Sotah 31

שילה נוב וגבעון ובית עולמים

[of the Tabernacle] in Shiloh, Nob, Gideon and the permanent Temple; Issi b. Menahem says: It is unnecessary [to include the permanent Temple];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Jerusalem. ');">¹</span>

איסי בן מנחם אומר אינו צריך ומה בטומאה קלה לא חלק הכתוב בטומאת אשת איש חמורה לא כ"ש א"כ מה ת"ל בקרקע המשכן שלא יביא מתוך קופתו

if in the case of a minor defile ment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., entrance into the Temple-precincts while ritually unclean. This is not an offence punished by a Court with death. ');">²</span>

איבעיא להו אין שם עפר מהו שיתן אפר אליבא דבית שמאי לא תיבעי לך דאמרי לא מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר

Scripture does not differentiate [between the temporary Tabernacle and the permanent Temple], in the case of the defilement of a married woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a capital crime. ');">³</span>

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דבית הלל דאמרי מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר מאי אע"ג דאיקרי עפר הכא בקרקע המשכן כתיב או דילמא האי בקרקע המשכן לכדאיסי בן יהודה ולכדאיסי בן מנחם הוא דאתי

how much more so [is it unnecessary to differentiate]. Why, then, does the text state 'on the floor of the tabernacle'? He may not take it from the midst of a heap.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must first be scattered on the floor. [In contradiction to the second Baraitha cited which permits the bringing in dust from elsewhere and putting it forthwith into the water]. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן משום ר' ישמעאל בשלשה מקומות הלכה עוקבת מקרא

The following question was asked: If there is no dust, how is it about putting ashes there? According to the view of Beth Shammai, the question does not arise because they said that we never find ashes called dust; but the question does arise according to the view of Beth Hillel because they said that we do find ashes called dust.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This matter, with reference to covering the blood after slaughter of an animal, is discussed in Hul. 88b. ');">⁵</span>

התורה אמרה (ויקרא יז, יג) בעפר והלכה בכל דבר התורה אמרה (במדבר ו, ה) בתער והלכה בכל דבר התורה אמרה (דברים כד, א) ספר והלכה בכל דבר

How is it then? Although the word 'dust' is used, it is here written 'on the floor of the tabernacle';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So it is impossible to think that ashes could be meant. ');">⁶</span>

ואם איתא ליחשוב נמי האי

perhaps, however, the phrase 'on the floor of the tabernacle' is intended to be understood according to the interpretation of Issi b. Judah and Issi b. Menahem?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If these words intend the inclusion of temporary Sanctuaries and the Temple, then 'dust' could here signify ashes. ');">⁷</span>

תנא ושייר ומאי שייר דהאי שייר שייר מצורע דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו כלל את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו פרט ואת כל שערו יגלח חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה פרט מפורש מקום כינוס שער ונראה אף כל מקום כינוס שער ונראה

— Come and hear: for R. Johanan said in the name of R. Ishmael: In three places the <i>halachah</i> crushes the Scriptural text under heel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., practice goes beyond the letter of the Torah. ');">⁸</span>

מה רבי רבי שיער הרגלים מאי מיעט מיעט דבית השחי ודכוליה גופיה

the Torah states with dust,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 13. ');">⁹</span>

והלכתא מגלח כדלעת דתנן בא לו להקיף את המצורע מעביר תער על כל בשרו וקתני סיפא וביום השביעי מגלחו תגלחת שניה כתגלחת ראשונה

whereas the <i>halachah</i> allows [the blood to be covered] with anything; the Torah states no razor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 5. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת מקרא הא עוקבת מדרבנן היא

whereas the legal decision is [that a Nazirite may not shave] with anything; the Torah states a book,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So literally, of a letter of divorcement (Deut. XXIV, I). ');">¹¹</span>

רב פפא אמר כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת ועוקרת הא עוקבת ומוספת היא

whereas the legal decision [allows] any [form of document]. Now if this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of ashes instead of dust. ');">¹²</span>

רב אשי אמר הא מתניתא מני רבי ישמעאל היא דדריש כללי ופרטי

is so, it should also have been enumerated! — He taught [some instances] and omitted others. What else, then, did he omit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [He would not in enumeration just stop short at one point.] ');">¹³</span> — He omitted [the shaving] of a leper;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the second act of shaving. The leper was shaved twice; see Lev. XIV, 8 and 9. ');">¹⁴</span> for it has been taught: And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all his hair — that is a generalization; off his head and his beard and his eyebrows — that is a particularization; even all his hair he shall shave off<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 9. ');">¹⁵</span> — that is again a generalization. Now [the rule of exegesis is]: when there is a general proposition, followed by the enumeration of particulars, and this is followed by a general proposition, include only that which resembles the particulars.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shebu (Sonc. ed.) p. 13, n. 3. ');">¹⁶</span> As the particulars refer to a part [of the body] where the hair grows and is visible, so every place where the hair grows and is visible [comes within the scope of the law]. What does it include? It includes the hair on the private part. What does it exclude? It excludes that of the arm-pit and the whole body [which is normally covered]. The <i>halachah</i>, however, is: he shaves himself as smooth as a gourd.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all over his body. ');">¹⁷</span> For we have learnt: When [the priest] comes to shave the leper, he passes a razor over all his flesh;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. XIV. 2. ');">¹⁸</span> and it continues,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 3. ');">¹⁹</span> On the seventh day he shaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is a reading of Rashi which is preferable to that of the cur. edd: 'on the seventh day he shall shave', as this is a quotation of Neg. XIV. 3.] ');">²⁰</span> the second shaving after the manner of the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Over all the body. ');">²¹</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [R. Johanan] enumerated instances where the <i>halachah</i> crushes the Scriptural text under heel; but here it crushes a Rabbinical teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A teaching derived from Rabbinic exegesis. MS.M. reads 'Midrash'; v. Chajes, Z.H. ntes.] ');">²²</span> under heel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore R. Johanan's list of three cases is complete. ');">²³</span> R. Papa said: [R. Johanan] enumerated instances where the <i>halachah</i> crushes the Scriptural text under heel and overthrows it; but here it crushes the text under heel and extends it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [By shaving the whole body the demands of the text are not set aside but extended.] ');">²⁴</span> R. Ashi said: According to whom is this teaching [that only the visible parts of the body are to be shaved]? It is R. Ishmael who expounds [the Torah] by the rule of generalization and particularization.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He elaborated thirteen rules of interpretation, and that quoted above is one of them. [And so according to R. Ishmael in whose name the above enumeration was reported by R. Johanan the list is complete]. ');">²⁵</span>