Talmud do Kelim 24:9

Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts⁴³A toned down version of King Sapor’s snake is in the Babli, 25a and Šebuot 29a. There, the story of the snake is discussed by Samuel, which shows that the reference is to Sapor I.? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags⁴⁴In Mishnah Kelim 24:9 פָּחֲלָץ. with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw a snake skin which filled⁴⁵Reading עומני from Arabic عمن “to stay”. Cf. also Note 40. the space between two columns. Rebbi Samuel bar Jacob said, I saw a snake skin which covered the genii⁴⁶Possibly statues of emperors who after death became divi. But cf. Note 41. of government. Samuel said, square⁴⁷The snake was perhaps not particularly large but it had the form of a beam with square cross-section.. Could you say it was not square⁴²In Šebuot וְאִם בִּמְרוּבַּע “if square, why must it be large?”, why must it be large? Even if it was small! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is the way of this Tanna to speak only about large things. You should know that it is so, for we have stated⁴⁸Mishnah Šebuot 3:8, example of something impossible.: “A flying camel”. Could he not have stated “a flying rat”?

Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold²¹⁴Ex. 30:3., etc. The Torah called it real estate²¹⁵Since the Torah mentions its roof and its walls, it is described as a house.. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square²¹⁶Ex.30:3 (the golden altar), 27:1 (the brass altar).. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis²¹⁷These rabbis are not mentioned in the Mishnah. The argument is that the Sages mentioned in the Mishnah could use R. Eliezer’s argument in the inverse direction to establish their rule., the altar is of wood, three cubits its height²¹⁸Ez. 41:22. The altar there is called “table”, a movable implement., etc. The Torah called it movable²¹⁹In the Torah both altars are movable, to be carried travelling in the desert.. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it²²⁰If the cover could not stand alone it cannot be separated from the implement it covers which is a rectangular box of wood, enclosing a volume and therefore susceptible of impurity.? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar²²¹The only honest gold denar minted during the military anarchy (in the 240’s by Gordianus III.) The implication is that the gold cover could stand by itself; the objection cannot be sustained. Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it²²²The previous argument can be reinforced; the gold is the essential carrier of the altar and the wood is ancillary.. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke²²³Ex. 30:1. is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense²²⁴No fire was used on the golden top of the altar (which if used would have melted the top in no time). The golden top transformed the incense into smoke.. But is it not like a table^224aLatin tabula. made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure²²⁵In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims²²⁶The table was not fixed; it cannot be considered a fixed part of the building. In addition, the rim around the table makes it a container which is “impure”. But once a permanent Temple was built, the altars are fixed and should be “pure” as fixtures of the building.? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure²²⁵In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there,²²⁷Mishnah Kelim24:9. “there are three baskets²²⁸A basket for manure may become impure by body fluids, a box for straw only becomes impure by the impurity of the dead, a cover for camels is pure.”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales²²⁹Since the Mishnah classifies the baskets by their use, also here the altar has to be classified by the “impure” incense..