תלמוד על פרה 5:11

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals⁵³The first opinion is the teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishnah, the second is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Šabbat 83a.. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances⁵⁴The full text of Is. 30:22, which is the base of R. Aqiba’s argument, reads: You will defile the cover of your silver statues and the clothing of your golden casts; you shall throw it away like feeling miserable, you shall call it excrement. Therefore the reference of “feeling miserable”, which is the description of a female period, refers to appurtenances only. The second version of the position of R. Aqiba seems untenable.? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself⁵⁵The statue and its ornamental vestments were two separate objects of worship. Either explanation is possible., similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod⁵⁶Jud. 8:27.. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal⁵⁷Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:8. Since this sentence in the Mishnah precedes the statement of R. Aqiba who imposes the impurity of niddah also on the stones which form the shell of the house of worship but are not the object of worship.”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”⁵⁸Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:9. Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated?? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden⁵⁹Rav answers that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a.. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it⁶⁰One compares the rules concerning a pagan temple with those of a house dedicated to the Temple (Lev. 27:14–15). Improper use of dedicated things is larceny which must be expiated by a sacrifice and payment of a fine, (Lev. 5:14–16). Just as real estate cannot become forbidden by idolatry, larceny by improper use of dedicated objects does not apply to real estate. If a house is considered real estate, it cannot become forbidden by worship, and its improper use while in the possession of the Temple cannot trigger a fine for larceny. If it is not considered real estate since the building materials were movables before being used, but it can become forbidden and improper use can trigger the fine.? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.⁶¹Mishnah Parah 5:7. The ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify a person from the impurity of the dead, must be strewn on flowing water in a vessel (Num. 19:17). A vessel is movable; therefore a trough hewn into the rock is not a vessel. The water flowing from the source into the trough becomes standing water. Therefore it may be used neither (1) to fill a vessel for the ashes, nor (2) to put some ashes in the water, “to sanctify it”, nor (3) to sprinkle the water on impure persons to purify them.
In addition, a corpse in a “tent” makes everything in the tent impure including the contents of vessels whose cover is not tightly fastened (Num. 19:15). Since the trough is not a vessel, if it is under one roof with a corpse it only needs to be covered but the cover does not have to be fastened.
A miqweh (ritual bath) has to contain 40 seah of water. It becomes invalid if 3 log (⅛ seah) of water from a vessel is poured into it before it has reached the level of 40 seah. If the trough is not a vessel, its water cannot invalidate the miqweh. On the other hand, if the trough was a vessel before it was fastened in the rock, it can be used for the ashes of the red cow, and its water will disqualify the miqweh.
Since a house was not a vessel before being connected to the ground, it should be considered real estate and not be subject to prohibition because of worship.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it⁶²A vessel which is permanently fixed to the ground remains a vessel and can become forbidden.. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it⁶³A piece of loose rock which was cemented to the ground and then a trough was hewn from it does not become a vessel. Then why should a house become forbidden by being worshipped since it becomes a house only after being connected to the ground?. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them⁶⁴It is true that a finished house not built as a temple cannot become forbidden. But if the finished stones for a stone building were worshipped before being cemented in the house they already are forbidden and do not become permitted by use as building blocks.. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody⁶⁵The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”⁶⁶Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:10.? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them⁶⁷Then each individual stone remains forbidden; there is no contradiction to the Mishnah.. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted⁶⁸Babli Meˋilah 20a.. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden⁵⁹Rav answers that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a., a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera⁶⁹This refers to a holy tree which is worshipped as Ashera (Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:11) but no idol is found buried under it. Then as connected to the ground it should not be part of the real estate and not be forbidden. It becomes permanently forbidden only if it was planted as a holy shoot.”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

Hollowed squash as we have stated¹⁶⁵Mishnah Parah 5:3. “Sanctify” means to put some of the ashes of the Red Cow into the water to use it to purify from the impurity of the dead. This water has to be taken from flowing water (Num. 19:17). Since the squash, used as a pot, will absorb of this water, immediately after it has been immersed in flowing water it might be used in the ceremony, but later the water retained in its walls will invalidate new water drawn by the hollowed squash. In the Mishnah, R. Joshua argues that if at the start the squash was acceptable it always should be acceptable, if later it is not acceptable neither should it be at the start (since the point in time when it becomes unacceptable is not well defined.): “A hollowed squash which one immersed in water is suitable for sanctification, and one uses it to sanctify until it becomes impure. Once it is impure one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Joshua says, if one uses it to sanctify at the start then also at the end. If one does not use at the end then also not at the start.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end.

