Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

May 28, 2020 | 讛壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Shabbat 83

This week’s learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in memory of Miriam David, Malka bat Michael and Esther z”l. She would have loved to study in a worldwide, non-denominational, non-gender segregated Jewish community.聽

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Jeff Cohen’s 40th birthday. Happy birthday!

Raba and Rabbi Elazar disagree about what type of impurity idols have. The gemara analyzes the different opinions and raises questions from other sources. A few questions are raised regarding parts of idols carrying impurities and the minimum size of an idol required for passing on impurities. From where is it derived that a boat is not susceptible to impurity? Two answers are brought and the gemara discusses in which cases there would be a difference between them. The gemara ends with the importance on not missing a day in the beit midash and the importance of learning Torah.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转拽砖 诇谞讚讛 诇诪砖讗 诇讜拽砖讬讛 诇谞讘诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬谉 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讻专讘讛 诪转谞讬 讜讘注讬 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, with regard to what halakha was idolatry juxtaposed to a menstruating woman? If it was to teach the halakha of impurity imparted by carrying, let it be juxtaposed to an animal carcass and not to a menstruating woman and creeping animals. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. However, the juxtaposition to a menstruating woman teaches: Just as a menstruating woman does not transmit impurity through her limbs, as a menstruating woman who leans on an object by a single limb does not transmit impurity imparted by carrying (Ra鈥檃vad), so too, an idol does not transmit impurity through its limbs, and a section of an idol does not transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: But that which Rav 岣ma bar Guria raised as a dilemma: Does idolatry have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs or does it not have the capacity to transmit impurity through its limbs; resolve the dilemma from this, as according to both the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva, it does not transmit impurity through limbs. According to this explanation, Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Rabbis. The Gemara rejects this: Rav 岣ma bar Guria taught in accordance with the explanation of Rabba and raised the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


诪讬转讬讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻砖专抓 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛 讻砖专抓 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻谞讚讛 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛 讻砖专抓 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 注爪讬讜 讜讗讘谞讬讜 讜注驻专讬讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讻砖专抓 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诪讗讬 讻砖专抓 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗


The Gemara now clarifies the explanations of Rabba and Rabbi Elazar in light of other sources. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: The ritual impurity of idolatry is like that of a creeping animal, and the ritual impurity of its accessories is like that of a creeping animal. Rabbi Akiva says: The ritual impurity of idolatry is like that of a menstruating woman, and the ritual impurity of its accessories is like that of a creeping animal. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, it works out well. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, it is difficult. The dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis in this baraita is whether idolatry is likened to a creeping animal and does not transmit impurity imparted by carrying or whether it is likened to a menstruating woman and it does transmit impurity imparted by carrying. According to Rabba, the Rabbis agree that it does transmit impurity imparted by carrying. Rabba could have said to you: Is the proof from this baraita stronger than the mishna in tractate Avoda Zara, which taught: Its wood and stones and dirt transmit impurity like a creeping animal? With regard to that mishna we established: What is the meaning of like a creeping animal? It means that it is like a creeping animal in the sense that it does not transmit impurity by means of a very heavy stone. Here too, the analogy to a creeping animal in the baraita is in the sense that it does not transmit impurity via a very heavy stone.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛 讛谉 讜诇讗 讛讬住讟谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛谉 讜讛讬住讟谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 谞诪讬 讛谉 讜诇讗 讛讬住讟谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讜讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讬讘讛 讗讘诇 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖讬讛讜 讻讝讘讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉


The Gemara raises an objection from what we learned: A gentile man and a gentile woman, with regard to whom the Rabbis issued a decree that they transmit impurity like a zav, idolatry and its accessories, all transmit impurity. They transmit impurity, and not their movement, i.e., they do not transmit impurity to one who moves them. Rabbi Akiva says: Both they and their movement transmit impurity. Granted, according to the explanation of Rabbi Elazar, this works out well; however, according to the explanation of Rabba, it is difficult. Rabba could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, with regard to a gentile man and a gentile woman as well, do they transmit impurity and their movement does not transmit impurity? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel and say to them, when any man has an emission from his body, his emission is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2), by Torah law, only the children of Israel become impure through the emission of a zav, and gentiles do not become impure through the emission of a zav? But the Sages decreed that they should be considered like a zav for all their halakhic matters. Since gentiles have the legal status of a zav, they should transmit impurity through carrying. Therefore, the baraita that states that gentiles do not transmit impurity through carrying is corrupted and must be emended.


