Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 3, 2020 | ט׳ בניסן תש״פ

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 28

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Freidl bat Meir and Rivka z”l, Frieda Carlin, by Rikki and Alan Zibitt on her 4th yahrzeit, and by Rachel Sabbath beit Halachmi in honor of her husband Ofer her ezer imadi and forever chevruta.

From where do we learn that from natural materials, only flax can create impurity of a tent over a dead body? It is learned out from the mishkan (Tabernacle). Does a tent/covering made from non kosher animals also create impurity of a tent? Is the tachash that Moshe used to make a covering for the mishkan a domesticated or not domesticated animal? Kosher or not kosher? If one takes a cloth and folds it into a wick but doesn’t yet singe it, is it susceptible to impurities? Can one light with it for Shabbat? There is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. The first explanation of each opinion is brought.

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

ממשכן כתיב הכא זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל וכתיב התם ויפרוש את האהל על המשכן מה להלן של פשתן קרוי אהל אף כאן של פשתן קרוי אהל אי מה להלן שזורין וחוטן כפול ששה אף כאן שזורין וחוטן כפול ששה תלמוד לומר אהל אהל ריבה אי אהל אהל ריבה אפילו כל מילי נמי אם כן גזירה שוה מאי אהני ליה

written in the context of the Tabernacle. It is written here, in the discussion of the laws of ritual impurity: “This is the law: When a man dies in a tent, every one that comes into the tent, and everything that is in the tent, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:14), and it is written there: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle, and put the covering of the tent above upon it; as the Lord commanded Moses” (Exodus 40:19). Just as below, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was made of linen and is considered a tent, so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, only a tent made of linen is considered a tent. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same verbal analogy: Just as below the linen threads in the Tabernacle were specifically threads that were twisted and the threads were folded six times, so too, here, in all of the halakhot pertaining to a tent over a corpse, the threads must be twisted and their threads folded six times. The verse states the word tent, tent several times to amplify and include even a tent made of linen not identical to the Tabernacle. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the word tent, tent several times amplifies, even all things should be included among those items that can receive ritual impurity as a tent. The Gemara answers: This amplification cannot be that far-reaching, as, if so, the verbal analogy of tent, tent, that teaches us to derive the tent over a corpse from the Tabernacle, what purpose does it serve if everything is included? Rather, certainly the amplification is not absolute. Through the combination of the verbal analogy and the amplification, it is derived that this halakha applies specifically to linen.

ואימא מה להלן קרשים אף כאן קרשים אמר קרא ועשית קרשים למשכן משכן קרוי משכן ואין קרשים קרויין משכן אלא מעתה ועשית מכסה לאהל הכי נמי מכסה לא איקרי אהל אלא הא דבעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא באהל המת השתא עור בהמה טהורה לא מטמא עור בהמה טמאה מיבעיא שאני התם דהדר אהדריה קרא דכתיב ונשאו את יריעות המשכן ואת אהל מועד מכסהו ומכסה התחש אשר עליו מקיש עליון לתחתון מה תחתון קרוי אהל אף עליון קרוי אהל:

And perhaps say: Just as below, in the Tabernacle, there were beams supporting the tent, so too, here, in the laws of ritual impurity, a tent made of beams should also be considered a tent. The Gemara responds that the verse said: “And you shall make the beams for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing up” (Exodus 26:15). From the language of the verse, it is derived that the Tabernacle, i.e., the curtains alone, is called Tabernacle, and the beams are not called Tabernacle, because they merely facilitate the Tabernacle. The Gemara rejects this: But if that is so, based on an analysis of the language of the verse, it says there: “And you shall make a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red and a covering of teḥashim above” (Exodus 26:14), then in that case, too, say that the covering is not considered a tent. If so, however, what of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Elazar: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? If the covering of the Tabernacle is not considered a tent, now, the hide of a kosher animal that covered the Tabernacle cannot become ritually impure. If that is so, is it necessary to mention that the hide of a non-kosher animal cannot become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The cases are not comparable because it is different there, in the case of the covering of animal hides, because the verse subsequently restored its status as a tent by uniting the tent and its covering, as it is written: “They shall bear the curtains of the Tabernacle, and the Tent of Meeting, its covering, and the covering of taḥash that is upon it” (Numbers 4:25). The verse juxtaposes the upper to the lower covering; just as the lower covering is considered a tent, so too, the upper covering is considered a tent.

גופא בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין מאי קמיבעיא ליה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד

Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma was mentioned above, and now the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? The Gemara clarifies: What is the essence of his dilemma? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The taḥash that existed in the time of Moses is at the crux of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma. Was it non-kosher or was it kosher? Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Didn’t we learn explicitly: Only the hide of a kosher animal was deemed suitable for heavenly service? Certainly, the taḥash was a kosher species.

מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן והא תלא אילן טמא הוא הכי קאמר כמין תלא אילן הוא שיש בו גוונין הרבה ולא תלא אילן דאילו התם טמא והכא טהור אמר רב יוסף אי הכי היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא ששש בגוונין הרבה

Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of the hides of teḥashim. Rabbi Neḥemya says: There was only one covering for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams’ hides and half from the hides of teḥashim. And teḥashim were similar to the species of undomesticated animals called tela ilan. The Gemara asks: But isn’t a tela ilan a non-kosher creature? The Gemara emends this statement: This is what Rabbi Neḥemya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals. Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate the word taḥash as sasgona, which means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim].

רבא אמר עור בהמה טמאה דמטמא באהל המת מהכא דתניא עור או בעור ריבה עור בהמה טמאה ושלקה ביד כהן קצץ מכולן ועשה אחת מהן מנין תלמוד לומר או בכל מלאכת עור ואיכא למיפרך מה לנגעים שכן שתי וערב טמא בהן

Rava said that the proof that the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure in a tent over a corpse is derived from here, as it was taught in a baraita that it is stated in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy that the leprosy could be: “Either in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a hide, or in any thing made of hide” (Leviticus 13:48). The verse could have simply stated: Or hide, and it said instead: Or in a hide. The Sages said: These words, or in a hide, amplify to include the hide of a non-kosher animal as well as hide that was afflicted in the hands of a priest, i.e., before the owner showed it to the priest there was no leprosy but it became leprous while in the hands of the priest, that they too become ritually impure. If one cut pieces from each of these types and made of them a single cloth, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states from the broader amplification: Or in anything made of hide. The Gemara remarks: There is room to refute this parallel, rendering it impossible to derive the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse from the laws of leprosy. What is the comparison to leprosy with regard to which the Torah is stringent, as even the warp and woof that have not been woven into a garment can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case in impurity imparted by a corpse?

אלא גמר משרצים דתניא עור אין לי אלא עור בהמה טהורה עור בהמה טמאה מנין תלמוד לומר או עור ואיכא למיפרך מה לשרצים שכן מטמאין בכעדשה נגעים יוכיחו וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שעור טמא בהן ועשה עור בהמה טמאה כעור בהמה טהורה אף אני אביא אהל המת שעור טמא בו ונעשה בו עור בהמה טמאה כעור בהמה טהורה

Rather, one could say that he derived it from the laws of the ritual impurity of creeping animals, as it is stated with regard to them: “And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be impure; whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or hide, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, with which any work is done” (Leviticus 11:32). As it was taught in a baraita: From the use of the word hide, I have derived nothing other than the fact that the hide of a kosher animal becomes ritually impure from contact with a creeping animal; however, from where is it derived that the hide of a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure? This is derived from the amplification, as the verse states: Or hide. Since, with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals the laws of the hides of kosher and non-kosher animals are identical, it is derived that this is also true with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Once again, the Gemara says: There is room to refute this derivation and say: What is the comparison to creeping animals, as their legal status is stringent because they become ritually impure even if they are as small as a lentil-bulk, which is not true in the case of a corpse? In order for a corpse to transmit ritual impurity, it must be larger, an olive-bulk. Therefore, the Gemara says: If so, the case of leprosy can prove that the fact that creeping animals that are a lentil-bulk transmit impurity is not a factor in whether or not a non-kosher animal hide can become ritually impure. Leprosy that is a lentil-bulk does not transmit impurity and, nevertheless, the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure from it. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common denominator is that hide, in general, is ritually impure in both cases, and the Torah rendered the hide of a non-kosher animal equal to the hide of a kosher animal in that it becomes ritually impure. I will also bring the additional halakha of a tent over a corpse made of the hide of a non-kosher animal, and in that case as well, the hide of a non-kosher animal will be rendered equal to the hide of a kosher animal.

אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן טמאין בפחות מכזית תאמר במת שאינו מטמא אלא בכזית

Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi: There is still room to refute this statement and say: What is the comparison to leprosy and creeping animals? Their common denominator is that they both transmit ritual impurity when smaller than an olive-bulk. Can you say the same in the case of a corpse, which only transmits ritual impurity when it is at least an olive-bulk? Therefore, despite the differences between them, these two halakhot are both more stringent than the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the status of a non-kosher animal hide cannot be derived from them.

אלא אמר רבא מברניש

Rather, Rava from Barnish said it can be derived in the following manner:

אתיא בקל וחומר מנוצה של עזים שאין מטמא בנגעים מטמא באהל המת עור בהמה טמאה שמטמאה בנגעים אינו דין שמטמאה באהל המת

It is derived through an a fortiori inference from goats’ hair. Although goats’ hair does not become ritually impure from leprosy, it does become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse; with regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal that becomes ritually impure from leprosy, is it not the case that it becomes ritually impure as a tent over a corpse?

ואלא הא דתני רב יוסף לא הוכשרו במלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד למאי הלכתא לתפילין תפילין בהדיא כתיב בהו למען תהיה תורת ה׳ בפיך מן המותר בפיך

Since the conclusion was that the hide of even a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse, it is not necessary to assume that the covering of the Tabernacle was made specifically from the hide of a kosher animal. And, if so, that which Rav Yosef taught: Only the hide of a kosher animal was suitable for heavenly service, for what halakha is that relevant, as it is clearly not relevant to the Tabernacle? The Gemara replies: This halakha was stated with regard to phylacteries, which may be prepared only from the hide of a kosher animal. The Gemara asks: Phylacteries? Why did Rav Yosef need to state that halakha? It is written explicitly with regard to them: “And it shall be for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). The Sages derived from there that the phylacteries must be prepared from that which is permitted to be eaten in your mouth.

אלא לעורן והאמר אביי שין של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני

Rather, the Gemara explains that this halakha of Rav Yosef was said only with regard to the leather of the boxes that house the phylacteries, which must be crafted from the hide of a kosher animal. It was not referring to the parchment on which the portions of the Torah inserted into the phylacteries are written. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Abaye say: The obligation to make a letter shin protruding on the phylacteries of one’s head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Since Torah law addresses the boxes of the phylacteries, presumably their legal status is parallel to that of the parchment and the prohibition against preparing them from the hide of a non-kosher animal is by Torah law as well.

אלא לכורכן בשערן ולתופרן בגידן הא נמי הלכה למשה מסיני הוא דתניא תפילין מרובעות הלכה למשה מסיני נכרכות בשערן ונתפרות בגידן

Rather, the Gemara explains that Rav Yosef’s halakha comes to teach that one must tie the parchments upon which the portions of the Torah are written in the phylacteries with a kosher animal’s hair, as well as sew the phylacteries with a kosher animal’s sinews. The Gemara asks: The source of these halakhot is also a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as it was taught in a baraita: The requirement that phylacteries must be square is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as is the requirement that they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their sinews.

אלא לרצועות והאמר רבי יצחק רצועות שחורות הלכה למשה מסיני נהי דגמירי שחורות טהורות מי גמירי

Rather, the Gemara says that Rav Yosef came to teach with regard to the halakha of the straps of the phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak say: The straps of the phylacteries must be black is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? The Gemara responds: Although we learned this halakha, which states that the straps must be black, did we also learn that they must be from kosher animals? Rav Yosef was certainly referring to straps when he said that all heavenly service must be performed with the hides of kosher animals.

מאי הוי עלה דתחש שהיה בימי משה אמר רבי אלעא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר היה רבי מאיר תחש שהיה בימי משה בריה בפני עצמה היה ולא הכריעו בה חכמים אם מין חיה הוא אם מין בהמה הוא וקרן אחת היתה לו במצחו ולפי שעה נזדמן לו למשה ועשה ממנו משכן ונגנז

The Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter of the taḥash that existed in the days of Moses? Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that Rabbi Meir used to say: The taḥash that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the Sages did not determine whether it was a type of undomesticated animal or a type of domesticated animal. And it had a single horn on its forehead, and this taḥash happened to come to Moses for the moment while the Tabernacle was being built, and he made the covering for the Tabernacle from it. And from then on, the taḥash was suppressed and is no longer found.

