9:5
A. The marrow bone of
the corpse [125a] and the marrow
bone of [invalidated] consecrated animals —
B. he who touches them,
C. whether [they are] stopped up or
hollowed out,
D. is unclean.
E. The marrow bone of carrion and the
marrow bone of a creeping thing —
F. he who touches them,
G. [if they are] stopped up,
H. is clean.
I. [If they are] hollowed out in any
amount at all —
J. they impart uncleanness to the one
who touches them.
K. How do we know that also to the one
who carries them [the marrow bones of carrion that they do impart uncleanness]?
L. Scripture states, “He who touches”
and “he who carries” (Lev. 11:39, 40).
M. That which enters the category of
touching enters the category of carrying. That which does not enter the
category of touching does not enter the category of carrying.
I.1
A. If one touches them, yes [he is
unclean]. But if one overshadows it, no [he is not unclean].
B. What
is the situation? If there is an olive's bulk of flesh [on the bone] in the
[contained space of the] tent [created when one overshadows it], let him be
made unclean [by it]. [So it must be that] there is not an olive's bulk of
flesh on it.
C. And
if there is an olive's bulk of marrow inside [the bone, then we know the
principle is that] uncleanness breaks forth and rises up into the [contained
space of a] tent. There too, let him be made unclean [by it]. [So it must be
that] there is not an olive's bulk of marrow inside [the bone].
D. But
if [you hold the principle that] marrow inside revitalizes the flesh outside
[and therefore any amount of bone, without marrow or flesh, will render
unclean, cf. M. Ohalot 1:7 (Rashi)], then it is a perfectly fine limb. There
too, let him be made unclean [by it].
E. Said
R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya, “That means [we must hold the principle that]
marrow inside does not revitalize the flesh outside.”
F. With
which view does the Mishnah-passage conform? That there is no olive's bulk [of
flesh or marrow]. If so, why does the
marrow bone of [invalidated] consecrated animals [M. 9:4 A] render unclean [there is no flesh on it to
become invalidated]? And furthermore, [why do] the marrow bone of carrion and the marrow bone of a creeping thing render
unclean [if they are] hollowed out [M.
9:4 E, I]?
G. Lo
this is not a problem. The former text of the Mishnah-passage [addresses a
circumstance] where there is not an olive's bulk [of marrow or flesh]. And the
latter text of the Mishnah-passage [addresses a circumstance] where there is an
olive's bulk [of marrow or flesh].
H. And
what novel point does [the Mishnah-passage] make? Each clause makes a novel
point [of its own]. The former text makes the novel point that marrow inside
does not revitalize the flesh outside.
I. [The marrow bone of invalidated] consecrated animals [M. 9:4 A] — what novel point does that make? That [an
appendage] serving a purpose for invalidated [meat of consecrated animals, i.e.
the bone] has [the same] status [as the invalidated meat itself].
J. For said Mari bar Abbuha, said R.
Yitzhak, “The bones of consecrated animals that serve a purpose for invalidated
meat render the hands unclean because they became a base for something
prohibited.” [Neusner (b. Pes. 83a): bones of Holy Things that served as the
container for left-over sacrificial material. Freedman (ad. loc.): Marrow left in them after the time permitted for eating
the sacrifice having become left-over, for which the bones served as a
container].
K. The
marrow bone of carrion [M. 9:4 E] — [what
novel point does that make]? That even though there is an olive's bulk [of
marrow], [if they are] hollowed out,
yes [they impart uncleanness]. [If they are not] hollowed out, no [they do
not impart uncleanness].
L. Abayye
said, “Invariably [we hold the view that] marrow inside does revitalize the
flesh outside. But in that case [in M.] what are we dealing with? Where he
cleaved it [Cashdan: transversely]. And this accords with the view of R.
Eleazar.”
M. For said R. Eleazar, “A marrow bone
that one cleaved lengthwise is unclean. [If he cleaved it] transversely, it is
clean. And a visual [analogy] for this [rule] is a palm tree. [If one strips
off bark lengthwise it will grow. If one strips off bark transversely, it will
wither.]”
N. And
R. Yohanan said, “Invariably [we hold the view that] there is an olive's bulk
[of flesh on it] and that marrow inside does revitalize the flesh outside. And
what does he who touches that was taught [in the Mishnah-passage
mean]? [It means he who] overshadows.” [This view recalls A, above and
contradicts it.]
O. But
if [we hold the view that] marrow inside does revitalize the flesh outside then
[regarding] The marrow bone of
carrion and the marrow bone of a creeping thing if they were not hollowed
out, why are they clean?
P. Said R. Benjamin bar Giddal, said
R. Yohanan, “In that case what are we dealing with? The case in question may be
one where there is an olive's bulk of [dried] marrow that rattles around
[inside the bone]. With regard to [its status in the bone of a] corpse, [we
follow the rule that] the uncleanness breaks forth and rises up [into a
contained space, cf. C above]. But with regard to [its status in the bone of]
carrion, because it rattles around, [if the bone] is hollowed out, then yes [it
imparts uncleanness]. If it is not hollowed out, then no [it does not].”
