Talmud do Para 5:7

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.

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..