What is the source for the assertion that wild animals are included in the rule of beasts? As it is written, “These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat the hart, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat” (Deut. 14:4-6). Lo, what is the case? The wild animal is included in the rule of the beast.
E. What is the source of the assertion that beasts are included in the rule of wild animals? As it is written, “Say to the people of Israel, These are the living things which you may eat among all the [wild] beasts that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat” (Lev. 11:2-3). Lo, what is the case? The beast is included in the rule of the wild animal.
F. [In what regard is] the clean wild animal included in the rule of the clean beast? With regard to the [specification of the rules for the] tokens [of a clean animal].
G. [In what regard is] the unclean wild animal included in the rule of the unclean beast? With regard to the prohibition against cross breeding (Lev. 19:19: “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.”)
H. [In what regard is] the unclean beast included in the rule of the unclean wild animal? In accord with the view of Rabbi.
I. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: Rabbi says: I recite, “[Or if any one touches an unclean thing, whether the carcass of] an unclean [wild] beast.” Why must it say, “Or a carcass of unclean cattle [or a carcass of unclean swarming things, and it is hidden from him, and he has become unclean, he shall be guilty]” (Lev. 5:2)?
J. It says here, “Unclean cattle.” And it says further on, “[And if any one touches an unclean thing, whether the uncleanness of man or] an unclean beast [or any unclean abomination, and then eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the Lord's peace-offerings, that person shall be cut off from his people]” (Lev. 7:21). [Rabbi assumes that unclean cattle are subsumed under the rule of unclean wild beasts. Thus the specification in Lev. 5:2 of unclean cattle is superfluous and may be used as a means of justifying an additional rule as follows.] Just as the case further on [the additional specification implies another prohibition, i.e., that a person with] uncleanness [may not eat] holy things, so too here [the additional specification implies another prohibition, i.e., that a person with] uncleanness [may not eat] holy things.
K. [In what regard] is the clean beast included in the rule of the clean wild animal? In regard to the rule regarding the formation [of an embryo]. For it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: “She who produces [an abortion] like a beast, wild animal, or bird, whether [the species it resembles is] unclean or clean, if it is male, she should sit out [the days of uncleanness and cleanness required] for a male. And it if is female, she should sit out [the days of uncleanness and cleanness required] for a female. And if the sex [of the abortion] is not known, she should sit [out the days of uncleanness and cleanness] for a male and for a female,” the words of R. Meir. And sages say, “Anything that does not bear [some aspect] of the human form is not deemed a foetus” [M. Nid. 3:2 G-K].
L. But according to the view of the rabbis for what [specific teaching] do I need this verse [cf. above, I.1 J]? All of this follows in accord with the view of Rabbi.
I.1 explores the scriptural and logical bases of the Mishnah. II.1 moves to a second-level issue out of the foregoing.
4:3 F-G
F. The woman whose foetus died in her womb, and [that foetus] the midwife put in her hand and touched —
G. the midwife is unclean with a seven-day uncleanness, and the woman is clean until the foetus will emerge.
I.1
A. Said Rabbah, “Just as an unclean object that is contained [inside a body] does not render unclean [the body], so also a clean object contained [inside a body] does not become unclean [if the body comes in contact with uncleanness].”
B. What is the source [of the rule for] uncleanness that is contained? As it is written, “[And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening] and he who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes [and be unclean until the evening; he also who carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:39-40). Are we not dealing with a case where he ate [unclean food] close to sunset? And the Torah said that he is clean [even though undigested unclean food is contained inside him].
C. But perhaps that case is different [and does not prove the point]. [For the food inside him] is not fit for a stranger [to eat and therefore no longer carries the uncleanness of carrion].
D. This would settle the matter according to R. Yohanan who said, “[Regarding the uncleanness of carrion]: both for this [purpose of rendering persons unclean] and for that [purpose of rendering other foods unclean], as long as it is [fit for consumption] by a dog [it renders unclean].” Then this [use of the rule for carrion as proof of the principle of contained uncleanness] would make perfect sense.
E. But according to Bar Padda who said, “[Regarding the uncleanness of carrion, it transmits] stronger uncleanness [as long as it is fit for consumption] by a stranger. [It transmits] weaker uncleanness [as long as it is fit for consumption] by a dog,” [we should have no proof of the principle of contained uncleanness from the rule of carrion] because it is not fit [when in the stomach for consumption] by a stranger [and therefore no longer unclean as carrion].