讗诇讗 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讛谉 讜讛讬住讟谉 讜讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讬住讟讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讛住讬讟讛 讜讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讛谉 讜讛讬住讟谉 讜讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讬住讟讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讛住讬讟讛


Rather, Rabba explains and adds to the baraita in accordance with his reasoning: A gentile man and a gentile woman transmit impurity, they and their movement and their very heavy stone. And idolatry transmits impurity, it and its movement but not its very heavy stone. Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatry transmits impurity, it and its movement and its very heavy stone. And Rabbi Elazar explains and adds to the baraita in accordance with his reasoning as follows: A gentile man and a gentile woman transmit impurity, they and their movement and their very heavy stone. Idolatry transmits impurity, it and not its movement. And Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatry transmits impurity, it and its movement.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讛谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛住讬讟讛 讗讞专讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转讛 讟诪讗讬诐 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟讛讜专讬谉


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this explanation: According to this explanation, what is the meaning of the word they in the context of this baraita? It would have been sufficient to say that their movement transmits impurity. The fact that the gentiles themselves are ritually impure is obvious. Apparently, the word they is emphasized in order to teach an additional halakha. Rather, Rav Ashi said, this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to a gentile man and a gentile woman, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others are ritually impure. The impurity of a gentile is like that of a zav, which is unique in that anything that a zav moves becomes impure even if he did not touch it directly. Idolatry that moved others, the others remain ritually pure; however, others who moved it are ritually impure. With regard to its accessories, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others remain ritually pure. Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man and a gentile woman and idolatry, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others are ritually impure. Its accessories, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others remain ritually pure. According to this explanation, both the word they and the word movement, both of which appear in the baraita, are significant.


注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 砖讛住讬讟讛 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讻讚转谞谉 讛讝讘 讘讻祝 诪讗讝谞讬诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讘讻祝 砖谞讬讬讛 讻专注 讛讝讘 讟诪讗讬谉


Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation explains the baraita, but the Gemara questions the matter itself. With regard to idolatry, granted, a case where others moved it can be easily found. However, a case where the idolatry moved others, under what circumstances can it be found? How can an idol move another object? Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said, a case like that is possible, as we learned in a mishna: In a case where the zav sat on one pan of a balance scale, and food and drinks were on the second pan, if the zav tipped the scales, the food and drinks on the other pan are ritually impure because the zav moved them.


讻专注讜 讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛讟诪讗讜转 讛诪住讬讟讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讞讜抓 诪讛讬住讟讜 砖诇 讝讘 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讜 讞讘专 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转谞讗 讝讘 讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛


Even an inanimate object can move a source of impurity in that way. And if the food and drink tipped the scales, they remain ritually pure. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which was taught in a baraita: All impure items that move other objects remain pure, meaning that an object does not become impure if moved by a source of impurity, except for movement by a zav, which has no counterpart in the whole Torah in its entirety? Let us say that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, there is also the case of idolatry. In his opinion, idolatry also transmits impurity to an object by moving it. The Gemara answers: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, teach: Zav and everything similar to it. According to Rabbi Akiva, just as a menstruating woman falls into that category, so too does an idol.


讘注讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞讘专转 讚诪讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪转讘专讗 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞住专讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诇讛 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讻诪讗谉 讚诪转讘专讗 讚诪讬 讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞讘专讗 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 拽砖诇驻讛 讜砖专讬讗 转讬拽讜


