Shabbat 166

כרעו הן טהורין כמאן אזלא הא דתניא כל הטמאות המסיטות טהורות חוץ מהיסטו של זב שלא מצינו לו חבר בכל התורה כולה לימא דלא כרבי עקיבא דאי כרבי עקיבא איכא נמי ע"ז אפילו תימא ר' עקיבא תנא זב וכל דדמי ליה

if they out weigh [him], they are clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they bear the zab, and only articles which are fit for lying or sitting upon, or human beings, are unclean in such a case. ');">¹</span> With whom does that which was taught agree, [viz.,]: [As for] all unclean things which move [others], they [the things moved] are clean, save [in the case of] moving by a <i>zab</i>, for which no analogy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'companion'. ');">²</span> is found in the whole Torah. Shall we say that this is not according to R. Akiba, for if according to R. Akiba, there is an idol too? — You may even say that it agrees with R. Akiba: He states <i>zab</i> and all that is like thereto.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes an idol, since R. Akiba deduces an idol's power to contaminate from a niddah, who is akin to a zab. ');">³</span>

בעי רב חמא בר גוריא ע"ז ישנה לאברים או אינה לאברים היכא דהדיוט יכול להחזירה לא תיבעי לך דכמאן דמחברת דמי כי תיבעי לך היכא דאין הדיוט יכול להחזירה מאי כיון דאין הדיוט יכול להחזירה כמאן דמתברא דמי או דילמא הא לא מחסרה ואיכא דבעי לה להך גיסא היכא דאין הדיוט יכול להחזירה לא תיבעי לך דכמאן דמתברא דמי כי תבעי לך היכא דהדיוט יכול להחזירה מאי כיון דהדיוט יכול להחזירה כמאן דמחברא דמי או דילמא השתא מיהא קשלפה ושריא תיקו

R. Hama b. Guria asked: Does the law of an idol operate in respect to its limbs or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 82b. ');">⁴</span> Now, where an unskilled person can replace it [the limb in the idol], there is no question, for it is as though [already] joined [thereto]. When does the question arise? If an unskilled person cannot replace it, what [then]? Since an unskilled person cannot replace it, it is as broken;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore does not defile. ');">⁵</span> or perhaps it is actually not defective?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the parts are there, even if not assembled; hence each part should defile. ');">⁶</span>

בעי רב אחדבוי בר אמי ע"ז פחותה מכזית מהו מתקיף לה רב יוסף למאי אילימא לענין איסורא לא יהא אלא זבוב בעל עקרון דתניא (שופטים ח, לג) וישימו (להן) בעל ברית לאלהים זה זבוב בעל עקרון מלמד שכל אחד ואחד עשה דמות יראתו ומניחה בתוך כיסו כיון שזוכרה מוציאה מתוך כיסו ומחבקה ומנשקה אלא לענין טומאה מאי כיון דאיתקיש לשרץ מה שרץ בכעדשה אף ע"ז נמי בכעדשה או דילמא הא איתקיש למת מה מת בכזית אף ע"ז בכזית

Some there are who put the question in the reverse direction: Where an unskilled person cannot replace it, there is no question, for it is as broken. When does the question is if an unskilled person can replace it: what [then]? Since an unskilled person can replace it, it is as though [already] joined [thereto]; or perhaps now it is nevertheless disjoined and loose [separate]? — The question stands over. R. Ahedbuy b. Ammi asked: What of an idol less than an olive in size? R. Joseph demurred to this: In respect of what [does he ask]? Shall we say, in respect of the interdict?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may not benefit in any way from an idol. ');">⁷</span> — let it be no more than the fly [zebub] of Baal Ekron,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Phoenician idol; cf. II Kings I, 2. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב אויא ואיתימא רבה בר עולא ת"ש דתניא ע"ז פחותה מכזית אין בה טומאה כל עיקר שנאמר (מלכים ב כג, ו) וישלך את עפרה (אל) קבר בני העם מה מת בכזית אף ע"ז בכזית

for it was taught: And they made Baal-berith their God:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judg. VIII, 34. ');">⁹</span> this refers to the fly-god of Baal Ekron. It teaches that everyone made a likeness of his idol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fear'. ');">¹⁰</span> and put it in his bag: whenever he thought of it he took it out of his bag and embraced and kissed it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that it is the same as any other idol, and benefit thereof is certainly forbidden. ');">¹¹</span>

ורבנן למאי הלכתא איתקש לשרץ דלא מטמא במשא לנדה דאינה לאברין למת דלא מטמא בכעדשה אימא לחומרא למאי הלכתא אקשה רחמנא לשרץ לטמויי בכעדשה לנדה לטמויי באבן מסמא אקשה רחמנא למת לטמויי באהל טומאת עבודה זרה דרבנן היא וקולא וחומרא לקולא מקשינן לחומרא לא מקשינן:

But [the question is] in respect of uncleanness: what [is the law]? since it is assimilated to sherez<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 82b. ');">¹²</span> then just as sherez [defiles] by the size of a lentil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Less than the size of an olive. ');">¹³</span> so an idol too [defiles] by the size of a lentil; or perhaps it is [also] likened to a corpse:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fear'. ');">¹⁰</span>