Costos as we have stated⁶¹Mishnah Uqeṣin 3:5. תנן is Babylonian Aramaic. Costos,-i, f., Greek κόστος, an Oriental aromatic plant., “costos, and cardamon, and important spices⁶²Money dedicated as Second Tithe which may be spent only on pure food or drink in Jerusalem. may be bought with tithe money⁶³The Mishnah is stated as an argument, not as a statement, to permit in practice to accept each argument even though this results in two mutually contradictory restrictions. but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive⁶⁴Mishnah Parah 5:3. “Sanctify” means to put some of the ashes of the Red Cow into the water to use it to purify from the impurity of the dead. This water has to be taken from flowing water (Num. 19:17). Since the squash, used as a pot, will absorb of this water, immediately after it has been immersed in flowing water it might be used in the ceremony, but later the water retained in its walls will invalidate new water drawn by the hollowed squash. In the Mishnah, R. Joshua argues that if at the start the squash was acceptable it always should be acceptable, if later it is not acceptable neither should it be at the start (since the point in time when it becomes unacceptable is not well defined.): they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money.

²⁰⁴At some places, this paragraph has been shortened from the text in Šabbat to the extent as to become unintelligible without recourse to that text. There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals²⁰⁵The first opinion is the teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishnah, the second is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Šabbat 83a.. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances²⁰⁶The full text of Is. 30:22 (quoted in Šabbat) which is the base of R. Aqiba’s argument reads: You will defile the cover of your silver statues and the clothing of your golden casts; you shall throw it away like feeling miserable, you shall call it excrement. Therefore the reference of “feeling miserable” which is the description of a female period refers to appurtenances only. The second version of the position of R. Aqiba seems untenable.? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod²⁰⁷The formulation in Šabbat is better: R. Jacob said (as an alternative explanation) that the statue and its ornamental vest were two separate objects of worship. Either explanation is possible.. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.²⁰⁸Since this sentence in the Mishnah precedes the statement of R. Aqiba, it is implied that R. Aqiba disagrees and imposes the impurity of niddah also on the stones which form the shell of the house of worship but are not the object of worship.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden²⁰⁹A comparison with the text in Šabbat shows that the sentence has to be split in two. First it is stated that the house will be strictly impure if it was worshipped. Then a question is missing, quoting the following Mishnah 9: Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated? On this Rav says that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a.. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden²¹⁰In Šabbat one reads: “R. Zeˋura, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan, if one dedicates his house one commits larceny with it.” The reading here is confirmed by Halakhah 9.
One compares the rules concerning a pagan temple with those of a house dedicated to the Temple (Lev. 27:14–15). Improper use of dedicated things is larceny which must be expiated by a sacrifice and payment of a fine, (Lev. 5:14–16). Just as real estate cannot become forbidden by idolatry, larceny by improper use of dedicated objects does not apply to real estate. If a house is considered real estate, it cannot become forbidden by worship, and its improper use while in the possession of the Temple cannot trigger a fine for larceny. If it is not considered real estate since the building materials were movables before being used, it can become forbidden and improper use can trigger the fine.? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.²¹¹Mishnah Parah 5:7. The ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify a person from the impurity of the dead, must be strewn on “flowing water in a vessel” (Num. 19:17). A vessel is movable; therefore a trough hewn into the rock is not a vessel. The water flowing from the source into the trough becomes standing water. Therefore it may be used neither (1) to fill a vessel for the ashes, nor (2) to put some ashes in the water, “to sanctify it”, nor (3) to sprinkle the water on impure persons to purify them.
In addition, a corpse in a “tent” makes everything in the tent impure including the contents of vessels whose cover is not tightly fastened (Num. 19:15). Since the trough is no vessel, if it is under one roof with a corpse it only needs to be covered but the cover does not have to be fastened.
A miqweh (ritual bath) has to contain 40 seah of water. It becomes invalid if 3 log (⅛ seah) of water from a vessel is poured into it. If the trough is not a vessel, its water cannot invalidate the miqweh. On the other hand, if the trough was a vessel before it was fastened in the rock, it can be used for the ashes of the red cow, and its water will disqualify the miqweh.
Since a house was not a vessel before being connected to the ground, it should be considered real estate and not be subject to prohibition because of worship.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it²¹²A vessel which is permanently fixed to the ground remains a vessel and can become forbidden.. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it²¹³A piece of loose rock which was cemented to the ground and then a trough was hewn from it does not become a vessel. Then why should a house become forbidden by being worshipped since it becomes a house only after being connected to the ground?? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them²¹⁴It is true that a finished house not built as a temple cannot become forbidden. But if the finished stones for a stone building were worshipped before being cemented in the house they already are forbidden and do not become permitted by use as building blocks.. Does this²¹⁵. The Mishnah which subjects the building material of the collapsed wall to the rules of idolatry. Babli Meˋilah 20a. not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody²¹⁶The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them²¹⁷Then each individual stone remains forbidden; there is no contradiction to Mishnah 10.. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody²¹⁶The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it²¹⁸This refers to a holy tree which is worshipped as Ashera (Mishnah 11) but where no idol is found buried under it. Then as connected to the ground it should not be part of the real estate and not be forbidden. It becomes permanently forbidden only if it was planted as a holy shoot..