The dilemma that was cited incidental to an earlier discussion is examined here in depth. Rav 岣ma bar Guria raised a dilemma: Does idolatry have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs or does it not have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs? The Gemara narrows the parameters of the dilemma. In a situation where a common unskilled person can restore it to its original form, do not raise the dilemma, as in that case it is certainly considered to be attached and is not considered broken. The case where you could raise the dilemma is where a common unskilled person cannot restore it to its original form. What is the ruling in that case? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that since a common unskilled person cannot restore it, it is considered broken? Or perhaps we say that it is not lacking anything? Idolatry can only be nullified by breaking it in a case where, as a result, it is incomplete. And some raise this dilemma in another direction based on a different assumption: In a situation where a common unskilled person cannot restore it to its original form, do not raise the dilemma, as in that case it is certainly considered to be broken. When you could raise the dilemma is in a situation where a common unskilled person can restore it to its original form. What is the ruling in that case? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that since a common unskilled person can restore it, it is considered attached? Or perhaps we say that at present, it is in pieces and permitted? No resolution was found for either version of this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转 诪讛讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讝讘讜讘 讘注诇 注拽专讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬砖讬诪讜 (诇讛谉) 讘注诇 讘专讬转 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讝讛 讝讘讜讘 讘注诇 注拽专讜谉 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 注砖讛 讚诪讜转 讬专讗转讜 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 讻讬住讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讜讻专讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪转讜讱 讻讬住讜 讜诪讞讘拽讛 讜诪谞砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转拽讬砖 诇砖专抓 诪讛 砖专抓 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 讗讬转拽讬砖 诇诪转 诪讛 诪转 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讻讝讬转


Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to idolatry that is less than an olive-bulk? Rav Yosef strongly objected to this: With regard to what use was this dilemma raised? If you say it was raised with regard to the matter of the prohibition of idolatry, let it only be like Zevuv, the Baal of Ekron, which was the size and form of a fly, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd they made Baal Berit into their god鈥 (Judges 8:33). The Sages said that this is referring to Zevuv, the Baal of Ekron. It teaches that each and every person made an image of his god and placed it in his pocket. When he remembered it, he removed it from his pocket and embraced and kissed it. Apparently, even idolatry the size of a fly falls under the rubric of the prohibition of idolatry. Rather, the dilemma is: What is the halakha with regard to the matter of impurity? The two sides of the dilemma are as follows: Since an idol is juxtaposed to a creeping animal, just as a creeping animal transmits impurity when it is a lentil-bulk, so too, idolatry transmits impurity when it is a lentil-bulk. Or perhaps idolatry is juxtaposed to a corpse, and just as a corpse transmits impurity only when it is at least an olive-bulk, so too, idolatry transmits impurity only when it is at least an olive-bulk.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转 讗讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖诇讱 讗转 注驻专讛 (讗诇) 拽讘专 讘谞讬 讛注诐 诪讛 诪转 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讻讝讬转


Rav Avya said, and some say it was Rabba bar Ulla who said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a baraita: Idolatry that is less than an olive-bulk has no impurity at all, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he brought out the ashera from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook of Kidron, and burned it at the brook of Kidron, and stamped it into powder, and cast its powder upon the graves of the common people鈥 (II Kings 23:6). Just as a corpse transmits impurity when it is an olive-bulk, so too, idolatry transmits impurity when it is an olive-bulk.


讜专讘谞谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转拽砖 诇砖专抓 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诇谞讚讛 讚讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬谉 诇诪转 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗拽砖讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇砖专抓 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讻注讚砖讛 诇谞讚讛 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 讗拽砖讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪转 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讗讛诇 讟讜诪讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜拽讜诇讗 讜讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉:


The Gemara now asks a general question: And according to the Rabbis, with regard to what halakha was idolatry juxtaposed to a creeping animal? The juxtaposition establishes that like a creeping animal, it does not transmit impurity through carrying. The juxtaposition to a menstruating woman establishes that like a menstruating woman, it has the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs. The juxtaposition to a corpse establishes that it does not transmit impurity when it is a lentil-bulk. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that all of these juxtapositions come to teach a stringency. With regard to what halakha did the Torah juxtapose idolatry to a creeping animal? It is to establish that it transmits impurity when it is a lentil-bulk. The juxtaposition of idolatry to a menstruating woman is to establish that it transmits impurity via a very heavy stone; and the Torah juxtaposed it to a corpse to establish that it transmits impurity imparted by a tent, all of which are stringencies that exist with regard to those types of impurity. The Gemara answers: The impurity of idolatry is by rabbinic law. And whenever there are two possibilities with regard to a rabbinic decree, a leniency and a stringency, we juxtapose to establish the lenient possibility, and we do not juxtapose to establish the stringent possibility.


诪转谞讬壮 诪谞讬谉 诇住驻讬谞讛 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讚专讱 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐:


MISHNA: This is another mishna that digresses from the central topic of this tractate. It, too, is based on an allusion from the Bible. From where is it derived that the ship is ritually pure, in the sense that it cannot become impure? As it is stated: 鈥淭he way of a ship in the midst of the sea鈥 (Proverbs 30:19).


讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬诐 诪讛 讬诐 讟讛讜专 讗祝 住驻讬谞讛 讟讛讜专讛 转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 谞诇诪讚讛 诪砖拽 诪讛 砖拽 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 住驻讬谞讛 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉


GEMARA: The allusion in the mishna requires clarification. The verse appears to state the obvious. Of course a ship is in the midst of the sea. Rather, this verse teaches us an allusion that the legal status of a boat is like that of the sea. Just as the sea is ritually pure and cannot become impure, so too, a boat is ritually pure and cannot become impure. It was taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says: This halakha is derived from the halakha of a sack, as the impurity of wooden vessels is likened to the impurity of a sack. Just as a sack, which can become ritually impure, is carried both full and empty, so too, any object that is carried both full and empty can become ritually impure. This is to exclude a ship, which is not carried on land full and empty, as due to its weight it cannot be carried full.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 讞专住 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讗 谞诪讬 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖拽 讛谞讱 (讛讬讗) 讚讻转讬讘讬 讙讘讬 砖拽 讚讗讬 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讘诇 住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 讞专住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two reasons? The halakhic ruling according to both is that a ship cannot become impure. The Gemara explains: There is a difference between them with regard to a ship made from earthenware or from any material other than wood. According to the one who said that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎 ship in the midst of the sea,鈥 this boat is also in the midst of the sea. However, according to the one who said that it is derived from the halakha of a sack, this halakha applies only to those materials that are written in the same verse together with sack and are likened to it. If it is carried both full and empty, yes, it can become impure; and if it can not be carried both full and empty, no, it cannot become impure. However, an earthenware ship can become impure even though it is not carried both full and empty.


讗讬 谞诪讬 住驻讬谞转 讛讬专讚谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 住驻讬谞转 讛讬专讚谉 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜注谞讬诐 讗讜转讛 讘讬讘砖讛 讜诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬诪谞注 讗讚诐 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 砖讛专讬 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜诇讗 谞转讙诇讛 讟注诪讛 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讜驻讬专砖讛


Alternatively, there is a difference between them regarding a Jordan ship, which is a small boat used on the Jordan River. According to the one who said that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎 ship in the midst of the sea,鈥 this is also a ship in the midst of the sea. A river is pure like the sea and the boat will remain pure. According to the one who said that it is derived from the halakha of a sack, and in order to become impure it must be carried full and empty, this is also carried both full and empty, and can become ritually impure. As Rabbi 岣nina ben Akavya said: For what reason did they say that a Jordan ship can become impure? Because they load it on dry land and carry it on land and then lower it into the water. It is carried on land when full. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One should never prevent himself from attending the study hall for even one moment, as this mishna which states that a Jordan ship can become ritually impure was taught for several years in the study hall, but its reason was not revealed until Rabbi 岣nina ben Akavya came and explained it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬诪谞注 讗讚诐 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 转讛讗 注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪转拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖诪诪讬转 注爪诪讜 注诇讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讗诪专 专讘讗


Following Rav鈥檚 statement, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yonatan said: One should never prevent himself from attending the study hall or from engaging in matters of Torah, even at the moment of death, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the Torah: A person who dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14). That is an allusion to the fact that even at the moment of death, one should engage in the study of Torah. Reish Lakish said: Matters of Torah only endure in a person who kills himself over the Torah, one who is ready to devote all his efforts to it, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the Torah: A person who dies in a tent,鈥 meaning that the Torah is only attained by one who kills himself in its tent. Rava said:


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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Shabbat 82-86 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We will review concepts in Tumah as it pertains to Idolotry and learn about planting different types of plants. We...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 83: A Ship Is Not Impure

The importance of context, when the backdrop of idolatry shows up here. Also: What's What: Tumat Heset - the tumah...

Shabbat 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 83

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转拽砖 诇谞讚讛 诇诪砖讗 诇讜拽砖讬讛 诇谞讘诇讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬谉 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讻专讘讛 诪转谞讬 讜讘注讬 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, with regard to what halakha was idolatry juxtaposed to a menstruating woman? If it was to teach the halakha of impurity imparted by carrying, let it be juxtaposed to an animal carcass and not to a menstruating woman and creeping animals. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. However, the juxtaposition to a menstruating woman teaches: Just as a menstruating woman does not transmit impurity through her limbs, as a menstruating woman who leans on an object by a single limb does not transmit impurity imparted by carrying (Ra鈥檃vad), so too, an idol does not transmit impurity through its limbs, and a section of an idol does not transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: But that which Rav 岣ma bar Guria raised as a dilemma: Does idolatry have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs or does it not have the capacity to transmit impurity through its limbs; resolve the dilemma from this, as according to both the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva, it does not transmit impurity through limbs. According to this explanation, Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Rabbis. The Gemara rejects this: Rav 岣ma bar Guria taught in accordance with the explanation of Rabba and raised the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


诪讬转讬讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻砖专抓 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛 讻砖专抓 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻谞讚讛 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛 讻砖专抓 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 注爪讬讜 讜讗讘谞讬讜 讜注驻专讬讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讻砖专抓 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诪讗讬 讻砖专抓 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗


The Gemara now clarifies the explanations of Rabba and Rabbi Elazar in light of other sources. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: The ritual impurity of idolatry is like that of a creeping animal, and the ritual impurity of its accessories is like that of a creeping animal. Rabbi Akiva says: The ritual impurity of idolatry is like that of a menstruating woman, and the ritual impurity of its accessories is like that of a creeping animal. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, it works out well. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, it is difficult. The dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis in this baraita is whether idolatry is likened to a creeping animal and does not transmit impurity imparted by carrying or whether it is likened to a menstruating woman and it does transmit impurity imparted by carrying. According to Rabba, the Rabbis agree that it does transmit impurity imparted by carrying. Rabba could have said to you: Is the proof from this baraita stronger than the mishna in tractate Avoda Zara, which taught: Its wood and stones and dirt transmit impurity like a creeping animal? With regard to that mishna we established: What is the meaning of like a creeping animal? It means that it is like a creeping animal in the sense that it does not transmit impurity by means of a very heavy stone. Here too, the analogy to a creeping animal in the baraita is in the sense that it does not transmit impurity via a very heavy stone.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛 讛谉 讜诇讗 讛讬住讟谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛谉 讜讛讬住讟谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 谞诪讬 讛谉 讜诇讗 讛讬住讟谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讜讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讬讘讛 讗讘诇 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖讬讛讜 讻讝讘讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉


The Gemara raises an objection from what we learned: A gentile man and a gentile woman, with regard to whom the Rabbis issued a decree that they transmit impurity like a zav, idolatry and its accessories, all transmit impurity. They transmit impurity, and not their movement, i.e., they do not transmit impurity to one who moves them. Rabbi Akiva says: Both they and their movement transmit impurity. Granted, according to the explanation of Rabbi Elazar, this works out well; however, according to the explanation of Rabba, it is difficult. Rabba could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, with regard to a gentile man and a gentile woman as well, do they transmit impurity and their movement does not transmit impurity? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel and say to them, when any man has an emission from his body, his emission is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2), by Torah law, only the children of Israel become impure through the emission of a zav, and gentiles do not become impure through the emission of a zav? But the Sages decreed that they should be considered like a zav for all their halakhic matters. Since gentiles have the legal status of a zav, they should transmit impurity through carrying. Therefore, the baraita that states that gentiles do not transmit impurity through carrying is corrupted and must be emended.


讗诇讗 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讛谉 讜讛讬住讟谉 讜讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讬住讟讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讛住讬讟讛 讜讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讛谉 讜讛讬住讟谉 讜讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 砖诇讛谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讬住讟讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讜讛住讬讟讛


Rather, Rabba explains and adds to the baraita in accordance with his reasoning: A gentile man and a gentile woman transmit impurity, they and their movement and their very heavy stone. And idolatry transmits impurity, it and its movement but not its very heavy stone. Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatry transmits impurity, it and its movement and its very heavy stone. And Rabbi Elazar explains and adds to the baraita in accordance with his reasoning as follows: A gentile man and a gentile woman transmit impurity, they and their movement and their very heavy stone. Idolatry transmits impurity, it and not its movement. And Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatry transmits impurity, it and its movement.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讛谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛住讬讟讛 讗讞专讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转讛 讟诪讗讬诐 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讙讜讬 讜讙讜讬讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讘讬谉 讛谉 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转谉 讟讛讜专讬谉


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this explanation: According to this explanation, what is the meaning of the word they in the context of this baraita? It would have been sufficient to say that their movement transmits impurity. The fact that the gentiles themselves are ritually impure is obvious. Apparently, the word they is emphasized in order to teach an additional halakha. Rather, Rav Ashi said, this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to a gentile man and a gentile woman, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others are ritually impure. The impurity of a gentile is like that of a zav, which is unique in that anything that a zav moves becomes impure even if he did not touch it directly. Idolatry that moved others, the others remain ritually pure; however, others who moved it are ritually impure. With regard to its accessories, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others remain ritually pure. Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man and a gentile woman and idolatry, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others are ritually impure. Its accessories, whether they moved others or others moved them, the others remain ritually pure. According to this explanation, both the word they and the word movement, both of which appear in the baraita, are significant.


注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 砖讛住讬讟讜 讗讜转讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 砖讛住讬讟讛 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讻讚转谞谉 讛讝讘 讘讻祝 诪讗讝谞讬诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讘讻祝 砖谞讬讬讛 讻专注 讛讝讘 讟诪讗讬谉


Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation explains the baraita, but the Gemara questions the matter itself. With regard to idolatry, granted, a case where others moved it can be easily found. However, a case where the idolatry moved others, under what circumstances can it be found? How can an idol move another object? Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said, a case like that is possible, as we learned in a mishna: In a case where the zav sat on one pan of a balance scale, and food and drinks were on the second pan, if the zav tipped the scales, the food and drinks on the other pan are ritually impure because the zav moved them.


讻专注讜 讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛讟诪讗讜转 讛诪住讬讟讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讞讜抓 诪讛讬住讟讜 砖诇 讝讘 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讜 讞讘专 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转谞讗 讝讘 讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛


Even an inanimate object can move a source of impurity in that way. And if the food and drink tipped the scales, they remain ritually pure. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which was taught in a baraita: All impure items that move other objects remain pure, meaning that an object does not become impure if moved by a source of impurity, except for movement by a zav, which has no counterpart in the whole Torah in its entirety? Let us say that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, there is also the case of idolatry. In his opinion, idolatry also transmits impurity to an object by moving it. The Gemara answers: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, teach: Zav and everything similar to it. According to Rabbi Akiva, just as a menstruating woman falls into that category, so too does an idol.


讘注讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞讘专转 讚诪讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪转讘专讗 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞住专讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诇讛 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讻诪讗谉 讚诪转讘专讗 讚诪讬 讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞讘专讗 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 拽砖诇驻讛 讜砖专讬讗 转讬拽讜


The dilemma that was cited incidental to an earlier discussion is examined here in depth. Rav 岣ma bar Guria raised a dilemma: Does idolatry have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs or does it not have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs? The Gemara narrows the parameters of the dilemma. In a situation where a common unskilled person can restore it to its original form, do not raise the dilemma, as in that case it is certainly considered to be attached and is not considered broken. The case where you could raise the dilemma is where a common unskilled person cannot restore it to its original form. What is the ruling in that case? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that since a common unskilled person cannot restore it, it is considered broken? Or perhaps we say that it is not lacking anything? Idolatry can only be nullified by breaking it in a case where, as a result, it is incomplete. And some raise this dilemma in another direction based on a different assumption: In a situation where a common unskilled person cannot restore it to its original form, do not raise the dilemma, as in that case it is certainly considered to be broken. When you could raise the dilemma is in a situation where a common unskilled person can restore it to its original form. What is the ruling in that case? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that since a common unskilled person can restore it, it is considered attached? Or perhaps we say that at present, it is in pieces and permitted? No resolution was found for either version of this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转 诪讛讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讝讘讜讘 讘注诇 注拽专讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬砖讬诪讜 (诇讛谉) 讘注诇 讘专讬转 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讝讛 讝讘讜讘 讘注诇 注拽专讜谉 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 注砖讛 讚诪讜转 讬专讗转讜 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 讻讬住讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讜讻专讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪转讜讱 讻讬住讜 讜诪讞讘拽讛 讜诪谞砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转拽讬砖 诇砖专抓 诪讛 砖专抓 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 讗讬转拽讬砖 诇诪转 诪讛 诪转 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讻讝讬转


Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to idolatry that is less than an olive-bulk? Rav Yosef strongly objected to this: With regard to what use was this dilemma raised? If you say it was raised with regard to the matter of the prohibition of idolatry, let it only be like Zevuv, the Baal of Ekron, which was the size and form of a fly, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd they made Baal Berit into their god鈥 (Judges 8:33). The Sages said that this is referring to Zevuv, the Baal of Ekron. It teaches that each and every person made an image of his god and placed it in his pocket. When he remembered it, he removed it from his pocket and embraced and kissed it. Apparently, even idolatry the size of a fly falls under the rubric of the prohibition of idolatry. Rather, the dilemma is: What is the halakha with regard to the matter of impurity? The two sides of the dilemma are as follows: Since an idol is juxtaposed to a creeping animal, just as a creeping animal transmits impurity when it is a lentil-bulk, so too, idolatry transmits impurity when it is a lentil-bulk. Or perhaps idolatry is juxtaposed to a corpse, and just as a corpse transmits impurity only when it is at least an olive-bulk, so too, idolatry transmits impurity only when it is at least an olive-bulk.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转 讗讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖诇讱 讗转 注驻专讛 (讗诇) 拽讘专 讘谞讬 讛注诐 诪讛 诪转 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讻讝讬转


Rav Avya said, and some say it was Rabba bar Ulla who said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a baraita: Idolatry that is less than an olive-bulk has no impurity at all, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he brought out the ashera from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook of Kidron, and burned it at the brook of Kidron, and stamped it into powder, and cast its powder upon the graves of the common people鈥 (II Kings 23:6). Just as a corpse transmits impurity when it is an olive-bulk, so too, idolatry transmits impurity when it is an olive-bulk.


讜专讘谞谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转拽砖 诇砖专抓 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诇谞讚讛 讚讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬谉 诇诪转 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗拽砖讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇砖专抓 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讻注讚砖讛 诇谞讚讛 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 讗拽砖讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪转 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讗讛诇 讟讜诪讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜拽讜诇讗 讜讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉:


The Gemara now asks a general question: And according to the Rabbis, with regard to what halakha was idolatry juxtaposed to a creeping animal? The juxtaposition establishes that like a creeping animal, it does not transmit impurity through carrying. The juxtaposition to a menstruating woman establishes that like a menstruating woman, it has the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs. The juxtaposition to a corpse establishes that it does not transmit impurity when it is a lentil-bulk. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that all of these juxtapositions come to teach a stringency. With regard to what halakha did the Torah juxtapose idolatry to a creeping animal? It is to establish that it transmits impurity when it is a lentil-bulk. The juxtaposition of idolatry to a menstruating woman is to establish that it transmits impurity via a very heavy stone; and the Torah juxtaposed it to a corpse to establish that it transmits impurity imparted by a tent, all of which are stringencies that exist with regard to those types of impurity. The Gemara answers: The impurity of idolatry is by rabbinic law. And whenever there are two possibilities with regard to a rabbinic decree, a leniency and a stringency, we juxtapose to establish the lenient possibility, and we do not juxtapose to establish the stringent possibility.