I.2
A. Said R. Abin, and some maintain it
was R. Yosé bar Abin, “We have been taught: He who touches half an olive's bulk and overshadows half an olive's
bulk, or touches half an olive's bulk, and half an olive's bulk overshadows him
[M. Ohalot 3:1 G-H] is unclean.
B. “It
makes perfect sense if you say [uncleanness imparted by touching and by
overshadowing] have the same status, then on that basis they combine [the act
of touching half a measure and overshadowing half a measure to make up a full
measure for uncleanness]. But if you say they have two [distinct] statuses,
would they then combine?
C. “But
lo it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: This is the general rule: Every case [in which contamination is]
because of one mode of contamination is unclean; because of two categories is
clean [M. Ohalot 3:1 R].”
D. What
then is the case? Do they [i.e., touching and overshadowing] have the same
status [for imparting uncleanness]? Consider the latter text of the
Mishnah-passage: [125b] But he who
touches half an olive's bulk, and something else overshadows him and half an
olive's bulk [M. Ohalot 3:1 M, O] is clean.
E. And
if they are the same status, why is he clean? Rather, this contradicts the
[rule in the] former text of the Mishnah-passage!
F. But
said R. Zira, “We are dealing with [a case of] an unclean object hanging
between two closets and where there is not even an opening of a handbreadth
[between them]. The entire concern [in that case] is with touching. [Hence we
learn nothing from that as to whether touching and overshadowing have the same
status.]”
G. And
who is the Tannaite authority who holds the view that we consider [a case of]
overshadowing [to be equivalent to] a case of touching? It is R. Yosé.
H. As
it was taught on Tannaite authority: R.
Yosé says, “A ladleful of corpse mould renders unclean through touching, and
carrying and overshadowing” [T. Ahilot 4:1 A]. Now this makes perfect sense [that it render unclean] through carrying
or overshadowing for lo, he carries all of it [i.e., the corpse mould in the
ladle] or overshadows all of it [at once]. But [as far as it rendering unclean
through] touching, lo he did not touch all of it [at once]. Rather here is what
you must derive from this. What does touching mean [in this circumstance]? [It means]
overshadowing.
I. But
lo [you may object to this explanation because] it teaches, through touching... and overshadowing.
J. Said
Abayye, “In less than a handbreadth of space, overshadowing is equivalent to
touching. In more than a handbreadth of space, overshadowing is simply
overshadowing.”
K. Raba
said, “Even in more than a handbreath of space, overshadowing is equivalent to
touching. And in what circumstance is overshadowing simply overshadowing? [Not
in a case where the person overshadows the source of uncleanness directly.]
Where [a covering hangs over both the person and the unclean object and conveys
the uncleanness within the covered space] by extension.”
L. Said
Raba, “On what basis do I maintain this view? As was taught on Tannaite authority:
R. Yosé says, `The ropes of the bed and
the webbing of the windows interpose between the house and the upper room, lest
uncleanness pass to the second side. [If] they were placed on top of the corpse
in the open air, that which overshadows the perforation is unclean, and that
which is not over the perforation is clean, because the uncleanness exudes by
the way which it enters.' [T. Ahilot 9:5 A-B].”
M. What
is the circumstance? If you maintain that there is less than a handbreadth
[between the objects and the corpse] then why is that which is not over the perforation... clean? It is like the corpse in its shroud [i.e., the ropes and webbing].
And the corpse and its shroud impart uncleanness. [The ropes and webbing should
impart uncleanness not interpose before it.]
N. Rather,
what then is the circumstance? [You must maintain that] there is more than a
handbreadth [between the objects and the corpse]. Then why call it touching?
O. Said
Abayye, “Invariably [the case is that there is] less than a handbreadth. And
what you stated by way of objection that it is like a corpse in its shroud,
well a corpse nullifies [the power of interposition of] its shroud. But a
corpse does not nullify [the power of interposition of] these [ropes and
webs].”
P. But
let this accord with the rule of covered uncleanness, [i.e.,] that it breaks
forth and rises. [No we cannot say this because] R. Yosé holds in accord with
the view that covered uncleanness does not break forth.
Q. And
on what basis do you maintain this? As was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite
authority: A drawer of the cupboard
— there is in it a cubic handbreadth, but there is not in its outlet a cubic
handbreadth — uncleanness is in it, the house is unclean. Uncleanness is in the
house, what is in it is clean, for the way of uncleanness is to exude, and its
way is not to seep in. R. Yosé declares clean, because one can remove it in
halves or burn it in its place [M. Ohalot 4:2].
R. And
the latter text of the Mishnah taught on Tannaite authority: [If] it [the cupboard] was standing in the
doorway and opened outward, uncleanness is in it, the house is clean.
Uncleanness is in the house, what is in it [M. Ohalot 4:3] should be clean.
No comments:
Post a Comment