F. [We could argue that there is still a way of using the rule as proof of the principle.] We may allow that [food that was swallowed] is not fit [for consumption by] a stranger [if it was swallowed] in front of him. [But if it was swallowed] not in front of him, it might be fit [for his consumption, if for instance it was spit up intact and served to him]. [Hence we could prove the principle from this rule.]
G. Now we have found the source of the principle for uncleanness that was contained [inside a person's body, i.e., that it cannot be transmitted]. What is the source of the principle of cleanness [contained in a person's body, i.e., that a clean object inside cannot be made unclean]?
H. We derive it based on logic a fortiori. What is the case regarding a tightly sealed clay vessel? It does not prevent the unclean contents from rendering unclean [other objects].
I. For the master said, “The uncleanness breaks forth and ascends up to the firmament [cf. M. Ohal. 7:1, 14:6-7].” [And we still say that the clay vessel] protects its clean contents from becoming unclean. [71b] [Regarding] a person who prevents the uncleanness inside him from rendering unclean [other objects] is it not logical to conclude that he protects the clean contents inside him from becoming unclean?
J. [But you could argue that it is not consistent to deduce this.] What is the case regarding a clay vessel? It cannot become unclean by contact with its outer surface. You will say that a person [is subject to a stricter rule because] he does become unclean by contact with his outer surface.
K Are we speaking of a case where there is contact [of uncleanness] with his outer surface? We are speaking of a case where there is contact with his inner surface. And you may argue the opposite, that the rule for a clay vessel is stricter [that the rule for a person]. For [a clay vessel] renders unclean via its airspace [and a person does not]. [Hence we may say the original logic is sound.]
L. Now we have found [a source for the principles of uncleanness] contained that was swallowed [by a person] from above. What about [a source for the principles of] uncleanness that was inserted [inside a person] from below?
M. We derive it based on logic a fortiori. What is the case regarding food that was swallowed? Even though it does not putrefy, it prevents [the uncleanness from rendering unclean other objects]. Where it was inserted below, where it does putrefy, is it not logical to conclude that it prevents [the uncleanness from rendering unclean other objects]?
N. But is it not the case that it putrefies below only when it enters above [and goes through the digestive process]? Even so, the putrefying below is substantial [whatever way it enters]. [Hence we may say the original logic is sound.]
O. Now we have found [a source for the principles of uncleanness] contained that was swallowed by a person. What is the source for [the principles of uncleanness] contained that was swallowed by an animal? We derive it based on logic a fortiori. What is the case regarding a person? He renders unclean even while alive and still prevents [uncleanness] contained inside him [from rendering unclean other objects]. Regarding an animal that does not render unclean while it is still alive, is it not logical to conclude that it prevents [uncleanness] contained inside it [from rendering unclean other objects]?
P. [But you could argue that it is not consistent to deduce this.] What is the case regarding a person? He must linger in a house with a plague [in order for his clothing to contract uncleanness]. You may say regarding an animal [that its rule is stricter because] it does not need to linger in a house with a plague [before objects on it become unclean].
Q. In what circumstance does this law apply? For utensils that are upon it [that it is carrying]. [In that case] a person also need not linger [for the uncleanness to affect utensils upon him that he is carrying]. As it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: He who entered a house afflicted with the plague, with his garments over his shoulder, and his sandals and rings in his hands — he and they are unclean forthwith. He was dressed with his garments, with his sandals on his feet and his rings on his fingers — he is unclean forthwith. But they are clean until he will remain for a time sufficient to eat a piece of bread — a piece of wheat, and not a piece of bread of barley — reclining and with a condiment [M. Neg. 13:9].
R. Said Raba, “Both of them [i.e., two principles regarding uncleanness that is contained, cf. A, above] were taught on Tannaite authority [so what does Rabbah's teaching in A add]? [The principle regarding] uncleanness that is contained was taught on Tannaite authority. And [the principle regarding] cleanness that was contained was taught on Tannaite authority.”
S. [The principle regarding] uncleanness that is contained — as it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: If one swallowed an unclean ring, he immerses, eats heave-offering, then vomited it up — it is unclean and renders him unclean [M. Miq. 10:8 H-I].
T. [The principle regarding] cleanness that is contained — as it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: If one swallowed a clean ring, entered the Tent of the corpse, was sprinkled and repeated the sprinkling and immersed and then vomited it up — lo, it is as it was [clean].
U. What case then did Rabbah speak of [in his rule in A]? The case in question was one where: One swallowed two rings, one that was unclean and one that was clean and the unclean one does not render unclean the clean one. [Since both are contained inside the body they can neither transmit nor contract uncleanness.]
No comments:
Post a Comment