מתני' מנין לספינה שהיא טהורה שנאמר (משלי ל, יט) דרך אניה בלב ים:

just as a corpse [defiles] by the size of an olive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the least portion of a corpse which defiles. ');">¹⁴</span> so does an idol [defile] by the size of an olive? — Said R. Awia — others state, Rabbah b. 'Ulla-Come and hear: For it was taught: An idol less than an olive in size has no uncleanness at all, for it is said, And he cast the powder thereof [sc. of the idol] upon the graves of the children of the people:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Kings XXIII, 6. ');">¹⁵</span> just as a corpse [defiles] by the size of an olive, so does an idol [defile] by the size of an olive.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פשיטא אניה בלב ים היא הא קמ"ל כים מה ים טהור אף ספינה טהורה תניא חנניה אומר נלמדה משק מה שק מיטלטל מלא וריקן אף כל מיטלטל מלא וריקן לאפוקי ספינה דאינה מיטלטלת מלא וריקן

Now, according to the Rabbis, in respect of what law is it [an idol] likened to sherez? — that it does not defile by carriage; to a <i>niddah</i>? — that it is not [a source of contamination] through its [separate] limbs; [and] to a corpse? — that it does not defile by the size of a lentil!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 82b. ');">¹⁶</span> [Why?] Interpret it rather stringently: In respect of what law does the Divine Law liken it to a sherez? that it defiles by the size of a lentil; to a <i>niddah</i>? that it defiles through a cavity-closing stone; [while] the Divine Law assimilates it to a corpse, [teaching] that it defiles under the law of a covering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 69, n. 7. ');">¹⁷</span> The uncleanness of an idol is [only] by Rabbinical law: [consequently,] where there are lenient and stringent [analogies], we draw a lenient analogy, but do not draw a stringent analogy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the verses quoted above as intimating the uncleanness of an idol are only supports (asmakta), but not the actual source of the law. Cf. Halevy, Doroth, 1, 5, ch. 8, pp. 470 seqq. ');">¹⁸</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו ספינה של חרס מאן דאמר אניה בלב ים הא נמי בלב ים היא למ"ד כשק הנך (היא) דכתיבי גבי שק דאי מיטלטלת מלא וריקן אין אי לא לא אבל ספינה של חרס אע"ג דאינה מיטלטלת מלא וריקן

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. How DO WE KNOW THAT A SHIP IS CLEAN?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it cannot become unclean. ');">¹⁹</span> BECAUSE IT IS SAID, THE WAY OF A SHIP IN THE MIDST OF THE SEA.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXX, 19. ');">²⁰</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Now, it is obvious that a ship is in the midst of the sea, but we are informed this: just as the sea is clean, so is a ship clean. It was taught: Hananiah said: We learn it from a sack:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ship is a wooden vessel, and only those wooden vessels which are like a sack can become unclean, since they are assimilated to a sack in Lev. XI, 32. ');">²¹</span>

אי נמי ספינת הירדן למ"ד אניה בלב ים היא הא נמי אניה בלב ים היא למ"ד מיטלטלת מלא וריקן הא נמי מיטלטלת מלא וריקן דא"ר חנינא בן עקביא מפני מה אמרו ספינת הירדן טמאה מפני שטוענים אותה ביבשה ומורידין אותה למים א"ר יהודה אמר רב לעולם אל ימנע אדם את עצמו מבית המדרש ואפי' שעה אחת שהרי כמה שנים נשנית משנה זו בבית המדרש ולא נתגלה טעמה עד שבא רבי חנינא בן עקביא ופירשה

just as a sack can be carried both full and empty, so must everything [which is to be susceptible to defilement] be possible to be carried both full and empty, thus excluding a ship, seeing that it cannot be carried full and empty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By 'carried' is meant actually as one carries a sack. ');">²²</span> Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect to an earthen ship: he who quotes, 'a ship in the midst of the sea', [holds that] this too is in the midst of the sea. But as for him who maintains that it must be like a sack: only those [vessels] that are mentioned in conjunction with a sack<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XI, 32. ');">²³</span> if they can be carried full and empty, are [susceptible to uncleanness], if not, they are not [susceptible]; but an earthen ship, even if it cannot be carried full and empty, [is still susceptible to defilement]. Alternatively, [they differ in respect to] a boat of the Jordan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the rapid course of the Jordan the boats that plied on it were of canoe-like structure, which could be taken up and carried over the unnavigable stretches. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רבי יונתן לעולם אל ימנע אדם את עצמו מבית המדרש ומדברי תורה ואפי' בשעת מיתה שנא' (במדבר יט, יד) זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל אפי' בשעת מיתה תהא עוסק בתורה אמר ר"ל אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה שנאמר זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל אמר רבא

he who quotes, 'a ship in the midst of the sea', [holds that] this too is a ship in the midst of the sea;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all rivers are the same, not susceptible to defilement. ');">²⁵</span> but as for him who requires that it be carried full and empty, this too is carried full and empty, for R. Hanina b. Akiba said: Why was it ruled that a Jordan boat is unclean? Because it is loaded on dry land and [then] lowered into the water. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One should never abstain from [attendance at] the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i> even for a single hour, for lo! how many years was this Mishnah learnt in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i> without its reason being revealed, until R. Hanina b. Akiba came and elucidated it. R. Jonathan said: One should never abstain from the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i> and from Torah, even in the hour of death, for it is said, This is the Torah, when a man dieth in a tent:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 14. ');">²⁶</span> even in the hour of death one should be engaged in [the study of] the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the face of the boundless love for the Torah displayed by this dictum, the criticism of Rabbinism as a dry, legalistic system is seen to be shallow and superficial. No system which does not appeal to the warm-hearted emotions could call forth such love. ');">²⁷</span> Resh Lakish said: The words of the Torah can endure only with him who sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'kills'. ');">²⁸</span> himself for it, as it is said, This is the Torah, when a man dieth in a tent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this Torah can live only when a man is prepared to die for it-an interpretation that has been historically justified. ');">²⁹</span> Raba said: