Shabbat 56

אתיא בק"ו מנוצה של עזים שאין מטמא בנגעים מטמא באהל המת עור בהמה טמאה שמטמאה בנגעים אינו דין שמטמאה באהל המת

it is inferred a minori from goats' hair, which is not defiled by leprosy, yet is defiled by overshadowing the dead; then the skin of an unclean animal, which is defiled by leprosy, is surely defiled by overshadowing the dead. Then when R. Joseph recited, 'For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was considered fit,' for what practical law [did he say it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a mere historical fact it is of no importance. Hence what is its purpose, seeing that it does not teach that the skin of an unclean animal is not defiled by overshadowing the dead, as one wished to deduce supra a? ');">¹</span>

ואלא הא דתני רב יוסף לא הוכשרו במלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד למאי הלכתא לתפילין תפילין בהדיא כתיב בהו (שמות יג, ט) למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך מן המותר בפיך

— In respect of phylacteries.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the parchment of these must be made of the skin of a clean animal. ');">²</span> Of phylacteries it is explicitly stated, that the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 9; the reference is to tefillin (v. Glos.). ');">³</span>

אלא לעורן והאמר אביי שי"ן של תפילין הל"מ

[meaning] of that which is permitted in thy mouth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 118, n. 2 (on explicitness). ');">⁴</span> Rather in respect of their hide.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The leather of the capsules in which the parchment is placed. This cannot be deduced from the verse quoted, for 'the law of the Lord' was not written upon them. ');">⁵</span>

אלא לכורכן בשערן ולתופרן בגידן הא נמי הל"מ הוא דתניא תפילין מרובעות הל"מ נכרכו' בשערן ונתפרות בגידן

But Abaye said, The skin of phylacteries is a law of Moses from Sinai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter shin (a) is stamped out of the leather itself at the side of the capsule. This is part of the Name Shaddai ([H]) and therefore comes within the meaning of 'the law of the Lord'. — With respect to the meaning of 'a law of Moses from Sinai', some take it literally: this was handed down direct from Moses; others understand it in a more figurative sense: it is traditional, but its exact origin is unknown, and hence ascribed to Moses, who in general is the source of Jewish law. V. Weiss, Dor, I, 71 seq. ');">⁶</span> — Rather, it is in respect of tying it with hair and sewing it with its tendons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The parchment within the phylacteries, on which Biblical passages are written, is rolled up and tied round with animal hair. The receptacles themselves are sewn together with the tendons of animals. Both must be from clean animals. ');">⁷</span>

אלא לרצועו' והא"ר יצחק רצועות שחורות הל"מ נהי דגמירי שחורות טהורות מי גמירי

But that is a law of Moses from Sinai. For it was taught: Rectangular phylacteries<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the faces of the capsules must be rectangular in shape, the whole forming a cube. ');">⁸</span> are a law of Moses from Sinal: they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their tendons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Their' meaning of the same animal or species which furnishes the parchment and the leather. Thus they must be all of a clean animal and this is a traditional law. ');">⁹</span>

מאי הוי עלה דתחש שהיה בימי משה א"ר אלעא אמר רשב"ל אומר היה ר"מ תחש שהיה בימי משה בריה בפני עצמה היה ולא הכריעו בה חכמים אם מין חיה הוא אם מין בהמה הוא וקרן אחת היתה לו במצחו ולפי שעה נזדמן לו למשה ועשה ממנו משכן ונגנז

— Rather it is in respect of their straps.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These must be of the skin of a clean animal. ');">¹⁰</span> But R. Isaac said, Black straps are a law of Moses from Sinai? Granted that black is traditional, is clean traditional?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is there a tradition that they must be of the skin of a clean animal? Surely not! Hence R. Joseph's teaching is necessary. ');">¹¹</span>

מדקאמר קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו ש"מ טהור היה דא"ר יהודה שור שהקריב אדם הראשון קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו שנאמר (תהלים סט, לב) ותיטב לה' משור פר מקרין מפריס מקרין תרתי משמע אמר ר"נ בר יצחק מקרן כתיב וליפשוט מיניה דמין בהמה הוא כיון דאיכא קרש דמין חיה הוא ולית ליה אלא חדא קרן איכא למימר מין חיה הוא:

What is our conclusion with respect to the tahash which existed in Moses' days? — Said R. Elai in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, R. Meir used to maintain, The tahash of Moses' day was a separate species, and the Sages could not decide whether it belonged to the genus of wild beasts or to the genus of domestic animals; and it bad one horn in its forehead, and it came to Moses' hand [providentially] just for the occasion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'garment'. ');">¹²</span> and he made the [covering of the] Tabernacle, and then it was hidden. Now, since he says that it had one horn in its forehead, it follows that it was clean. For R. Judah said, The ox which Adam the first [man] sacrificed had one horn in its forehead, for it is said, and it shall please the Lord better than an ox, or a bullock that hath a horn [sic] and hoofs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXIX, 32. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> פתילת הבגד שקיפלה ולא הבהבה ר"א אומר טמאה היא ואין מדליקין בה רע"א טהורה היא ומדליקין בה:

But makrin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E. V. 'that hath horns.' ');">¹⁴</span> implies two? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Mi-keren<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Than a horn, ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא לענין טומאה בהא פליגי דר"א סבר קיפול אינו מועיל ובמילתיה קמייתא קיימא ור"ע סבר קיפול מועיל ובטולי בטיל

is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., [H] which is normally punctuated [H] (mi-keren), but here [H] makrin. On the identification of this ox with that sacrificed by Adam v. A.Z. 8a. ');">¹⁶</span> Then let us solve thence that it was a genus of domestic animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., an ox or bullock. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא לענין הדלק' במאי פליגי א"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא וכן א"ר אדא בר אהבה הכא בג' על ג' מצומצמות עסקינן ובי"ט שחל להיות ע"ש עסקינן דכ"ע אית להו דר' יהודה דאמר מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים ודכ"ע אית להו דעולא דאמר עולא המדליק צריך שידליק ברוב היוצא ר"א סבר קיפול אינו מועיל וכיון דאדליק ביה פורתא הויא ליה שבר כלי וכי קא מדליק בשבר כלי קמדליק ור"ע סבר קיפול מועיל ואין תורת כלי עליו וכי קמדליק בעץ בעלמא קמדליק.

— Since there is the keresh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast.: a kind of antelope, unicorn. ');">¹⁸</span> which is a species of beast, and it has only one horn, one can say that it [the tahash] is a kind of wild beast.

אמר רב יוסף היינו דתנינא ג' על ג' מצומצמות ולא ידענא למאי הלכתא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH WHICH WAS TWISTED BUT NOT SINGED, — R. ELIEZER SAID: IT IS UNCLEAN, AND ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH; R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: IT IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY LIGHT THEREWITH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasons are discussed in the Gemara, ');">¹⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. As for the matter of uncleanness, it is well, [for] they differ in this: R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no effect, and it remains in its previous condition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A rag, being part of a garment, is liable to become unclean, a wick does not become unclean. R. Eliezer holds that mere twisting without singeing-this was done to facilitate the lighting-does not make it a wick, and therefore it is still subject to uncleanness. ');">²⁰</span>

ומדקא מתרץ רב אדא בר אהבה אליבא דר' יהודה ש"מ כר"י ס"ל ומי א"ר אדא בר אהבה הכי והא"ר אדא בר אהבה

while R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it [its previous condition] is indeed annulled. But with reference to lighting, wherein do they differ? — R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name, and R. Adda b. Ahabah said likewise: The reference here is to [a rag] exactly three [fingerbreadths] square;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the smallest size liable to defilement (supra 26b); in that sense it is regarded as a whole garment (or utensil). ');">²¹</span> and also to a Festival falling on the eve of the Sabbath. Now, all agree with R. Judah, who maintained, One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Festivals. A whole utensil may be handled on Festivals, and therefore it may be taken for burning. But if a utensil is broken on the Festival so that it can now be used as fuel only, it is regarded as a thing newly-created (nolad v. Glos.)-i.e., a new use for it has just been created-and such may not be handled on Festivals. ');">²²</span> Further, all agree with 'Ulla's dictum, viz.: He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes. R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no avail, and immediately one kindles it slightly it becomes a broken utensil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was the minimum size originally. ');">²³</span> and when he goes on kindling it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until the greater part is alight. ');">²⁴</span> he kindles a broken utensil. But R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it does not bear the character of a utensil, and therefore when he kindles, he kindles a mere piece of wood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this twisted rag is just like a piece of wood, ');">²⁵</span> R. Joseph observed: This is what I learnt, exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, but did not know in reference to what law. Now, since R. Adda b. Ahabah explains it in accordance with R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That nolad (v. n. 3) is forbidden. ');">²⁶</span> it follows that he himself holds as R. Judah. Yet did R. Adda b. Ahabah say thus? Surely R. Adda b. Ahabah said: