Talmud su Ohalot 1:17

HALAKHAH: ²⁹This and the the following paragraph also are Halakhah 3:8 in Avodah zara, where the differences in spelling are noted. Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s³⁰Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature., etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house³¹Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry., etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination³²Deut. 14:2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load²In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything the menstruating woman lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he had touched the woman herself.. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone³³Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 2) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion³⁴Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity³⁵Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead³⁶Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in³⁷This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house³⁸A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body³⁹Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent⁴⁰Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it⁴¹The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common for impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size⁴²This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god⁴³Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus..

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass⁷²If a “torn” animal was not slaughtered according to the rules, is the meat forbidden under one or two statutes?. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following⁷³Sifra Aḥare Pereq 11(8). supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat⁷⁴Lev. 17:15.,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before⁷⁵No animal is ritually impure while alive. [Even the “impure” animals forbidden as food (Lev. 11:26, Deut. 14:9) are ritually pure while alive.] If a “torn” animal can survive and was ritually slaughtered, it does not become impure.? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”⁷⁶If a “torn” animal must die in the short run, it simply becomes impure as a carcass. The mention of “torn” in the verse seems superfluous; it can only be justified as adding another prohibition. (In Sifra, the argument is inverted to prove that a “torn” animal, if ritually slaughtered, is not impure even as it is forbidden food.)? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose⁷⁷Who seems to accept his son’s argument.: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds⁷⁸The argument refers to the part of the verse, Lev. 20:25, which is not quoted: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds, and anything which crawls on the ground, which I separated for you as impure.” Now anything crawling on the ground (and in the water) is forbidden as food, but impurity caused by dead bodies is restricted to mammals, birds, and the Eight Reptiles enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food⁷⁹Since even in biblical usage, mammals and birds acceptable as food are called “pure” (Gen. 8:20). By inference, non-kosher animals are called “impure” even while alive and technically pure.. Rebbi Eleazar objected⁸⁰To R. Abbahu.: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount⁸¹Mishnah Ahilut 1:7. but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat⁸²In the Babli, Me‘ilah 15b, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina states, as explanation of his inference (Note 78) that eating parts of any of the Eight Reptiles is prosecutable in amounts the size of a lentil (Maimonides Ma‘akhalot asurot 2:7). The identity of the rules for blood and flesh of these reptiles is Mishnah Me‘ilah 4:3, for the rules of impurity Sifra Šemini Parašah 5(2), Pereq 7(6).?

But the rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. ¹⁷⁷Jer. 4:19.My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar; my heart is beating inside me, I cannot be silent. He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs¹⁷⁸Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended you with; so much more that You should spare my life.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle¹⁵⁰Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently¹⁵¹Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively¹⁵²Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration.. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently⁶²“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. covered by flesh¹⁵³Mishnah Ahilut 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked¹⁵⁴He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone¹⁵⁵Num. 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain¹⁵⁶For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum.! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person¹⁵⁷Without a minimum; Sifry Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There¹⁹⁶Mishnah Ahilut 1:1., we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening¹⁹⁷As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁸Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:2: An object touching the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself (Sifry Num. 130). A second object touches the first; it becomes a source of original impurity; both need the ritual of Num. 19. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁹Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:3: An object which touches the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself. A human touches the first object, becoming a source of original impurity; a second object touches the human, also becoming a source of original impurity. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave²⁰⁰Not only for heave but also for sacrifices: anything with a status of sanctity. But for profane food, humans, or objects, anything touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity; the person touching it or him becomes impure in the first degree. In biblical law, no human can become impure by derivative impurity. No person touching anything more than once removed from the corpse can become biblically impure., but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself²⁰¹Num. 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second²⁰²A person who touched objects which touched objects which touched the corpse is a third in line who is impure by biblical standards and guilty if he enters the Sanctuary unpurified.? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person²⁰³The statement of R. Joḥanan refers to impurity of a person induced by a person., not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty²⁰⁴Anybody needing the ritual of Num. 19 but entering the Sanctuary without it is guilty of a deadly sin, as stated in Num. 19:20. The person only impure in the first degree, not subject to this ritual, is guilty of a sin but not a deadly one. As explained in Note 199, if the impurity is transmitted by an object, the human may be the second in the sequence.. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water²⁰⁵The person impure in the first degree may still commit a deadly sin by entering the Sanctuary (Lev. 22:3) without immersing himself in water. But if he enters (or eats sanctified food) between immersion and sundown, he commits a minor sin (Lev. 22:7)..

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. ¹⁷⁵This Halakhah also is Halakhah 9:1 in Šabbat(ש). Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations¹⁷⁶Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature.. About vermin, do not eat any abomination¹⁷⁷Deut. 14: 2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house¹⁷⁸Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry.. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load¹⁷⁴In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol., also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone¹⁷⁹Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 174) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁰In, Šabbat: Rav Jehudah. On one hand, the tradent in Šabbat is mentioned as R. Zeriqan, the Yerushalmi form, not the Babli form Zeriqa as here; but this is to be explained by the babylonized spelling of the text of the present Tractate. On the other hand, the tradent in the Babli (Šabbat 82b) is R. Eleazar, a known student of R. Ḥanina., but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion¹⁸¹Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity¹⁸²Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead¹⁸³Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity¹⁸²Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in¹⁸⁴This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house¹⁸⁵A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similiar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body¹⁸⁶Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁷In Šabbat: Ḥanania. The latter attribution is correct since he must have been a contemporary of R. Mana (II). said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent¹⁸⁸Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it¹⁸⁹The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common to impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size¹⁹⁰This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun¹⁹¹In ש: R. Ḥuna. said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god¹⁹²Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus..