span> kept within the tent of a corpse? — In the case of dead reptiles it is stated <i>raiment or skin</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32:&nbsp;… whether it be any vessel of wood or raiment or skin&nbsp;… it shall be unclean until the even. ');">¹⁵</span>

מופנה דאי לא מופנה איכא למפרך מה לשרץ שכן מטמא בכעדשה תאמר במת שאין מטמא בכעדשה אלא בכזית

while in the case of a corpse it is also stated, <i>raiment&nbsp;… skin</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 20: And as to every raiment and all that is made of skin&nbsp;… ye shall purify. ');">¹⁸</span> just as in the case of <i>raiment or skin</i> stated in connection with dead reptiles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32:&nbsp;… whether it be any vessel of wood or raiment or skin&nbsp;… it shall be unclean until the even. ');">¹⁵</span> mats [are included to] become defiled, so is it regarding <i>raiment&nbsp;… skin</i> stated in connection with a corpse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 20: And as to every raiment and all that is made of skin&nbsp;… ye shall purify. ');">¹⁸</span>

לאיי אפנויי מופנה מכדי שרץ אתקש לשכבת זרע דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ד) או איש אשר תצא וגו' וסמיך ליה או איש אשר יגע בכל שרץ וכתיב ביה בשכבת זרע (ויקרא טו, יז) וכל בגד וכל עור אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע

that mats similarly become defiled. This <i>Gezerah shawah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The technical term for (an inference from) a verbal congruity in two different portions of the Law; v. Glos. ');">¹⁹</span> must necessarily be 'free',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. vbpun (Mufnah), 'free', that is, for exegetical use, having no other purpose to serve, but solely intended to indicate this particular similarity in law. ');">²⁰</span> for if it were not 'free' the comparison made could be thus upset: seeing that in the case of dead reptiles [causing defilement to mats], their minimum for causing uncleanness is the size of a lentil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. 11a; Naz. 52a. ');">²¹</span>

בגד ועור דכתב רחמנא בשרץ למה לי ש"מ לאפנויי

how can you draw an analogy to corpses where the minimum to cause uncleanness is not the size of a lentil but that of an olive?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 49b. ');">²²</span> — The <i>Gezerah shawah</i> must thus be 'free'. Is it not so? For indeed the law regarding dead reptiles is placed in juxtaposition to semen virile as written, <i>Or a man whose seed goeth from him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">²³</span> and there immediately follows, <i>Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing</i>. Now in the case of semen virile it is explicitly stated, <i>And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XV, 17. ');">²⁴</span>

ואכתי מופנה מצד אחד הוא הניחא למ"ד מופנה מצד אחד למידין ואין משיבין שפיר אלא למ"ד למידין ומשיבין מאי איכא למימר

Why then had the Divine Law to mention again <i>raiment or skin</i> in the case of dead reptiles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32. ');">²⁵</span> It may thus be concluded that it was [inserted] to be 'free' [for exegetical purposes].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus to make the Gezerah shawah irrefutable. ');">²⁶</span> Still it has so far only been proved that one part [of the <i>Gezerah shawah</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of dead reptiles. ');">²⁷</span>

דמת נמי אפנויי מופנה מכדי מת אתקש לשכבת זרע דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ד) והנוגע בכל טמא נפש או איש אשר תצא ממנו וגו' וכתיב ביה בשכבת זרע וכל בגד וכל עור אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע בגד ועור דכתב רחמנא במת למה לי ש"מ לאפנויי והוי מופנה משני צדדין

is 'free'. This would therefore be well in accordance with the view maintaining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 22b. ');">²⁸</span> that when a <i>Gezerah shawah</i> is 'free', even in one of its texts only, an inference may be drawn and no refutation will be entertained. But according to the view holding<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 131a; Yeb. 70b. ');">²⁹</span> that though an inference may be drawn in such a case, refutations will nevertheless be entertained, how could the analogy [between dead reptiles and corpses] be maintained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the refutation referred to above may be entertained. ');">³⁰</span>

הניחא למ"ד דון מינה ואוקי באתרא אלא למ"ד דון מינה ומינה מאי איכא למימר

— The verbal congruity in the text dealing with corpses is also 'free'. For indeed the law regarding corpses is similarly placed in juxtaposition to semen virile, as written, <i>And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead or a man whose seed goeth from him</i> etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">²³</span> Now in the case of semen virile it is explicitly stated, <i>And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation</i>. Why then had the Divine Law to mention again <i>raiment&nbsp;… skin</i> in the case of corpses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 20. ');">³¹</span> It may thus be concluded that it was [inserted] to be 'free' for exegetical purposes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus to make the Gezerah shawah irrefutable. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר רבא אמר קרא (במדבר לא, כד) וכבסתם בגדיכם ביום השביעי כל טמאות שאתם מטמאין במת לא יהו פחותין משבעה

The <i>Gezerah shawah</i> is thus 'free' in both texts. Still this would again be only in accordance with the view maintaining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 78b. ');">³²</span> that when an inference is made by means of reasoning [from an analogy] the subject of the inference is placed back on its own basis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Becoming subject to the specific laws applicable to its own category. [So here mats in the tent of a corpse, though derived by analogy from reptiles, are subject to the laws of defilement by corpses. i.e., a defilement of 7 days.] ');">³³</span> But according to the view that when an inference is made [by means of an analogy] the subject of the inference must be placed on a par with the other in all respects, how can you establish the law [that mats kept in the tent of a corpse become defiled for seven days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Usual in defilements through a corpse; cf. Num. XIX, 11-16. ');">³⁴</span>

ותהא שן ורגל חייב ברשות הרבים מקל וחומר ומה קרן שברשות הניזק אינו משלם אלא חצי נזק ברשות הרבים חייבת שן ורגל שברשות הניזק משלם נזק שלם אינו דין שברה"ר חייב

since you infer it from dead reptiles where the defilement is only for the day]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32. ');">³⁵</span> — Said Raba: Scripture states, <i>And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 24. ');">³⁶</span> to indicate that all defilements in the case of corpses cannot be for less than for seven [days].

אמר קרא (שמות כב, ד) ובער בשדה אחר ולא ברה"ר

But should we not let Tooth and Foot involve liability for damage done [even] on public ground because of the following <i>a fortiori</i>: If in the case of Horn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While in the state of Tam; cf. supra p. 73. ');">³⁷</span> where [even] for damage done on the plaintiff's premises only half payment is involved, there is yet liability to pay for damage done on public ground, does it not necessarily follow that in the case of Tooth and Foot where for damage done on the plaintiff's premises the payment is in full, there should be liability for damage done on public ground? — Scripture, however, says, And it shall feed in another man's field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4. ');">³⁸</span> excluding thus [damage done on] public ground.