Shabbat 127

כלי כלי מהתם:

the meaning of utensil' [here] from [the employment of] 'utensil' there, answered he.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning defilement by dead reptiles it is written, every utensil wherewith any work is done (Lev. XI, 32), and the meaning of 'utensil' is learnt from 'utensil' mentioned in connection with the dead, where ornaments are referred to. Tosaf explains the passage differently: But that … Midian, i.e., it treats of the spoil of Midian and has no bearing upon uncleanness at all? To which Raba replied that as 'utensil' in Lev. XI, 32 refers to uncleanness, so 'utensil' in Num. XXXI. 51 provides a teaching on uncleanness, notwithstanding that this does not appear so from the context. ');">¹</span>

מוסף שק על הבגד שטמא משום אריג: אטו בגד לאו אריג הוא הכי קאמר מוסף שק על הבגד אף על פי שאינו אריג טמא למאי חזי אמר רבי יוחנן שכן עני קולע שלש נימין ותולה בצואר בתו

'A sack goes beyond a garment, in that it is unclean as woven material.' Is then a garment not woven material? — This is its meaning: A sack goes beyond a garment, for though it is not of woven material, yet it is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words are explained: … it is unclean as woven material though it is not woven. — By 'sack' a few plaited strands of goats' hair is meant. ');">²</span>

תנו רבנן (ויקרא יא, לב) שק אין לי אלא שק מניין לרבות את הקילקלי ואת החבק ת"ל או שק יכול שאני מרבה את החבלים ואת המשיחות ת"ל שק מה שק טווי ואריג אף כל טווי ואריג

For what is it fit? — Said R. Johanan: A poor man plaits three threads [of goats' hair]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are first spun. ');">³</span>

הרי הוא אומר במת (במדבר לא, כ) וכל כלי עור וכל מעשה עזים וגו' תתחטאו לרבות הקילקלי ואת החבק

and suspends it from his daughter's neck.

יכול שאני מרבה את החבלים ואת המשיחות ודין הוא טימא בשרץ וטימא במת מה כשטימא בשרץ לא טימא אלא טווי ואריג אף כשטימא במת לא טימא אלא טווי ואריג

Our Rabbis taught: [And upon whatsoever any of them&nbsp;… doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood … or] sack:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32. — The reference is to defilement by dead reptiles (sherazim). ');">⁴</span>

הן אם היקל בטמא שרץ שהיא קלה נקיל בטומאת המת שהיא חמורה תלמוד לומר בגד ועור בגד ועור לגזירה שוה

I know it only of a sack:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is usually worn by shepherds. ');">⁵</span>

נאמר (ויקרא יא, לב) בגד ועור בשרץ ונאמר (במדבר לא, כ) בגד ועור במת מה בגד ועור האמור בשרץ לא טימא אלא טווי ואריג אף בגד ועור האמור במת לא טימא אלא טווי ואריג

how do we know to include a horse cover and the saddle band?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The band with which the saddle or housing of a horse is fastened to its belly. Others: the housing itself. It was made of goats' hair spun and woven. ');">⁶</span>

ומה בגד ועור האמור במת טמא כל מעשה עזים אף בגד ועור האמור בשרץ טמא כל מעשה עזים

Therefore it is said, 'or sack'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Or' is an extension. ');">⁷</span>

אין לי אלא דבר הבא מן העזים מניין לרבות דבר הבא מזנב הסוס ומזנב הפרה תלמוד לומר או שק

I might think that I can include ropes and cords;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used for measuring. These were of unspun plaited goats' hair. ');">⁸</span>

והא אפיקתיה לקילקלי וחבק

therefore 'sack' is stated: just as a sack is spun and woven, so must everything be spun and woven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it is susceptible to uncleanness. ');">⁹</span>

הני מילי מקמי דליתיה ג"ש השתא דאתי גזירה שוה אייתור ליה

Now, concerning the dead it is stated, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats' hair … ye shall purify yourselves:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 20. These become unclean through contact with the dead. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואין לי אלא בשרץ בטומאת מת מניין

this is to include a horse cover and the saddle band.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'All' is an extension. ');">¹¹</span>