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “Three things a person has to say in his house,” etc. ²¹⁸Babli 32a, Tosephta 2:10. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the practices of sancta, and purifying waters, and preparations for impurity, are of the most important practices and all three have been handed over to the vulgar. The practices of sancta, as we have stated²¹⁹Mishnah Ḥagigah 3:4. A vulgar person is a person who is not careful to keep the laws of purity in his daily life and to be punctilious in observing the laws of tithes (cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay, pp. 349–350). The Mishnah states that if a vulgar gives heave from his wine making (which everybody is assumed to do) the Cohen who is a Fellow, punctilious in all these rules, may accept the heave as pure only at grape-pressing time. But if the vulgar tells him that part of the juice is dedicated as libation offering in the Temple, the Cohen may accept it all year long since the vulgar will strictly follow all rules of purity connected with the Temple.: “If he said, I separated into it a quartarius of sanctum, he must be believed.” Purifying waters, as we have stated²²⁰Mishnah Parah 5:1. Water used for the purification rite with the ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19) must be treated following very strict rules. Nevertheless any vulgar can be trusted in this matter since the purification rite is needed before a visit to the Temple.: “Everybody is trustworthy about purifying water.” Preparations for impurity, as we have stated²²¹Food can become impure only if it is “prepared” for impurity by intentional contact with water (cf. Demay 2:3 Note 141, Terumot 1:1 Notes 7,9, Niddah 2:6 Notes 98–100). Since the vulgar person is impure, if he asserts that something of his is pure it means that it is impervious to impurity.: “About all these the vulgar is trustworthy to say that they are pure.”It should have been necessary²²²Making a fire on the Sabbath is a biblical Sabbath violation; giving tithe and making an eruv at twilight are only rabbinical violations. It should have been necessary to first make sure that no biblical violation occurs; cf. the next paragraph.: Kindle the light, did you give tithe, did you make an eruv, kindle²²³This last word should be deleted with G.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba²²⁴In G: R. Ḥiyya bar Ada. It is impossible to decide which reading is correct. said, since you are strict with him for the easier rules he will be strict with himself with the weighty one. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac commanded his house, did you make an eruv, did you kindle the light? Why did he not say, did you give tithe? Because all he ate, he ate from the market²²⁵He was of Babylonian origin and never acquired land in Galilee. Since he bought his food only from trustworthy suppliers he never had to tithe anything (Demay2:2 Note 126)..

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.