Talmud su Levitico 11:78

MISHNAH: The eight kinds of vermin mentioned in the Torah¹Lev. 11:29–30.: one who catches or injures them is liable. Other abominations²Worms, insects, and seafood. and vermin: one who injures them is not liable³An injury to any epidermis which cannot be tanned into leather is not considered a Sabbath violation.; if he catches them for some need he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable⁴Mammals and birds all have skin that can be tanned..

But is it not written²³Lev. 7:23. This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written²⁴Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written²⁵Deut. 12:16.: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water²⁶The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.). Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written²⁷Gen. 32:33.: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass²⁸The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written²⁹Lev. 23:14.: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written³⁰Lev. 11:42.: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana]³¹Added from Orlah, missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct³³Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”.

They [all] introduced [the same] thirteen alterations:¹⁶For a comparison of these variants with the Heb. text, cf. on Sof. I, 8. ‘God created in the beginning’; ‘I shall make a man in image and likeness’; ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day]’; ‘Male and female He created him’; ‘Come let Me go down’; ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives, saying’; ‘For in their anger they slew oxen and in their self-will they digged up a stall’; ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier of men’; ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years’; ‘I have not taken one desirable thing from them’; ‘And the [beast] with small legs’; ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples to give light under the whole heaven’; ‘And they offer sacrifices to the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven which I commanded should not be served’.

They [all] introduced [the same] thirteen alterations:¹⁶For a comparison of these variants with the Heb. text, cf. on Sof. I, 8. ‘God created in the beginning’; ‘I shall make a man in image and likeness’; ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day]’; ‘Male and female He created him’; ‘Come let Me go down’; ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives, saying’; ‘For in their anger they slew oxen and in their self-will they digged up a stall’; ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier of men’; ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years’; ‘I have not taken one desirable thing from them’; ‘And the [beast] with small legs’; ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples to give light under the whole heaven’; ‘And they offer sacrifices to the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven which I commanded should not be served’.

It also happened that King Ptolemy assembled seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms without telling them the reason for which he had assembled them. He then went to each one of them and said to him,¹⁷lit. ‘to them’. ‘Write for me [a translation of] the Torah of Moses your master’. The Omnipresent inspired them¹⁸lit. ‘put counsel in the heart of each one of them’. and the mind of all of them was identical, so that each on his own¹⁹So GRA. wrote the [same translation of the] Torah, introducing [the same] thirteen alterations²⁰Deviations from the traditional text. In the extant Versions of the Septuagint only some of these are found. as follows: ‘God created in the beginning’.²¹Instead of In the beginning God created (Gen. 1, 1) the Heb. of which might be misinterpreted to mean that a power named ‘Bereshith’ (in the beginning) created God. ‘And God said I shall make a man in image and likeness.’²²The Heb. text reads: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen. 1, 26). The plural us and our might erroneously suggest a plurality of deities. ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day].’²³For the Heb.: And He finished on the seventh day (Gen. 2, 2) which could be understood to imply that God did some work on the seventh day. ‘Male and female He created him.’²⁴Instead of created them (ibid. V, 2) from which it might be inferred that man and woman were, from the first, two separate beings, contrary to ibid. II, 21. ‘Come let Me go down and there confound their language.’²⁵Instead of let us go down (ibid. XI, 7). ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives,²⁶i.e. she laughed in the presence of people and therefore incurred censure (ibid. XVIII, 12). The Heb. means ‘within herself’ as Abraham had done when he laughed … in his heart (ibid. XVII, 17) and had not been rebuked. saying.’ ‘For in their anger they slew oxen²⁷So GRA, H and M. V incorrectly ‘a man’. and in their self-will they digged up a stall.’²⁸Changing men (ibid. XLIX, 6) to ‘oxen’ and oxen to ‘stall’ in order to remove the stigma of murder from Jacob’s sons. ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier²⁹So M. V and H read ‘carriers of men’. of men.’³⁰i.e. an animal conformable with the dignity of Moses, instead of ass (Ex. 4, 20). ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in other lands³¹So M. V omits ‘and in other lands’. [The reading of the Septuagint is ‘in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt’.] was four hundred and thirty years.’³²Instead of the Heb. which omits ‘in the land of Canaan and in other lands’ (Ex. 12, 40), and implies that all the 430 years were spent in Egypt when, in fact, they could not have dwelt there more than 210 years (cf. Rashi to Meg. 9a). ‘And he sent the elect of the children of Israel.’³³So GRA and Meg. 9a but omitted in V. ‘Elect’ is substituted for young men (ibid. XXIV, 5), the former being regarded as more suitable persons for the service. ‘And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.’³⁴Here also ‘elect’ was substituted for the Heb. for nobles (ibid. 11). The alteration was not essential, but ‘elect’ which was mentioned earlier was preferred. It should be noted that in the total of thirteen alterations, this and the preceding are counted as one. ‘I have not taken one desirable thing³⁵A ‘desirable thing’ [which occurs in the Septuagint] for the Heb. ass (Num. 16, 15) to avoid the suggestion that Moses did not take an ass but more precious objects. from them.’ ‘The [beast] with small legs.’³⁶Instead of the Heb. for the hare (Lev. 11, 6) which is arnebeth, so as not to give offence to Ptolemy the name of whose queen was Arnebeth. ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted to give light unto all the peoples under the whole heaven.’³⁷The insertion ‘to give light’ (Deut. 4, 19) removes the possible misunderstanding that the heavenly bodies enumerated in the verse were intended by God to be objects of worship. ‘Which I commanded should not be served.’³⁸Deut. 17, 3 reads which I have commanded not. This might be taken to mean that God did not desire their existence and their creation was consequently due to a power beyond His control. It should be noted that the last two alterations are regarded as one in the enumeration because both deal with heavenly bodies as objects of worship.

