D. [118a] You might infer that one who touches that part of the hide opposite flesh that is attached underneath would not become unclean. It comes to teach [that it], “shall be unclean.”
E. How do we reconcile these statements? Said Raba (and some say Kadi), “There is a lacuna in the text and this is how you should teach the matter: “[He who touches] its carcass” — [means uncleanness is transferred by hide that has flesh attached but] not by hide that does not have on it an olive's bulk of flesh, [even if by counting] the hide it yields an olive's bulk.
F. You might infer that I exclude even a hide that has on it an olive's bulk of flesh, that one who touches it opposite the flesh that is attached underneath. You might infer he is not unclean because it [the hide] does not serve as a handle [to transmit uncleanness]. It comes to teach [that it], “shall be unclean.”
I.2
A. It was taught on Tannaite authority there [in a Mishnah-passage]: Whatever is a handle but not a protector contracts uncleanness and imparts uncleanness but does not join together. [If] it protects even though it is not a handle, it contracts uncleanness and imparts uncleanness and joins together. [If] it is not a protector and not a handle, it does not contract uncleanness and does not impart uncleanness [M. Uqsin 1:1].
B. Handles — where is it written in the Torah concerning them? As it is written, “But if water is put on the seed and any part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you” (Lev. 11:38). “To you” [implies] to all that is needed by you. This includes [in the rule for contracting uncleanness] handles.
C. And it is written, “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, [he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:39). “Which you” [implies] to all that is needed by you. This includes [in the rule for imparting uncleanness] handles.
D. [Accordingly we have scriptural sources for the rule that] a handle contracts and imparts [uncleanness]. [To derive the rule that] a protector contracts and imparts uncleanness, we do not need a verse. We may derive it a fortiori from [the rule for] a handle. What is the case concerning a handle that does not protect? It contracts and imparts [uncleanness]. It is surely logical to conclude the same rule applies to protectors [that are more integrally a part of the food].
E. Why was it necessary then for the Torah to write concerning protectors? You may derive from this [that the verse teaches us that we may] combine [the handles with the food to comprise the minimum quantity].
F. But it might make sense to maintain that a handle can contract but not impart [uncleanness] but a protector can both contract and impart [uncleanness]. But [it would make sense to maintain further] that we do not say that a handle can impart [uncleanness] and [we do not say that] a protector combines [with the food to comprise the minimum].
G. [This argument is not tenable because] we cannot logically maintain that a handle can contract but not impart [uncleanness]. Let us consider: if it brings [uncleanness to a food], do we need to specify that it imparts [uncleanness to another object]?
H. But it might make sense to maintain that a handle can contract but not impart [uncleanness] but a protector can both contract and impart [uncleanness]. But [it would make sense to maintain further] that we do not say that a handle can contract [uncleanness] and [we do not say that] a protector combines [with the food to comprise the minimum].
I. [This argument is not tenable because] there is an extra verse concerning the handle: “[And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean;] whether oven or stove, it shall be broken in pieces; they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you” (Lev. 11:35). “To you” [implies] to all that is needed by you. This includes [in the rule for contracting uncleanness] handles.
J. Which one of these [verses] is the extra one? The Torah could have written [the rule] concerning seeds (11:38) and we could have derived those others from it. [But you may refute this as follows.] What is the case concerning seeds? They have many levels of uncleanness. [Thus they are different from carrion and from an oven and we cannot derive the rule for them from that.]
K. The Torah could have written [the rule] concerning an oven (11:35) and we could have derived those others from it. [But you may refute this as follows.] What is the case concerning ovens? They do contract uncleanness from their air space. [Thus they are different from seeds and carrion and we cannot derive the rule for them from that.]
L. The Torah could have written [the rule] concerning carrion (11:39) and we could have derived those others from it. [But you may refute this as follows.] What is the case concerning carrion? It can impart uncleanness to a person, it can impart uncleanness to one who carries it, and uncleanness issues from it [as a source]. [Thus it is different from seeds and ovens and we cannot derive the rule from that.]
M. [Accordingly], from each one on its own we cannot derive the rule for the other two. But let us the derive the rule for one of them from the other two. How shall we derive it? Let the Torah not write the rule for seeds and we will derive it from the others. [But you may refute this as follows.] What is the case concerning the others? They contract uncleanness without being rendered susceptible [by liquid being put on them]. We may say that seeds [are different from these] because they cannot contract uncleanness unless they are first rendered susceptible.
N. Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, “Produce that was not rendered susceptible to uncleanness is similar [with regard to the law of contracting uncleanness] to an oven that was not a finished product.” [Accordingly, the rules are parallel and you should be able to derive the rule for seeds from the others.]
O. But you may refute [the comparison] in the following manner: What is the case concerning the others? They contract uncleanness without contact. We may say that seeds [are different from these] because they can contract uncleanness only through contact. [This reasoning then has been refuted.]
P. [Let us try another line of reasoning.] Let the Torah not write the rule for ovens and we will derive it from the others. [But you may refute this as follows.] What is the case concerning the others? They are foodstuffs. [The reasoning has been refuted.]
Q. [Let us try another line of reasoning.] Let the Torah not write the rule for carrion and we will derive it from the others. Indeed you may argue this.
R. Why then do I need the rule for a handle stated with regard to carrion [if we can derive the rule from the other two]? If it does not pertain to the rule for a handle for carrion, let it pertain then to the rule for handles in general. [Accordingly, we have means to derive the rules for] a handle to contract [uncleanness], for a handle to impart [uncleanness] and for a protector to combine [to form the minimum quantity].
S. And yet [in spite of these arguments] it is necessary to state the rule for a handle for the case of carrion. For if the Torah had not written the rule for handles in the case of carrion, I would have reasoned that in the case for which you logically deduce a rule from another source, that case is in other respects with regard to the law identical to the other source. What is the case concerning the others [i.e., ovens and seeds]? They do not render a person unclean. So even carrion does not render a person unclean. [And we know that this is not the case.]
T. Rather we need to teach the rule for a handle for the case of carrion. We do not need to teach the rule for a protector for the case of carrion. To teach what [other] law did the Torah state that rule? If to teach that [a protector] combines [to form the minimum quantity], we say that it does not combine! [If you say it teaches that carrion] imparts [uncleanness], we derive this a fortiori from the rule for a handle.
U. Rather if it does not pertain to the rule for a protector for carrion, let it pertain then to the rule for handles for carrion. And if it does not pertain to the rule for a handle for carrion, let it pertain then to the rule for handles in general. [Accordingly, we have means to derive the rules for] a handle to impart [uncleanness], for a handle to contract [uncleanness] and for a protector to combine [to form the minimum quantity].
V. [118b] But it makes [more] sense to maintain that if it does not pertain to the rule for a protector for the case of carrion, let it pertain then to the rule for protectors in general. [Accordingly, we have means to derive the rules for] a protector to contract [uncleanness] and for a protector to combine [to form the minimum quantity]. But we do not have [a means to derive the rule for] a handle to contract [uncleanness].
W. But from the outset when the rule for handles is written, it is written to specify the rule for contracting [uncleanness]. Rather then why do I need to specify the rule for a protector for the case of carrion? For the case itself. What then is the conclusion? If it teaches that [a protector] combines [for the minimum], it was stated that it does not combine. If it teaches the rule for contracting and imparting [uncleanness], we may derive this a fortiori from the rule for a handle. [In this instance then] a matter that may be derived a fortiori, scripture went to the trouble of stating [anyway].
X. If this is the case, then concerning protectors in general, it makes sense to maintain [that the rules for] contracting and imparting [uncleanness by a protector apply]. Although it is a matter that may be derived a fortiori, scripture went to the trouble of stating it [anyway].
Y. Anytime we can, we derive another interpretation from the verse.
Z. R. Habiba said, “The rule is different for a protector of carrion. Since it acts as if it were a handle [with regard to the law] let us apply it to the rule for handles [and not as suggested to the rule for protectors in general].”
I.3
A. R. Judah bar Samuel raised an objection to this: The nipple of the pomegranate joins together. And its sprouting hair [Jastrow: blossom] does not join together [M. Uqsin 2:3 C-D]. And why is this the case [that the nipple joins]? Recite here, “[And if any part of their carcass falls] upon any seed for sowing [that is to be sown, it is clean]” (Lev. 11:37) and we do not have that here [i.e., the nipple is not sown when the pomegranate is planted].
B. And furthermore, lo it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: The (1) hide, and (2) grease, and (3) sediment, and (4) flayed-off meat, and (5) bones, and (6) sinews, and (7) horns and (8) hooves join together [with the meat to which they are attached to form the requisite volume] to impart food uncleanness [M. 9:1 A]. What is the source of this assertion? [How do we derive this from rules that pertain to seeds?]
C. Rather [here is how we explain things]: It is written three times in the verse: (1) “upon any seed”; (2) “for sowing”; (3) “that is to be sown” — one applies to the protectors of seeds, one applies to the protectors of [fruits from] trees, and the other one applies to the protectors of meat, eggs and fish.
I.4
A. Said R. Hiyya bar Ashi, said Rab, “The rule of a handle pertains with regard to [the transfer of] uncleanness. But the rule of a handle does not apply with regard to rendering the object susceptible [to uncleanness].”
B. Said R. Yohanan, “The rule of a handle pertains with regard to [the transfer of] uncleanness and with regard to rendering the object susceptible [to uncleanness].”
C. One what basis do they dispute this matter? If you prefer, [they dispute] on the basis of logic. And if you prefer, [they dispute] on the basis of a verse.
D. And if you prefer, [they dispute] on the basis of a verse. One master reasons in accord with the view that they may interpret that a verse refers to the matter preceding it, but not to the matter preceding the preceding. And one master reasons in accord with the view that they may interpret that a verse refers to the matter preceding it, and to the matter preceding the preceding [“but if water is put” i.e., rendering it susceptible].
E. And if you prefer, [they dispute] on the basis of logic. One master reasons in accord with the view that rendering it susceptible is the beginning of the process of rendering it unclean. And the other master reasons in accord with the view that rendering it susceptible is not the beginning of the process of rendering it unclean.
F. There is a Tannaite teaching that supports the view of R. Yohanan: Just as the rule of handles pertains with regard to [the transfer of] uncleanness, it also pertains with regard to rendering the object susceptible [to uncleanness]. And just as it cannot become unclean unless it is detached, so too it cannot become susceptible unless it is detached.
I.5
A. Said Rab, “There is no rule of a handle for anything less than an olive's bulk. And there is no rule of a protector for anything less than the bulk of a pulse.”
B. And R. Yohanan said, “There is a rule of a handle for something less than an olive's bulk. And there is a rule of a protector for something less than the bulk of a pulse.”
C. They raised an objection: Two bones and on them [at one end] are two half olive's bulks, and one brought their tips [at the other end] inside, and the house overshadows them, the house is unclean. Judah b. Naqosa says in the name of R. Jacob, “[Even if both of them are attached by Heaven, the house is clean,] for two bones do not join together to form two half-olive's bulks” [T. Ahilot 4:8 A-B].
No comments:
Post a Comment