诪转谞讬壮 诪谞讬谉 诇住驻讬谞讛 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讚专讱 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐:


MISHNA: This is another mishna that digresses from the central topic of this tractate. It, too, is based on an allusion from the Bible. From where is it derived that the ship is ritually pure, in the sense that it cannot become impure? As it is stated: 鈥淭he way of a ship in the midst of the sea鈥 (Proverbs 30:19).


讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬诐 诪讛 讬诐 讟讛讜专 讗祝 住驻讬谞讛 讟讛讜专讛 转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 谞诇诪讚讛 诪砖拽 诪讛 砖拽 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪讬讟诇讟诇 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 住驻讬谞讛 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉


GEMARA: The allusion in the mishna requires clarification. The verse appears to state the obvious. Of course a ship is in the midst of the sea. Rather, this verse teaches us an allusion that the legal status of a boat is like that of the sea. Just as the sea is ritually pure and cannot become impure, so too, a boat is ritually pure and cannot become impure. It was taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says: This halakha is derived from the halakha of a sack, as the impurity of wooden vessels is likened to the impurity of a sack. Just as a sack, which can become ritually impure, is carried both full and empty, so too, any object that is carried both full and empty can become ritually impure. This is to exclude a ship, which is not carried on land full and empty, as due to its weight it cannot be carried full.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 讞专住 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讗 谞诪讬 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖拽 讛谞讱 (讛讬讗) 讚讻转讬讘讬 讙讘讬 砖拽 讚讗讬 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讗讘诇 住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 讞专住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two reasons? The halakhic ruling according to both is that a ship cannot become impure. The Gemara explains: There is a difference between them with regard to a ship made from earthenware or from any material other than wood. According to the one who said that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎 ship in the midst of the sea,鈥 this boat is also in the midst of the sea. However, according to the one who said that it is derived from the halakha of a sack, this halakha applies only to those materials that are written in the same verse together with sack and are likened to it. If it is carried both full and empty, yes, it can become impure; and if it can not be carried both full and empty, no, it cannot become impure. However, an earthenware ship can become impure even though it is not carried both full and empty.


讗讬 谞诪讬 住驻讬谞转 讛讬专讚谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗谞讬讛 讘诇讘 讬诐 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪诇讗 讜专讬拽谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 住驻讬谞转 讛讬专讚谉 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜注谞讬诐 讗讜转讛 讘讬讘砖讛 讜诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬诪谞注 讗讚诐 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 砖讛专讬 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜诇讗 谞转讙诇讛 讟注诪讛 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讜驻讬专砖讛


Alternatively, there is a difference between them regarding a Jordan ship, which is a small boat used on the Jordan River. According to the one who said that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎 ship in the midst of the sea,鈥 this is also a ship in the midst of the sea. A river is pure like the sea and the boat will remain pure. According to the one who said that it is derived from the halakha of a sack, and in order to become impure it must be carried full and empty, this is also carried both full and empty, and can become ritually impure. As Rabbi 岣nina ben Akavya said: For what reason did they say that a Jordan ship can become impure? Because they load it on dry land and carry it on land and then lower it into the water. It is carried on land when full. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One should never prevent himself from attending the study hall for even one moment, as this mishna which states that a Jordan ship can become ritually impure was taught for several years in the study hall, but its reason was not revealed until Rabbi 岣nina ben Akavya came and explained it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬诪谞注 讗讚诐 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 转讛讗 注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪转拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖诪诪讬转 注爪诪讜 注诇讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讗诪专 专讘讗


Following Rav鈥檚 statement, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yonatan said: One should never prevent himself from attending the study hall or from engaging in matters of Torah, even at the moment of death, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the Torah: A person who dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14). That is an allusion to the fact that even at the moment of death, one should engage in the study of Torah. Reish Lakish said: Matters of Torah only endure in a person who kills himself over the Torah, one who is ready to devote all his efforts to it, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the Torah: A person who dies in a tent,鈥 meaning that the Torah is only attained by one who kills himself in its tent. Rava said:


Scroll To Top