מדקאמר קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו שמע מינה טהור היה דאמר רב יהודה שור שהקריב אדם הראשון קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו שנאמר ותיטב לה׳ משור פר מקרין מפריס מקרין תרתי משמע אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מקרן כתיב וליפשוט מיניה דמין בהמה הוא כיון דאיכא קרש דמין חיה הוא ולית ליה אלא חדא קרן איכא למימר מין חיה הוא:

The Gemara comments: From the fact that it is said that the taḥash had a single horn on its forehead, conclude from this that it was kosher, as Rav Yehuda said in a similar vein: The ox that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a horned [makrin] and hooved ox” (Psalms 69:32). The word makrin means one with a horn. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, makrin indicates that it has two horns. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, it is written mikeren without the letter yod to indicate that it had only a single horn. The Gemara asks: If so, let us resolve from the same baraita that just as it was derived from the ox of Adam, the first man, that an animal with one horn is kosher, derive that an animal with one horn is a type of domesticated animal. The Gemara answers: Since there is the keresh which is a type of undomesticated animal, and it has only a single horn, it is also possible to say that the taḥash is a type of undomesticated animal. This dilemma was not resolved.

מתני׳ פתילת הבגד שקיפלה ולא הבהבה רבי אליעזר אומר טמאה היא ואין מדליקין בה רבי עקיבא אומר טהורה היא ומדליקין בה:

MISHNA: The wick of a garment, i.e., cloth made into a wick for a lamp, that one folded it into a size and shape suitable for a wick, but did not yet singe it slightly in order to facilitate its lighting, Rabbi Eliezer says: This wick is ritually impure. With regard to the laws of ritual impurity, it can, like other garments, still become ritually impure and one may not light with it on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva says: It is ritually pure and one may even light with it on Shabbat.

גמ׳ בשלמא לענין טומאה בהא פליגי דרבי אליעזר סבר קיפול אינו מועיל ובמילתיה קמייתא קיימא ורבי עקיבא סבר קיפול מועיל ובטולי בטיל

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to ritual impurity, the reasons for their disagreement are clear and this is their dispute: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in altering the identity of the garment and it retains its original status. It can become ritually impure like any other garment. Rabbi Akiva holds that folding is effective, and it negates its garment status, and therefore, it can no longer become ritually impure.

אלא לענין הדלקה במאי פליגי אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רב אושעיא וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בשלש על שלש מצומצמות עסקינן וביום טוב שחל להיות ערב שבת עסקינן דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבי יהודה דאמר מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים ודכולי עלמא אית להו דעולא דאמר עולא המדליק צריך שידליק ברוב היוצא רבי אליעזר סבר קיפול אינו מועיל וכיון דאדליק ביה פורתא הויא ליה שבר כלי וכי קא מדליק בשבר כלי קמדליק ורבי עקיבא סבר קיפול מועיל ואין תורת כלי עליו וכי קמדליק בעץ בעלמא קמדליק

However, with regard to lighting on Shabbat what is at the crux of their dispute? Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said, and Rav Adda bar Ahava said likewise: Here we are dealing with a cloth that is precisely three by three fingerbreadths and we are dealing with a Festival that occurred on Shabbat eve. And everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that on a Festival one may only kindle a fire with whole vessels, as it is permitted to carry them and they do not have set-aside [muktze] status; however, one may not kindle a fire using broken vessels, i.e., vessels that broke on the Festival. Since they broke on the Festival itself, they are classified as an entity that came into being [nolad] on the Festival, and the halakha prohibits moving them. And, similarly, everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: One who lights a lamp must light most of the wick that protrudes from the lamp. Based on these assumptions, the dispute in the mishna can be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in negating the wick’s vessel status, and once one lights only a small part of it, it thereby becomes a broken vessel, as part of it burns and the remainder is less than three by three fingerbreadths. A smaller cloth is no longer considered significant. Since he is required to light most of the protruding wick and, as mentioned above, it is prohibited to light broken vessels, he may not light the folded garment. And Rabbi Akiva held that folding is effective and, immediately when he folded it, the garment no longer has the status of a vessel. It was not considered a vessel even before he lit it, and when he lights it, it is as if he were lighting plain wood, not a vessel that broke on the Festival.

אמר רב יוסף היינו דתנינא שלש על שלש מצומצמות ולא ידענא למאי הלכתא

Rav Yosef said, that is what I learned: Three by three exactly. And I did not know to what halakha this was relevant. Rav Yosef received from his teachers that the baraita is referring to a case of three by three exactly, and he did not know why it was significant to establish the baraita in a case of exactly three by three and no more.

