Talmud zu Meilah 4:7

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This⁴⁵⁵The statement in Mishnah 5 that “anything which cannot be preserved and one does not preserve its kind, if he took it out on the Sabbath only the one who preserves is obligated.” What is anything which cannot be preserved? has been said for idol worship. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct⁴⁵⁶While idols and their appurtenances also are forbidden for usufruct, the reasoning which would apply the Mishnah to idols applies to anything forbidden for usufruct.. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities⁴⁵⁷In his opinion, anything less than the amounts stated in the following Mishnaiot is not enough to be preserved; the Mishnah does not refer to any particular set of things.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount⁴⁵⁸Anybody who preserves something which generally is discarded makes it important for himself. Therefore for such a person the minimal amounts stated before do not apply but he is liable for taking out even the most minute amount as long as he preserves this amount by itself. This argument is possible only for R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan and conforms to R. Simeon’s position in Mishnah 8:1.. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period⁴⁶¹Mishnah Meˋilah 4:6. Mishnah 3 had stated that materials whose minimal sizes for impurity are different do not combine for impurity. Mishnah 6 states an exception, viz., that materials that may be used to make chairs or beds do combine; similarly to what was stated for the rules of the Sabbath combination material follows the rules of the material which requires a larger minimal amount.
Cloth becomes impure in general if it is at least (3 thumb-widths)² wide, but indirectly if a person who is a source of impurity sits on it (מִדְרָס) only by (3 hand-widths)². The minimal size of a piece of sack-cloth for impurity is (4 hand-widths)², for leather it is (5 hand-widths)², and for bast mats (6 hand-widths)². According to R. Simeon any of these materials if made specifically as a seat becomes impure in the size of (1 hand-width)²; for him the problem does not arise since he accepts impurity of combined material only for מִדְרָס..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive⁴⁶⁰In Mishnah 6, related items have different minimal amounts which trigger liability. Any material which has a smaller threshold is added to one which has a larger one to be counted with it but not vice versa. If a person carries grasses and straw together, the entire load follows the rules of straw since the latter requires the volume of a cow’s mouth whereas the former already is a load by the volume of a goat’s mouth which is smaller. Babli 76a.. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated⁴⁶¹Mishnah Meˋilah 4:6. Mishnah 3 had stated that materials whose minimal sizes for impurity are different do not combine for impurity. Mishnah 6 states an exception, viz., that materials that may be used to make chairs or beds do combine; similarly to what was stated for the rules of the Sabbath combination material follows the rules of the material which requires a larger minimal amount.
Cloth becomes impure in general if it is at least (3 thumb-widths)² wide, but indirectly if a person who is a source of impurity sits on it (מִדְרָס) only by (3 hand-widths)². The minimal size of a piece of sack-cloth for impurity is (4 hand-widths)², for leather it is (5 hand-widths)², and for bast mats (6 hand-widths)². According to R. Simeon any of these materials if made specifically as a seat becomes impure in the size of (1 hand-width)²; for him the problem does not arise since he accepts impurity of combined material only for מִדְרָס.: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק⁴⁶²The expression הֶסֶּק is essentially unexplained. At its first occurrence it was inserted by the corrector who wrote this word instead of the scribe’s שוחק “pulverizing”; at the other occurrences it is the scribe’s. Liebermann conjectures that one should read שַׁבָּת “the Sabbath”. This would make sense the first time but not in the following sentences. The related form הַסָּקָה “heating” (in the Yerushalmi, Pesaḥim 3:4 הסיקה; as verb later in Mishnah 12:1 להַסִּיק “to heat”) is derived from Aramaic סוק “to ascend, climb”; it means “to make rise (the flames)” and clearly is inappropriate here. Very tentatively I am proposing to translate הֵסֵק as “load” from Accadic asāqu, ašāqu “to load, distribute” Arabic وسقة “load”.? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק⁴⁶³This seems to be excluded by the Mishnah, which indicates varying loads.? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup⁴⁶⁴The meaning of this sentence is totally obscure.? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat⁴⁶⁵The minimum allowed for bone (Mishnah 8:6) is larger than that for meat. It would be possible to translate פיסתה as “slice of bread” but since both meat and bread are human food their minimum is the volume of a dried fig and therefore they combine.; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable⁴⁶⁶Even though it is questionable whether goats eat straw; Babli 76a (in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish).. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable⁴⁶⁷If the sick person is unable to eat the full volume of a dried fig. The amounts quoted in the Mishnah are fixed quantities.? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency⁴⁶⁸As the text stands it is a triviality and the reference to leniency is unexplained. The parallel in the Babli states that a cow’s mouthful of straw even if taken for a camel creates liability, a goat’s mouthful does not. But the Babli should not be used to interpret the Yerushalmi in the absence of supporting evidence.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig⁴⁶⁹This seems to refer to onion- and garlic leaves, where the volume of a dried fig is much too large when these are used as spices. Since onion and garlic leaves give taste in small quantities, their minimal amounts should be much smaller than indicated in the Mishnah. The Mishnah can refer only to onion or garlic as main dish.?

HALAKHAH: 7. “A potsherd (of any size) to put between one half brick,”121 etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may use it to sanctify; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Eleazar asked, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why may one not use it to sanctify? Because it is impervious to impurity ¹²²By definition, a vessel is a product of manufacture. Materials in their original state always are impervious to impurity (unless they are derived from animals). A first tentative opinion is that “vessel” is only a manufactured product susceptible to impurity.. But are not vessels made of cow dung, stone vessels, earthen vessels impervious to impurity and one may use them to sanctify¹²³Mishnah Parah 5:5.! But because it does not contain a quartarius¹²⁴Which everywhere is the minimum of a substantial volume of fluid.. But does not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree that one may sanctify using an arbitrarily small complete clay vessel? It is that the only reason is that it does not have the appellation “vessel”¹²⁵Which is required by the verse and, therefore, cannot be dispensed with.. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan. It is not enough to disqualify the body¹²⁶Mishnah Meˋilah 4:5 states that ingesting a quartarius of impure fluid disqualifies a body from any activity requiring purity. It is difficult to see why this should be relevant to the topic at hand. S. Liebermann, following Noˋam Yerushalaim of R. Joshua Eizik of Slonim, suggests to change “body” into “miqweh”. The argument for this is that a miqweh may not be filled with water drawn by a vessel; in this context a “clay vessel” is defined by Mishnah Miqwa’ot 4:3 as one which may contain a minimum volume of one quartarius. but one may use it to sanctify? But this follows Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said, also the most minute amount of clay vessel¹²⁷In Mishnah Miqwa’ot 4:3 he states that a clay vessel of any size is a “vessel”; the criterion of one quartarius applies only to potsherds..” Did not Rebbi Yose say this only for a complete one, and do we not deal here with a broken one? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated¹²⁸Tosephta Kelim Bava qamma 7:17. supports Rebbi Joḥanan; what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai¹²⁹This baraita has not come down to us. stated supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.