Shabbat 117

הואיל וראוי להקישו על גבי חרס

[The reason is] because they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bells that had their clappers removed. ');">¹</span> are fit for beating on an earthen utensil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then they produce a bell-like sound just as when they have a clapper. Hence It is a utensil like before, and so remains unclean. But when the parts of a shears or of a plane are separated, they cannot be used at all. ');">²</span>

איתמר נמי אמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא הואיל וראוי להקישו על גבי חרס ר' יוחנן אמר הואיל וראוי לגמע בו מים לתינוק

It was stated likewise: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: [The reason is] because they are fit for beating on an earthen utensil. R. Johanan said: Because they are fit for giving a child a drink of water therein. Now, does not R. Johanan require [that it shall be fit for] a usage of its original nature?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a utensil is damaged or divided, does not R. Johanan hold that in order to remain unclean or susceptible to defilement it must still be fit for the same usage as before, it being insufficient that it shall merely be fit for some purpose? ');">³</span>

ור' יוחנן לא בעי מעין מלאכה ראשונה והתניא (ויקרא טו, כב) וכל כלי אשר ישב עליו וגו' יכול כפה סאה וישב עליה כפה תרקב וישב עליה יהא טמא תלמוד לומר אשר ישב עליו הזב מי שמיוחד לישיבה יצא זה שאומרים לו עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו

Surely it was taught: And everything whereon he sitteth [shall be unclean];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 6. The reference is to a zab, q.v. Glos. ');">⁴</span> I might think that if he [the <i>zab</i>] overturns a <i>se'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A measure of capacity. V. Glos. ');">⁵</span>

ר' אלעזר אומר במדרסות אומרים עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו ואין אומרים בטמא מת עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו ור' יוחנן אמר אף אומר בטמא מת עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו

and sits upon it, or a <i>tarkab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Half a se'ah. ');">⁶</span> and sits upon it, it is unclean: hence it is stated, 'whereon he sitteth', teaching, [only] that which is appointed for sitting, excluding this, where we say to him, 'Get up, that we may do our business!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the zab would be told that the measure is needed for its main purpose; hence it is not unclean. This shows that as a general principle every article is regarded from the point of view of its original and primary function. ');">⁷</span>

איפוך קמייתא ומאי חזית דאפכת קמייתא איפוך בתרייתא

R. Eleazar said: In cases of midras<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'treading'. The uncleanness caused by a zab's treading, leaning against, or weighing down upon an article, even if he does not actually touch it with his body. This includes sitting. ');">⁸</span> we say. 'Get up, that we may do our business'; but we do not say in the case of the defilement of the dead, 'Get up, that we may do our business!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in respect of an article's defilement through a corpse, or by a person who was himself defiled by a corpse, we do not say that in order to become unclean or remain unclean it shall be fit for its main purpose, but even if one has to say to the person using it, 'Get up, that we may do our business' it is still subject to the laws of uncleanness. ');">⁹</span>

הא שמעינן ליה לרבי יוחנן דבעי מעין מלאכה ראשונה (. דתניא). סנדל של בהמה של מתכת טמא למאי חזי אמר רב ראוי לשתות בו מים במלחמה ור' חנינא אמר ראוי לסוך בו שמן במלחמה ור' יוחנן אמר בשעה שבורח מן הקרב מניחו ברגליו ורץ על קוצין ועל הברקנים

But R. Johanan maintained: In the case of defilement through the dead too we say. 'Get up, that we may do our business!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus he insists that it shall be fit for its original function. Rashi maintains that this can refer only to a utensil which is broken or divided after becoming defiled; it does not remain unclean unless fit for a usage of its original nature. R. Han. holds that it refers to its defilement from the very outset. ');">¹⁰</span> — Reverse the former.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Transpose the reasons given by R. Jose b. Hanina and R. Johanan. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי בין רב לר' חנינא איכא בינייהו דמאיס

But what [reason] do you see to reverse the former; reverse the latter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Transpose the views of R. Johanan and R. Eleazar. ');">¹²</span> — Because we know R. Johanan to require [fitness for] usage of its original nature For we learnt an animal's shoe, [if] of metal, is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., liable to become unclean. ');">¹³</span>

בין ר' יוחנן לר' חנינא איכא בינייהו דיקיר:

For what is it fit? — Rab said: It is fit for drinking water therein in battle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a field of battle where no other utensils may be available, one can take up water in the cavity of the shoe into which the animal's foot fits. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Hanina said: It is fit for anointing oneself with oil from, it in battle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a necessary part of one's toilet in the hot eastern countries; v. T.A., I, 229-233. The shoe might serve as an improvised oil pot. ');">¹⁵</span>

ולא בעיר של זהב: מאי בעיר של זהב רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ירושלים דדהבא

R. Johanan said: When one is fleeing from the field of battle, he places this [shoe] on his [own] feet and runs over briars and thorns.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Johanan justifies its uncleanness only because it is still fit for a usage of the original nature. ');">¹⁶</span> Wherein do Rab and R. Johanan differ? — Where it is repulsive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For drinking. Hence, on Rab's view it is not subject to defilement, but on R. Hanina's it is. Rab disregards its possible use as an oil container, holding that soldiers dispense with oil on a field of battle. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Johanan and R. Hanina differ where it is [too] heavy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For running. According to R. Hanina it is nevertheless susceptible to defilement, but not according to R. Johanan. ');">¹⁸</span> NOR WITH A GOLDEN CITY, what is meant by, WITH A GOLDEN CITY? — Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: A golden Jerusalem.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An ornament with the picture or the engraving of Jerusalem; v. T.A., I, p. 662, n. 961. ');">¹⁹</span>