B. Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, [123a] “Aybo said this. And he stated four [things in his list] and one of
them was [the amount of trampling needed for] processing.”
C. Said
R. Yosé b. R. Hanina, “They only taught this rule [that he must go four miles
out of his way] if that means he would have to go forward. But if it means he
would have to go backward, then they do not make him backtrack even one mile.”
D. R.
Aha bar Jacob said, “Based on this [I would infer] that he does not have to
backtrack one mile. Lo, less than one mile he would have to backtrack [for the
stated purposes].”
VII.3
A. [Except for the skin of man:] Our
rabbis taught on Tannaite authority [in T.]: A legion that is going from place to place and enters a house, the
house is unclean. [T.: he who overshadows it is unclean]. For every legion has
with it some [human] scalps [T. 8:16 B-D].
B. And
do not be astonished at this. For we know that the scalp of R. Ishmael rested
on the head of kings.
Unit
I.1 specifies the basis for B and G of the M.-passage. II.1 clarifies the basis
for the dispute at B-C. III.1 defines a category of the M. Units IV.1-2 discuss
the definition of the next category of the M.-passage and its status and cite
T. as support. V.1 defines the next category of M. Unit VI.1 discusses the
status of the next category of the M.-passage. VII.1 comments directly on the last
rule of M. Unit VII.2 develops a discussion not related to M. based on a
reference in the preceding. To conclude VII.3 cites the relevant T.-passage and
glosses it.
9:3
A. He who flays
B. a beast or a wild animal, whether
clean or unclean,
C. whether large or small
D. for the purpose [of making] a
covering — [the skin is deemed connected to the carcass so that it contracts
from, and conveys uncleanness to, the carcass, as long as there is not yet
flayed] enough for a hold [on the carcass];
E. for the purpose of a water-skin —
[the skin is deemed connected to the carcass] until he will flay the breast.
F. [He who flays] from the feet upwards
— it is wholly connected for uncleanness,
G. for contracting uncleanness and for
imparting uncleanness.
H. [If he did not yet flay the] hide
which is on the neck —
I. R. Yohanan b. Nuri says, “It is not
connected.”
J. And sages say, “It is connected,
K. “until he will flay off the whole of
it.”
I.1
A. Beyond
this point [i.e., if he flayed, leaving less than enough for a hold] what is
the case? Said Rab, “Whatever was flayed off is clean.” R. Assi said, “[The
skin] within a handbreadth of the flesh [of the animal is a handle and if it
comes into contact with uncleanness it renders the animal] unclean.”
B. They
raised an objection: He who flays this much [as specified in the
Mishnah-passage, leaving enough for a hold, the skin is deemed connected to the
carcass]. [He who flays] beyond this point — he who touches the flayed off part
is clean [because the remainder does not serve as a handle to connect the skin
to the carcass]. Is it not the case [that
this rule includes] even [the skin] within a handbreadth of the flesh [in
contradiction to the statement in A]? No, excluding [the skin] within a
handbreadth of the flesh.
C. Come
and take note [in support of this interpretation]: [He who touches] the
skin opposite the flesh [of a carcass] is unclean. [This states only that he
who touches] the skin opposite the flesh is unclean. Lo, [it implies that he
who touches the skin] within a handbreadth of the flesh is clean. [No, this is
not a valid inference.] The Tanna could be calling “[the skin] within a
handbreadth of the flesh” “the skin opposite the flesh [thus including it in
the rule].”
D. Come
and take note: He who flays a beast
or a wild animal, whether clean or unclean, whether large or small for the
purpose [of making] a covering — [the skin is deemed connected to the carcass
so that it contracts from, and conveys uncleanness to, the carcass, as long as
there is not yet flayed] enough for a hold [on the carcass][M. 9:3 A-D] and
[the skin] within a handbreadth of the flesh is clean. [Cf. T. 8:18 A-C: And how much is enough for a hold? The area
of a handbreadth, doubled.]
E. In
that case what are we dealing with? With the first handbreadth [nearest the
flesh].
F. It was taught: How much constitutes
enough for a hold? A handbreadth. But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority:
Two handbreadths. Said Abayye, “[It meant to say] within a handbreadth, doubled.”
G. There
is a Tannaite teaching also that accords with this: And how much is enough for a hold? The area of a handbreadth, doubled
[T. 8:18 B-C].
I.2
A. It
was taught there in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: A cloak that one began to tear, once one has torn the greater part, is
not connected [M. Kel. 28:8 B] and it is clean.
B. Said
R. Nahman, said Rabbah bar Abbuha, “They only taught this matter with regard to
a cloak that had been immersed on that same day. For since he did not care for
it enough to refrain from immersing it, he will not care for it enough to
refrain from tearing the greater part of it. But concerning a cloak that had
not been immersed on that same day, they did not decree [the rule that it is
clean because] perhaps he will not come to tear the greater part of [what
remains of] it.”
C. Said
Rabbah, “I can offer two responses to the matter [that you stated that the rule
applies only to a cloak immersed on that day]. First, [we cannot restrict the
rule in that way] lest people say that immersion of an article suffices for it
on that day [to render it clean, and they need not wait until evening]. And
furthermore, [123b] [consider by analogy the rule with regard
to] the whole burnt-offering of a bird according to the view of R. Eleazar b.
R. Simeon [i.e., the priest must cut the major part of the two organs for it to
be valid]. Let them decree [regarding that case that it is not valid] lest
perhaps he not come to cut the major part of two [organs for fear that he will
sever the head entirely and thus render the bird invalid].”
D. Said
to him R. Joseph, “Concerning [the first objection] that you stated, [i.e.,]
lest people say that immersion of an article suffices for it on that day, [I
argue that] the tear itself will suffice as proof [and no one will make the
incorrect assumption]. [And concerning the second objection] that you stated,
[i.e.,] the whole burnt-offering of a bird according to the view of R. Eleazar
b. R. Simeon, [I argue that] priests are meticulous [in what they do and thus will
not fear making an error that will invalidate the sacrifice].”
I.3
A. Come
and take note: He who flays a beast
or a wild animal, whether clean or unclean, whether large or small for the
purpose [of making] a covering — [the skin is deemed connected to the carcass
so that it contracts from, and conveys uncleanness to, the carcass, as long as
there is not yet flayed] enough for a hold [on the carcass][M. 9:3 A-D]. Lo [this implies that if he flayed] more
than [that so there remained less than] enough for a hold, it is clean [because
there is no handle connecting the skin to the carcass]. Why is this the case?
Let them decree [that it is unclean] lest perhaps he does [flay] only [exactly]
enough for a hold and he touches the unclean [carcass by touching the skin] and
we declare that he is clean.
B. If
we are dealing with a case of uncleanness based on the authority of the Torah,
that would indeed be the case [that we decree it to be unclean]. But in that
case what are we dealing with? With uncleanness based on the authority of the
rabbis. [The person was unclean by virtue of a rabbinic decree and the animal
was a Holy Thing. So we do not decree the animal unclean under these
circumstances.]
C. This
settles the matter with regard to an unclean person [who comes into contact in
this manner] with a clean carcass. But what about a clean person [who comes
into contact in this manner] with an unclean carcass? The uncleanness [of
carrion] is based on the authority of the Torah. [So we should decree the
person unclean under these circumstances.]
D. [We
can say that we are dealing with a carcass of a] terefah-animal. But is a terefah-animal able to transmit uncleanness? Yes.
In accord with the rule of the father of Samuel.
E. For
said the father of Samuel, “A terefah-animal
that one slaughtered renders Holy Things
unclean [b. 73a, Zahavy, ullin, vol. II, p. 182].”
II.1
A. ([If he did not yet flay the] hide which is on the neck — R. Yohanan b.
Nuri says, “It is not connected.” And sages say, “It is connected, until he
will flay off the whole of it” [M. 9:3 H-K].) Come and take note: R.
Dosetai b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, “He who flays [the skin] in the
case of creeping things — the whole is deemed connected” [cf. M. 9:2 H, 9:3
J-K][T. 8:19 A]. Lo in the case of
[one who flays the skin of] a camel, it
is not connected.
B. Do
not maintain: Lo in the case of [one who flays the skin of] a camel, it is not connected. Rather, maintain: [In the case of one who
flays the skin of a camel] except for the skin which is on the neck, it is not connected. And this accords
with the view of R. Yohanan b. Nuri.
III.1
A. R.
Huna said in the name of R. Simeon b. R. Yosé, “They learned the rule [that
once torn a garment is clean of prior uncleanness, referring back to I.2 A]
only if one has not left enough of the cloth to be used as an apron, but if one
has left enough of the cloth not torn to be used as an apron, it is deemed
joined [to the rest and therefore the garment remains unclean][b. Zeb. 94b].”
B. Said
Resh Laqish, “They learned the rule only with regard to a cloak. But with
regard to [one who tears up an unclean garment made of] leather — it is sturdy
[and if they piece it back together it regains its original status including
its uncleanness].”
C. And
R. Yohanan said, “Even leather is not sturdy [enough. And if it is torn to
shreds and pieced together it does not regain its original status].”
D. R.
Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Laqish: A hide that is unclean with midras
uncleanness and that one intended [to use] for straps and sandals — “Once one
has placed the knife on it, it is clean,” the words of R. Judah. And sages say,
“Until one will diminish it [to] less than five handbreadths [it is still
unclean][M. Kel. 26:9 A-C].” Once he
diminishes it [to less than that size], behold it is clean! Why is this the
case? Let him maintain that it is sturdy [in accord with the view of Resh
Laqish]!
E. [But
we could argue that] where do we say it is sturdy? Where he cut it straight in
one direction. In that case [in M. Kel.] what are we dealing with? Where he cut
it in all directions [and it can no longer be pieced back in a sturdy manner].
III.2
A. R.
Jeremiah objected [varying I.3 A]: He
who flays a beast or a wild animal, whether clean or unclean, whether large or
small for the purpose [of making] a covering — [the skin is deemed connected to
the carcass so that it contracts from, and conveys uncleanness to, the carcass,
as long as there is not yet flayed] enough for a hold [on the carcass][M. 9:3
A-D]. Lo [this implies that if he
flayed] more than [that so there remained less than] enough for a hold, it is
clean [because there is no handle connecting the skin to the carcass]. Why is
this the case? Let him maintain that it is sturdy [and can be put back]!
B. R.
Abin interpreted the matter: One by one [as the pieces of skin are flayed] they
fall off [and cannot be restored to the flesh].
C. R.
Joseph objected [varying II.1 A]: [If
he did not yet flay the] hide which is on the neck — R. Yohanan b. Nuri says,
“It is not connected” [M. 9:3 H-I]. Why
is this the case? Let him maintain that it is sturdy [and can be put back]!
D. Said
to him Abayye, “Consider the latter text of the Mishnah-passage: And sages say, `It is connected, [until he
will flay off the whole of it].'” Rather,
said Abayye, “They disputed regarding the status of a protector that was about
to fall off on its own. One master reasoned in accord with the view that it is
a valid protector. And the other master reasoned in accord with the view that
it is not a valid protector.”
No comments:
Post a Comment