ומדקא מתרץ רב אדא בר אהבה אליבא דרבי יהודה שמע מינה כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה ומי אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכי והאמר רב אדא בר אהבה

The Gemara adds incidentally: And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from this that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rav Adda bar Ahava actually say this? Didn’t Rav Adda bar Ahava himself say:

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.  An...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time- Shabbat 26-32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26nklNuIUc8 Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week’s seven pages....
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 28: It’s a Unicorn!

Still talking about ritual impurity... Including non-kosher animals. Holy endeavors must use a kosher animal, and the Gemara explains where...

Shabbat 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 28

ממשכן כתיב הכא זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל וכתיב התם ויפרוש את האהל על המשכן מה להלן של פשתן קרוי אהל אף כאן של פשתן קרוי אהל אי מה להלן שזורין וחוטן כפול ששה אף כאן שזורין וחוטן כפול ששה תלמוד לומר אהל אהל ריבה אי אהל אהל ריבה אפילו כל מילי נמי אם כן גזירה שוה מאי אהני ליה

written in the context of the Tabernacle. It is written here, in the discussion of the laws of ritual impurity: “This is the law: When a man dies in a tent, every one that comes into the tent, and everything that is in the tent, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:14), and it is written there: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle, and put the covering of the tent above upon it; as the Lord commanded Moses” (Exodus 40:19). Just as below, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was made of linen and is considered a tent, so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, only a tent made of linen is considered a tent. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same verbal analogy: Just as below the linen threads in the Tabernacle were specifically threads that were twisted and the threads were folded six times, so too, here, in all of the halakhot pertaining to a tent over a corpse, the threads must be twisted and their threads folded six times. The verse states the word tent, tent several times to amplify and include even a tent made of linen not identical to the Tabernacle. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the word tent, tent several times amplifies, even all things should be included among those items that can receive ritual impurity as a tent. The Gemara answers: This amplification cannot be that far-reaching, as, if so, the verbal analogy of tent, tent, that teaches us to derive the tent over a corpse from the Tabernacle, what purpose does it serve if everything is included? Rather, certainly the amplification is not absolute. Through the combination of the verbal analogy and the amplification, it is derived that this halakha applies specifically to linen.

ואימא מה להלן קרשים אף כאן קרשים אמר קרא ועשית קרשים למשכן משכן קרוי משכן ואין קרשים קרויין משכן אלא מעתה ועשית מכסה לאהל הכי נמי מכסה לא איקרי אהל אלא הא דבעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא באהל המת השתא עור בהמה טהורה לא מטמא עור בהמה טמאה מיבעיא שאני התם דהדר אהדריה קרא דכתיב ונשאו את יריעות המשכן ואת אהל מועד מכסהו ומכסה התחש אשר עליו מקיש עליון לתחתון מה תחתון קרוי אהל אף עליון קרוי אהל:

And perhaps say: Just as below, in the Tabernacle, there were beams supporting the tent, so too, here, in the laws of ritual impurity, a tent made of beams should also be considered a tent. The Gemara responds that the verse said: “And you shall make the beams for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing up” (Exodus 26:15). From the language of the verse, it is derived that the Tabernacle, i.e., the curtains alone, is called Tabernacle, and the beams are not called Tabernacle, because they merely facilitate the Tabernacle. The Gemara rejects this: But if that is so, based on an analysis of the language of the verse, it says there: “And you shall make a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red and a covering of teḥashim above” (Exodus 26:14), then in that case, too, say that the covering is not considered a tent. If so, however, what of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Elazar: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? If the covering of the Tabernacle is not considered a tent, now, the hide of a kosher animal that covered the Tabernacle cannot become ritually impure. If that is so, is it necessary to mention that the hide of a non-kosher animal cannot become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The cases are not comparable because it is different there, in the case of the covering of animal hides, because the verse subsequently restored its status as a tent by uniting the tent and its covering, as it is written: “They shall bear the curtains of the Tabernacle, and the Tent of Meeting, its covering, and the covering of taḥash that is upon it” (Numbers 4:25). The verse juxtaposes the upper to the lower covering; just as the lower covering is considered a tent, so too, the upper covering is considered a tent.

גופא בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין מאי קמיבעיא ליה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד

Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma was mentioned above, and now the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? The Gemara clarifies: What is the essence of his dilemma? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The taḥash that existed in the time of Moses is at the crux of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma. Was it non-kosher or was it kosher? Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Didn’t we learn explicitly: Only the hide of a kosher animal was deemed suitable for heavenly service? Certainly, the taḥash was a kosher species.

מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן והא תלא אילן טמא הוא הכי קאמר כמין תלא אילן הוא שיש בו גוונין הרבה ולא תלא אילן דאילו התם טמא והכא טהור אמר רב יוסף אי הכי היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא ששש בגוונין הרבה

Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of the hides of teḥashim. Rabbi Neḥemya says: There was only one covering for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams’ hides and half from the hides of teḥashim. And teḥashim were similar to the species of undomesticated animals called tela ilan. The Gemara asks: But isn’t a tela ilan a non-kosher creature? The Gemara emends this statement: This is what Rabbi Neḥemya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals. Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate the word taḥash as sasgona, which means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim].

רבא אמר עור בהמה טמאה דמטמא באהל המת מהכא דתניא עור או בעור ריבה עור בהמה טמאה ושלקה ביד כהן קצץ מכולן ועשה אחת מהן מנין תלמוד לומר או בכל מלאכת עור ואיכא למיפרך מה לנגעים שכן שתי וערב טמא בהן

Rava said that the proof that the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure in a tent over a corpse is derived from here, as it was taught in a baraita that it is stated in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy that the leprosy could be: “Either in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a hide, or in any thing made of hide” (Leviticus 13:48). The verse could have simply stated: Or hide, and it said instead: Or in a hide. The Sages said: These words, or in a hide, amplify to include the hide of a non-kosher animal as well as hide that was afflicted in the hands of a priest, i.e., before the owner showed it to the priest there was no leprosy but it became leprous while in the hands of the priest, that they too become ritually impure. If one cut pieces from each of these types and made of them a single cloth, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states from the broader amplification: Or in anything made of hide. The Gemara remarks: There is room to refute this parallel, rendering it impossible to derive the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse from the laws of leprosy. What is the comparison to leprosy with regard to which the Torah is stringent, as even the warp and woof that have not been woven into a garment can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case in impurity imparted by a corpse?

אלא גמר משרצים דתניא עור אין לי אלא עור בהמה טהורה עור בהמה טמאה מנין תלמוד לומר או עור ואיכא למיפרך מה לשרצים שכן מטמאין בכעדשה נגעים יוכיחו וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שעור טמא בהן ועשה עור בהמה טמאה כעור בהמה טהורה אף אני אביא אהל המת שעור טמא בו ונעשה בו עור בהמה טמאה כעור בהמה טהורה

Rather, one could say that he derived it from the laws of the ritual impurity of creeping animals, as it is stated with regard to them: “And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be impure; whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or hide, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, with which any work is done” (Leviticus 11:32). As it was taught in a baraita: From the use of the word hide, I have derived nothing other than the fact that the hide of a kosher animal becomes ritually impure from contact with a creeping animal; however, from where is it derived that the hide of a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure? This is derived from the amplification, as the verse states: Or hide. Since, with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals the laws of the hides of kosher and non-kosher animals are identical, it is derived that this is also true with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Once again, the Gemara says: There is room to refute this derivation and say: What is the comparison to creeping animals, as their legal status is stringent because they become ritually impure even if they are as small as a lentil-bulk, which is not true in the case of a corpse? In order for a corpse to transmit ritual impurity, it must be larger, an olive-bulk. Therefore, the Gemara says: If so, the case of leprosy can prove that the fact that creeping animals that are a lentil-bulk transmit impurity is not a factor in whether or not a non-kosher animal hide can become ritually impure. Leprosy that is a lentil-bulk does not transmit impurity and, nevertheless, the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure from it. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common denominator is that hide, in general, is ritually impure in both cases, and the Torah rendered the hide of a non-kosher animal equal to the hide of a kosher animal in that it becomes ritually impure. I will also bring the additional halakha of a tent over a corpse made of the hide of a non-kosher animal, and in that case as well, the hide of a non-kosher animal will be rendered equal to the hide of a kosher animal.

אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן טמאין בפחות מכזית תאמר במת שאינו מטמא אלא בכזית

Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi: There is still room to refute this statement and say: What is the comparison to leprosy and creeping animals? Their common denominator is that they both transmit ritual impurity when smaller than an olive-bulk. Can you say the same in the case of a corpse, which only transmits ritual impurity when it is at least an olive-bulk? Therefore, despite the differences between them, these two halakhot are both more stringent than the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the status of a non-kosher animal hide cannot be derived from them.

אלא אמר רבא מברניש

Rather, Rava from Barnish said it can be derived in the following manner:

אתיא בקל וחומר מנוצה של עזים שאין מטמא בנגעים מטמא באהל המת עור בהמה טמאה שמטמאה בנגעים אינו דין שמטמאה באהל המת

It is derived through an a fortiori inference from goats’ hair. Although goats’ hair does not become ritually impure from leprosy, it does become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse; with regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal that becomes ritually impure from leprosy, is it not the case that it becomes ritually impure as a tent over a corpse?

ואלא הא דתני רב יוסף לא הוכשרו במלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד למאי הלכתא לתפילין תפילין בהדיא כתיב בהו למען תהיה תורת ה׳ בפיך מן המותר בפיך

Since the conclusion was that the hide of even a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse, it is not necessary to assume that the covering of the Tabernacle was made specifically from the hide of a kosher animal. And, if so, that which Rav Yosef taught: Only the hide of a kosher animal was suitable for heavenly service, for what halakha is that relevant, as it is clearly not relevant to the Tabernacle? The Gemara replies: This halakha was stated with regard to phylacteries, which may be prepared only from the hide of a kosher animal. The Gemara asks: Phylacteries? Why did Rav Yosef need to state that halakha? It is written explicitly with regard to them: “And it shall be for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). The Sages derived from there that the phylacteries must be prepared from that which is permitted to be eaten in your mouth.

אלא לעורן והאמר אביי שין של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני

Rather, the Gemara explains that this halakha of Rav Yosef was said only with regard to the leather of the boxes that house the phylacteries, which must be crafted from the hide of a kosher animal. It was not referring to the parchment on which the portions of the Torah inserted into the phylacteries are written. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Abaye say: The obligation to make a letter shin protruding on the phylacteries of one’s head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Since Torah law addresses the boxes of the phylacteries, presumably their legal status is parallel to that of the parchment and the prohibition against preparing them from the hide of a non-kosher animal is by Torah law as well.

אלא לכורכן בשערן ולתופרן בגידן הא נמי הלכה למשה מסיני הוא דתניא תפילין מרובעות הלכה למשה מסיני נכרכות בשערן ונתפרות בגידן

Rather, the Gemara explains that Rav Yosef’s halakha comes to teach that one must tie the parchments upon which the portions of the Torah are written in the phylacteries with a kosher animal’s hair, as well as sew the phylacteries with a kosher animal’s sinews. The Gemara asks: The source of these halakhot is also a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as it was taught in a baraita: The requirement that phylacteries must be square is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as is the requirement that they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their sinews.

אלא לרצועות והאמר רבי יצחק רצועות שחורות הלכה למשה מסיני נהי דגמירי שחורות טהורות מי גמירי

Rather, the Gemara says that Rav Yosef came to teach with regard to the halakha of the straps of the phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak say: The straps of the phylacteries must be black is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? The Gemara responds: Although we learned this halakha, which states that the straps must be black, did we also learn that they must be from kosher animals? Rav Yosef was certainly referring to straps when he said that all heavenly service must be performed with the hides of kosher animals.

מאי הוי עלה דתחש שהיה בימי משה אמר רבי אלעא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר היה רבי מאיר תחש שהיה בימי משה בריה בפני עצמה היה ולא הכריעו בה חכמים אם מין חיה הוא אם מין בהמה הוא וקרן אחת היתה לו במצחו ולפי שעה נזדמן לו למשה ועשה ממנו משכן ונגנז

The Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter of the taḥash that existed in the days of Moses? Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that Rabbi Meir used to say: The taḥash that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the Sages did not determine whether it was a type of undomesticated animal or a type of domesticated animal. And it had a single horn on its forehead, and this taḥash happened to come to Moses for the moment while the Tabernacle was being built, and he made the covering for the Tabernacle from it. And from then on, the taḥash was suppressed and is no longer found.

