Commento su 'Eduyyot 6:5

רבי יהודה בן בבא העיד. שממאנים את הקטנות – such as the case of two brothers who are married to two orphan sisters, one older and one younger. The husband of the older one died and she is now found in need of a levir, the husband of the younger, and we override her interdependence of a childless widow [the younger] and her late husband’s brother, the levirate relation, and prohibit her upon him for the marriage of the younger woman is seen as valueless. We teach the younger woman that she should refuse him for the her refusal uproots her first marriage, and then he is permitted to marry the older wife of the brother who died without issue, and similarly if there is another, in a similar manner, in Tractate Yevamot, Chapter “The House of Shammai” (Chapter 13, Mishnah 7).

Introduction Chapter six returns to the main style of Mishnah Eduyoth, the recording of traditions transmitted by individual Sages. In the first mishnah Rabbi Judah ben Bava testifies with regards to five things.

ומשיאין את האשה – whose husband went to abroad and only one witnesses came and said trhat he died, we allow her to [re]marry on his word.

Rabbi Judah ben Bava testified concerning five things:
That women who are minors are made to declare an annulment of their marriage; Only a father has the right to marry off his daughter while she is a minor (under 12 ½) and have the marriage considered Biblically valid. If the father is not alive, the mother or brother can marry off the daughter while she is a minor, but the marriage is only Rabbinically valid. Being so, she has a right to refuse the marriage when she reaches majority. If she does so the marriage is annulled and is considered as having never been. This refusal is called “meun”. Occasionally, if it was in the best interests of all parties, the Rabbis instructed the daughter to refuse the marriage. Such an occasion could occur in the following instance. Two brothers, Reuven and Shimon, were married to two sisters who had no father, Leah who was of majority age and therefore arranged her own marriage (her marriage is Biblically valid) and Rachel, whose marriage was arranged by her mother or brother (her marriage is only Rabbinically valid). If Leah’s husband, Reuven, dies she must have levirate marriage with Shimon, Rachel’s husband. The problem is that Rachel’s marriage to Shimon is now impossible because Leah’s tie to Shimon which is Biblical, supersedes Rachel’s marriage which is only Rabbinic. In order to allow Leah to have levirate marriage with Shimon, the Rabbis teach Rachel to refuse their marriage, thereby annulling it.

ושנסקל תרנגול שהרג את הנפש – that perorated the brain of a baby and even though it is written (Exodus 22:28): “When an ox gores [a man or a woman...],” both an ox and cattle, beasts and birds are included, for every place where it says, “ox,” we learn (Deuteronomy 5:14): “[but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; you shall not do any work] – you, your son, or your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox or your ass, or any of your cattle…” from [the law of] Shabbat. Just as further on, the same law applies to all cattle, beasts and birds, even here the same law applies to all cattle, beasts and birds.

That a woman is allowed to re-marry on the evidence of one witness; According to the Torah, proper testimony requires at least two witnesses. However, one exception to this rule is the case of a woman whose husband may have died. If she cannot ascertain his death, she cannot remarry, which will leave her an “agunah” a woman who cannot marry. In order to prevent this difficult situation for the widow the Rabbis were lenient and allowed testimony based on only one witness.

ועל יין בן ארבעים יום – but prior to this, it is invalid, for it is wine from its vat.

That a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a human being; According to Exodus 21:28 an ox that kills a human is to be stoned. Rabbi Judah ben Bava extends this law to include any animal that kills a human, even one as unlikely to do so as a rooster. (See Bava Kamma 5:7).

שקרב בארבע שעות – that one time during the days of the Grecian kingdom, they did not have lambs to sacrifice the daily whole burnt offering until the Holy One, blessed be He enlightened their eyes and they found two lambs which passed examination in the chamber of the lambs, and they offered the daily whole burnt offering of the morning at the fourth hour of the day.

And about wine forty days old, that it was used as a libation on the altar; New wine is not as good as old, aged wine. The question that is asked is how old must wine be for it to be usable as a libation. Rabbi Judah ben Bava states that forty days is sufficient.

And about the morning tamid offering, that it is offered at the fourth hour. There are two “tamid” offerings which are offered every day, one in the morning and one at twilight (See Exodus 29:39). According to Rabbi Judah ben Bava the morning “tamid” may be offered up until the fourth hour, but not afterwards. (The day is divided into 12 hours, the length of which is determined by the amount of sunlight during the day. During the summer hours are longer than during the winter). In other words, the first third of a day is considered to be “morning”.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why were the Rabbis willing to suspend the laws of testimony in order to allow a woman to remarry?

על אבר מן המת (see also Tractate Ohalot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 7)- which lacks the equivalent of an olive’s bulk, for the equivalent of an olive’s bulk from the dead always defiles, according to the words of everyone, like the dead himself. And they did not dispute other than on a small limb which lacks in it the equivalent of an olive’s bulk.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan, a man of Kefar Habavli, testified concerning a limb [separated] from a corpse that it is impure;
whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: they declared [this] only of a limb from a living [man].
They said to him: is not there an inference from the minor to the major (kal: If in the case of a living man [who is himself pure] a limb severed from him is impure, how much more in the case of a corpse [which is itself impure] should a limb severed from it be impure!
He said to them: they have [nevertheless] declared it only of a limb from a living man.
Another answer: The impurity of living men is greater than the impurity of corpses, because a living man causes that on which he lies and sits to become capable of making impure a man and clothing, and [he causes also] what is over him to transfer impurity to foods and liquids- which is defilement that a corpse does not cause.
This mishnah contains Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan’s testimony regarding the impurity of a limb separated from a corpse.
The dispute in our mishnah concerns whether or not a limb separated from corpse transmits tent impurity (anything which is under the same roof with it becomes impure). Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia state that it is impure. Rabbi Eliezer states that it is pure, and that the only type of “separated limb” which is impure is one that has been separated from a living body.
Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya respond with a classic type of Talmudic argumentation, called a “kal vehomer”. Generally a corpse is considered the greatest source of impurity, whereas a living body is often not a source of impurity at all. [It is not in and of itself impure; it only becomes impure if it contracts it somehow.] If a limb separated from a living body is impure, even though the living body itself is pure, all the more so a limb separated from a corpse is impure, since the corpse itself is impure.
Rabbi Eliezer’s response is very typical of Rabbi Eliezer. He states that although Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya’s reasoning may be good reasoning, the tradition that he received from his teachers was only that a limb separated from a living body was impure. Even though there may be logic in extending this principle to include limbs from corpses, Rabbi Eliezer does not believe that it is the sage’s responsibility to add on to received traditions. Rabbi Eliezer is known as an arch-traditionalist; in another place he claims never to have stated anything that he did not hear from his teachers. Here we see classic example of Rabbi Eliezer sticking to his received tradition, in the face of a good argument to extend that tradition.
The final section of the mishnah contains a logical refutation of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya’s kal vehomer argument. In order to refute a kal vehomer argument one must point out that one side is not always more stringent than the other side. In other words, if the kal vehomer was based on a stable, predictable relationship between two things, the refutation points out that this relationship is not so predictable. In this case Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya had pointed out that a corpse is more impure than a living body, and therefore if something that comes from a living body is impure, all the more so the same thing that comes from a corpse will be impure. The refutation points out that with regards to some laws, the living body is a greater source of impurity than the corpse. A zav (a person with an unusual genital discharge) causes anything on which he sits or lies to become impure and able to transmit impurity to people or clothing. He also causes anything above him to become impure and able to transmit impurity to food and liquids. The corpse does not have such a strong ability to impart impurity. Since in some ways the living body can have a stronger impurity than the corpse, one cannot make the kal vehomer argument that Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunya tried to make.

לא אמרו – limbs lack a fixed measurement, other than on the limb from a living person, but a limb from a dead person – a barley’s amount is necessary to defile.

מרובה טומאת החיים – now it raises an object on a Kal V’Homer/an a fortiori inference and this is how it should be read: it is law that a limb from a living being defiles in any amount even though a limb from a dead individual does not defile in any amount, for we have found that the defilement from the living is greater than the defilement from the dead.

שהחי – that is the person with a flux who is alive (see also Tractate Zavim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 6).

עושה משכב ומושב – all utensils that are under it, and even if they are one hundred, defiles man and defiles clothing, as it is written (Leviticus 15:5): “Anyone who touches his bedding shall wash his wash his clothes,[bate in water, and remain impure until evening].”

ועל גביו מדף – all utensils that are on the person with a flux, even if they are one-hundred, this one on top of that one, are all impure through indirect contact for conferring ritual impurity, that is a a light impurity, which do not defile a person or utensils like surfaces designed for lying and sitting which are below him, but do defile food-stuffs and liquids, and the word מדף/indirect contact – is based upon the expression (Leviticus 26:36): “The sound of a driven leaf [shall put them to flight,” that is a light defilement. Another explanation: the expression its breath smells, that the breath of the defilement of an individual with a flux travels great distances to defile all the utensils upon it, even though it did not come in contact with them.

מה שאין המת מטמא – for the utensils that are under the dead person are not defiled other than first-degree and second-degree and third-degree alone. From the law of contact, for the utensils that came in contact/touched the dead is like the dead, and makes the utensil that it came in contact with a primary [level of defilement], and [something that is is] third level of defilement that came in contact with it is made into first-degree [of defilement] and further than that, does not defile utensils. For utensils do not receive defilement other than from a primary-level of defilement. And similarly, utensils that are upon the dead do not defile other than first-degree, second-degree or third degree alone, from the law of contact, and not from the law of lying and sitting.

כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי – a limb that separates from a living person, it’s law is that it defiles all the while it is a complete limb while in contact and while being carried and in the tent of the dead person himself, as it is written (Numbers 19:16): “[And in the open, anyone who touches a person] who was killed, or who died naturally...,” the limb that had been severed by the sword from the living, it is like the dead. And the flesh that separates from the living does not defile until it becomes a complete limb and when an olive’s bulk of flesh separates from the limb of a living person, Rabbi Eliezer defiles as it explains the reason further on.

Introduction
This mishnah is one of the longer mishnayoth in the entire Mishnah, and it contains a long argument amongst the Sages about the quantities of flesh separated from corpses or from limbs separated from living bodies that will cause impurity. This mishnah is also a continuation of the previous mishnah, and the same Sages that were present there are present in our mishnah.
Due to the length of the mishnah, and its intricate detail, we will divide it into two parts, one for today and one for tomorrow.

עצם כשעורה – from the dead defiles through contact and through carrying but it does not defile in the tent, as it is written (Numbers 19:18): ‘”or on him who touched the bones [or the person who was killed or died naturally or the grave],” and it is a traditional interpretation of a written law that it defiles with a barley seed in bulk, and when it separates from a living limb, Rabbi Nehuniah defiles it, etc.

מצינו אבר מן החי כמת עצמו – that we derive it from the Biblical verse (Numbers 19:16): “who was killed or died naturally.”

Explanation
Section one: In the first section of this mishnah the opinions of the different Sages are listed without explanations. With regards to an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb, Rabbi Eliezer declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia declare it pure. With regards to a barley-grain’s (smaller than an olive) quantity of bone separated from living flesh, Rabbi Nehunia declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer declare it pure. In other words, Rabbi Joshua consistently says that all of these things are pure, whereas Rabbi Nehunia and Rabbi Eliezer are somewhat inconsisent, each one declaring one thing pure and the other impure.

אם טמאת כזית בשר הפורש מן המת – that is to say, it is a law that an olive’s bulk of flesh that separates from the dead person will be defiled, just as it has another stringency that the bone is like a barley-seed in bulk that separates from it is also impure.

Section two: In this section the Sages ask Rabbi Eliezer why he declared that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like a corpse. Therefore, just as an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure, so too an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is impure.

אבל נטמא כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי – in astonishment, for there isn’t in this that stringency.

The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure is that he has already stated that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone is impure. However, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a living limb is pure (according to Rabbi Eliezer), and therefore he cannot state so easily that an olive’s quantity of flesh is impure. In other words a corpse is more impure than a limb separated from a living body (with regards to the purity of separated pieces of bones), and he therefore should not be able to compare one to the other.

שכן טהרת עצם כשעורה הפורש ממנו – for it is taught in the Mishnah above that a bone which is a barley-seed in bulk that separates from a living limb, Rabbi Eliezer and RabbiYehoshua declare if pure, but from its own words, they made an objection/refutation what did we find that he brought and similarly to Rabbi Nehunia..”

Section three: In this section the other Sages ask Rabbi Nehunia why he declared that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like an entire corpse. Therefore, just as a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse person is impure, so too a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a limb is impure.

שהבשר נוהג בנבילות ובשרצים וכו' – as it is written (Leviticus 11:36): “[However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be pure,] but whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be impure.” Such a carcass, and not the bones, and not the horns and not the cloven hoofs. So we see that the bones do not defile because of a carrion (that dies of itself).

The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse is impure is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure. However, Rabbi Nehunia already stated that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is pure; how therefore can he learn that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a limb is impure. In other word’s, Rabbi Nehunia’s analogy was based on the similarity in the impurity of limbs separated from living bodies with corpses. However, he taught above that flesh separated from corpses was more impure than flesh separated from limbs from a living body, and therefore he cannot learn one from the other with regards to the issue of bone impurity.

אבר שיש עליו בשר כראוי – a limb does not defile other than if it has flesh and sinews and bones, as it is written (Numbers 19:16)” “or human bone,” just as a person who has flesh and sinews and bones, also all that have flesh and sinews and bones, and if it is missing from the flesh that was upon it and there remains upon it flesh as appropriate that will produce new flesh on a healing wound if it is attached to a living person, it defiles because of the limb, and that is - as we have said that if is missing the flesh, it is impure, but if it is missing a little bit from the bone in the limb, it does not defile because of the limb and that is as we have said, missing the bone, it is pure. That is to say, pure because of the limb, but it is impure because of the flesh and if so, we found that the defilement of the flesh is greater than the defilement from the bone.

Introduction
This is the second half of the mishnah which we began to learn yesterday.

והוא כברייתו – flesh and sinews and bones.

כזית בשר מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאהל – they said according to the beginning of the creation of man is as an olive’s bulk. Therefore the measure of his defilement is an olive’s bulk.

Explanation
Section one: The first question asked is to Rabbi Eliezer, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is impure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is pure. He should have declared either both pure or both impure. Two answers to this question are provided. The first answer is that flesh is more impure than bone, for the flesh of creeping things is impure while the bones of creeping things are pure.

ורוב עצמות – the majority of the number of the bones of a human being, since the number of the bones of a human is two-hundred and forty-eight. It is found that the majority is one-hundred and twenty-five.

The second answer also points at an aspect of flesh that is more impure than bone. A limb severed from a human being, if it has on it enough flesh that if it was still attached to the human being the limb would be viable, causes impurity through touching, carrying and by being underneath the same roof space. If some of the flesh falls off of this limb, it is still impure. If however, some of the bone falls off of this limb, the entire limb is pure. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient with regards to bone impurity than with regards to flesh impurity.

חסר הבשר – from the measurement of an olive’s bulk

Section two: The second question asked is to Rabbi Nehunia, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is pure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is impure (the opposite of Rabbi Eliezer). He should have declared either both pure or both impure. This time three answers to the question are provided, all of which show ways in which bones are more impure than flesh.

טהור – completely from being defiled not through contact and not through carrying nor in a tent.

The first answer is that flesh that is separated directly from a living body is pure, whereas an entire limb separated from a living body, with its sinews and bone, is impure.

חסר רוב עצמות מטמא במגע ובמשא – for a bone like a barley-seed in bulk defiles through contact and through carrying, but does not defile in the tent. So we see that the defilement of bones is greater than defilement by flesh, for if it were the bones that were missing from their measurement, still defilement would remain in them, but flesh that is missing from its measure is completely pure.

The second answer is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse transmits impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space; so too a majority of a corpse’s bones transmit impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space. If there is less than an olive’s quantity of flesh, it doesn’t transmit impurity at all; however, if there is less than a majority of the corpse’s bones, although they no longer transmit impurity by sharing roof-space, they do transmit impurity by contact and by carrying. In this way, bone impurity is more serious than flesh impurity.

רוב בנינו – such as two lower legs and one thigh and all of the skeleton of a person are two lower legs and the thighs and the ribs and the backbone.

The third answer is that less than an olive’s quantity of flesh is always pure. However, with regards to bones there is the possibility that even less than a quarter-kav.

אע"פ שאין בהן רובע – for one-quarter kab of ones of a dead person defile in the tent. Even though they don’t have the majority of the bones [of a human being] or the majority of the skeleton, they defile even though they lack the one-quarter [kab]. But flesh which is less than the equivalent of an olive’s bulk, you have nothing in it that will bring to him the defilement.

אם אמרתם במת שיש בו רוב ורובע ורקב – it is the law that the equivalent of an olive’s bulk of flesh and a barley-side’s bulk of a bone that separates from the dead will be impure, for there are stringencies regarding the dead of a majority and one-quarter [kab] and a mass of earth from a grave containing parts of a decayed human body.

תאמרו בחי שאין בו – these stringencies which is not the law that there would be neither the equivalent of an olive’s bulk of flesh nor a barley-seed’s equivalent of a bone that separate from the limb of a living person, they are [not] impure, but rather pure. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

ורקב – the body of a dead whose moistness had ceased, and had become like dirt, this is רקב/decay of the body that defiles a spoon-filled of dust/tarvad-full of dust [from parts of a decayed human body] and its measurement is the handful of an intermediate-size individual. But a handful of a decayed human body does not defile other than from a dead person buried naked in an alabaster coffin which is covered with a marble cover until it is definitively known that there is no mixture of a decay of clothing or of wood or other dirt. But if the dead is buried in his clothing or in a wooden coffin or in the dust, there is no decay, and similarly, a dead person that is buried missing a limb, there is no decay.