ודין הוא טימא במת וטימא בשרץ מה כשטימא בשרץ עשה דבר הבא מזנב הסוס ומזנב הפרה כמעשה עזים אף כשטימא במת עשה דבר הבא מזנב הסוס ומזנב הפרה כמעשה עזים

I might think that I can include ropes and cords. (But it [the reverse] is logical:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a parenthesis. A verse will be quoted to show that they are not included, but before that it is parenthetically argued that it is logical not to include them, so that no verse for their exclusion is required. But it is shown that logic does not suffice to exclude them, so that a verse is required. ');">¹²</span>

הן אם הרבה בטומאת ערב שהיא מרובה נרבה בטומאת שבעה שהיא מועטת

[the Divine Law] teaches defilement by a dead reptile, and it teaches defilement by the dead: just as when it teaches defilement by a reptile, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven; so when it teaches defilement by the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven. How so! If it is lenient in respect to defilement through a reptile, which is lighter, shall we be lenient<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., shall we deduce a lenient ruling by analogy? ');">¹³</span>

תלמוד לומר בגד ועור בגד ועור לגזירה שוה נאמר בגד ועור בשרץ ונאמר בגד ועור במת מה בגד ועור האמור בשרץ עשה דבר הבא מזנב הסוס ומזנב הפרה כמעשה עזים אף בגד ועור האמור במת עשה דבר הבא מזנב הסוס ומזנב הפרה כמעשה עזים

in respect to defilement by the dead, which is graver?)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Hence logic does not prove the exclusion of cords and ropes, and therefore a verse is necessary. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומופנה דאי לאו מופנה איכא למיפרך מה לשרץ שכן מטמא בכעדשה

Therefore 'raiment and skin' is stated twice, to provide a <i>gezerah shawah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span>

לאי אפנויי מופני) מכדי שרץ איתקש לשכבת זרע דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ד) איש אשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע וסמיך ליה איש אשר יגע בכל שרץ וכתיב ביה בשכבת זרע וכל בגד וכל עור אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע בגד ועור דכתב רחמנא בשרץ למה לי שמע מינה לאפנויי

Thus: raiment and skin are mentioned in connection with reptiles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואכתי מופנה מצד אחד הוא הניחא למאן דאמר מופנה מצד אחד למידין ואין משיבין אלא למאן דאמר למידין ומשיבין מאי איכא למימר

and also in connection with the dead:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 51. E.V. garment. ');">¹⁷</span>

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

just as the 'raiment and skin' which are mentioned in connection with reptiles, it [Scripture] declares unclean only that which is spun and woven, so the 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though an analogy between the two cannot be drawn, as shown, because the uncleanness of one is graver than that of the other, yet one can deduce equality of law through the gezerah shawah. ');">¹⁸</span>

(במדבר לא, נ) ונקרב את קרבן ה' איש אשר מצא כלי זהב אצעדה וצמיד טבעת עגיל וכומז א"ר אלעזר עגיל זה דפוס של דדין כומז זה דפוס של בית הרחם

and just as 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, anything made of goats' hair is unclean, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with reptiles, anything made of goats' hair is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Providing it is spun and woven. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רב יוסף אי הכי היינו דמתרגמינן מחוך דבר המביא לידי גיחוך אמר ליה רבה מגופיה דקרא ש"מ כומז כאן מקום זימה:

Now, I know it only of that which comes from goats: how do I know to include what is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow? Therefore it is stated, 'or sack'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Or' being an extension. ');">²⁰</span>

(במדבר לא, יד) ויקצוף משה על פקודי החיל אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר להן משה לישראל שמא חזרתם לקלקולכם הראשון אמרו לו לא נפקד ממנו איש אמר להן אם כן כפרה למה אמרו לו אם מידי עבירה יצאנו מידי הרהור לא יצאנו מיד ונקרב את קרבן ה'

(But you have utilized it in respect of a horse cover and saddle bands? — That was only before the <i>gezerah shawah</i> was adduced; but now that we have the <i>gezerah shawah</i>, it [sc. the 'or'] is superfluous.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the susceptibility of a horse cover and a saddle band to uncleanness follows from the gezerah shawah, on the same lines as before. ');">²¹</span>

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