מדקאמר קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו שמע מינה טהור היה דאמר רב יהודה שור שהקריב אדם הראשון קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו שנאמר ותיטב לה׳ משור פר מקרין מפריס מקרין תרתי משמע אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מקרן כתיב וליפשוט מיניה דמין בהמה הוא כיון דאיכא קרש דמין חיה הוא ולית ליה אלא חדא קרן איכא למימר מין חיה הוא:

The Gemara comments: From the fact that it is said that the taḥash had a single horn on its forehead, conclude from this that it was kosher, as Rav Yehuda said in a similar vein: The ox that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a horned [makrin] and hooved ox” (Psalms 69:32). The word makrin means one with a horn. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, makrin indicates that it has two horns. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, it is written mikeren without the letter yod to indicate that it had only a single horn. The Gemara asks: If so, let us resolve from the same baraita that just as it was derived from the ox of Adam, the first man, that an animal with one horn is kosher, derive that an animal with one horn is a type of domesticated animal. The Gemara answers: Since there is the keresh which is a type of undomesticated animal, and it has only a single horn, it is also possible to say that the taḥash is a type of undomesticated animal. This dilemma was not resolved.

מתני׳ פתילת הבגד שקיפלה ולא הבהבה רבי אליעזר אומר טמאה היא ואין מדליקין בה רבי עקיבא אומר טהורה היא ומדליקין בה:

MISHNA: The wick of a garment, i.e., cloth made into a wick for a lamp, that one folded it into a size and shape suitable for a wick, but did not yet singe it slightly in order to facilitate its lighting, Rabbi Eliezer says: This wick is ritually impure. With regard to the laws of ritual impurity, it can, like other garments, still become ritually impure and one may not light with it on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva says: It is ritually pure and one may even light with it on Shabbat.

גמ׳ בשלמא לענין טומאה בהא פליגי דרבי אליעזר סבר קיפול אינו מועיל ובמילתיה קמייתא קיימא ורבי עקיבא סבר קיפול מועיל ובטולי בטיל

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to ritual impurity, the reasons for their disagreement are clear and this is their dispute: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in altering the identity of the garment and it retains its original status. It can become ritually impure like any other garment. Rabbi Akiva holds that folding is effective, and it negates its garment status, and therefore, it can no longer become ritually impure.

אלא לענין הדלקה במאי פליגי אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רב אושעיא וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בשלש על שלש מצומצמות עסקינן וביום טוב שחל להיות ערב שבת עסקינן דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבי יהודה דאמר מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים ודכולי עלמא אית להו דעולא דאמר עולא המדליק צריך שידליק ברוב היוצא רבי אליעזר סבר קיפול אינו מועיל וכיון דאדליק ביה פורתא הויא ליה שבר כלי וכי קא מדליק בשבר כלי קמדליק ורבי עקיבא סבר קיפול מועיל ואין תורת כלי עליו וכי קמדליק בעץ בעלמא קמדליק

However, with regard to lighting on Shabbat what is at the crux of their dispute? Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said, and Rav Adda bar Ahava said likewise: Here we are dealing with a cloth that is precisely three by three fingerbreadths and we are dealing with a Festival that occurred on Shabbat eve. And everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that on a Festival one may only kindle a fire with whole vessels, as it is permitted to carry them and they do not have set-aside [muktze] status; however, one may not kindle a fire using broken vessels, i.e., vessels that broke on the Festival. Since they broke on the Festival itself, they are classified as an entity that came into being [nolad] on the Festival, and the halakha prohibits moving them. And, similarly, everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: One who lights a lamp must light most of the wick that protrudes from the lamp. Based on these assumptions, the dispute in the mishna can be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in negating the wick’s vessel status, and once one lights only a small part of it, it thereby becomes a broken vessel, as part of it burns and the remainder is less than three by three fingerbreadths. A smaller cloth is no longer considered significant. Since he is required to light most of the protruding wick and, as mentioned above, it is prohibited to light broken vessels, he may not light the folded garment. And Rabbi Akiva held that folding is effective and, immediately when he folded it, the garment no longer has the status of a vessel. It was not considered a vessel even before he lit it, and when he lights it, it is as if he were lighting plain wood, not a vessel that broke on the Festival.

אמר רב יוסף היינו דתנינא שלש על שלש מצומצמות ולא ידענא למאי הלכתא

Rav Yosef said, that is what I learned: Three by three exactly. And I did not know to what halakha this was relevant. Rav Yosef received from his teachers that the baraita is referring to a case of three by three exactly, and he did not know why it was significant to establish the baraita in a case of exactly three by three and no more.

ומדקא מתרץ רב אדא בר אהבה אליבא דרבי יהודה שמע מינה כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה ומי אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכי והאמר רב אדא בר אהבה

The Gemara adds incidentally: And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from this that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rav Adda bar Ahava actually say this? Didn’t Rav Adda bar Ahava himself say:

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top