⁴⁵Tosephta 3:9. The Tosephta reads: “If they grew one on top of the other, growing roots in a box;” the roots are feeding on other onions. Even so, they are not considered planted if in a box.“If they grew roots in a box they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they did not lose their impurity. If they grew roots in storage¹⁸בעליה “when stored on the upper floor of the farmhouse.” they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they lost their impurity.” They are in their previous state and you say they lost? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: The Torah emphasized the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If from their carcass anything fell on any sown seed which may be sown⁴⁶The multiple expression shows that anything remotely similar to sown plants is covered by the purity of growing plants., it is pure.”

Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts⁸³He argues against R. Joḥanan who stated that one who eats a limb from a “torn” animal violates two laws at the same time. Why should the verses quoted not apply to a completely healthy kosher animal?, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.⁸⁴Since the impurity of limbs from a living animal is identical with the impurity of carcasses, and by the argument of R. Yose ben Hanina food prohibitions follow impurity.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh⁴⁵Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.).” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue⁸⁰To R. Abbahu. from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh⁴⁵Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.⁸⁵Lev. 11:8. The verse also connects food prohibition and impurity: “you shall not eat from their flesh nor touch their carcasses”. The prohibition of touching applies to people intending to enter the holy precinct.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting⁸⁶Even though all sins of the same kind incurred while one was oblivious of the prohibition can be atoned for by one purification sacrifice, each creature is in a category by itself., he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”⁶¹Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously.. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice⁸⁷The same argument, applied to the Babli’s opinion (Note 62), is in the Babli Makkot 16b.. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice⁸⁸Since the ant it counted for itself, can it be counted with the volume filled by the forbidden pieces?? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations⁸⁹As enumerated in Mishnah 2, combining wine, vinegar, leaves, husks, pomace, etc. of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice⁹⁰For eating the volume of an olive from the produce of the vine he violates Num. 6:4; for the single intact grape berry he violates Num. 6:3.? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together⁹¹In the Babli, ‘Avodah zarah 66a, this is a tannaitic statement derived from Deut. 14:3. to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice.

Rebbi Avina³⁷In the Babli, Ḥulin 67b, the argument, in different style, is declared to be tannaïtic; the same in Sifra Šemini Paraša 3(1) in a text closely parallel to the Yerushalmi. said: Would one not understand that, since it is said (Lev. 11:9): “Any [creature in the water] having fins and scales you shall eat” we know that any creature having no fins and scales you shall not eat. To give both positive commandment and prohibition on the impure. Because it³⁸The prohibition “any having no fins or scales you shall not eat” is spelled out in Lev. 11:10. is written. If it were not written, it would be a positive commandment. Therefore, any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment³⁹It is impossible to say that a Jew who never eats fish transgresses the positive commandment of v. 9. Therefore, the positive formulation must have a negative implication. The eater of seafood is obligated for a purification offering as atonement for the violation of the prohibition and an elevation offering for the violation of the positive commandment..

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody slaughters an animal and finds in it an abomination, that is forbidden as food. What is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat,” but an abomination inside an animal you may not eat.⁵⁸[Sifra Šemini 2(9), Babli Ḥulin69a] The verse reads: “All that has hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud, inside an animal, such you may eat.” This is taken to mean that a fetus inside an animal may be eaten after the slaughter of the mother. {Sadducees did require separate slaughter of the fetus; MMT lines 37–38.} It is stated here that this applies only if the fetus itself is a permitted animal. The question remains open, what is meant by בהמה “animal”? A four-legged animal, a mammal, or a kosher mammal?

Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats [the bread]. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry⁶⁵Tosephta 7:11 (in the name of R. Joshua), Babli Keritut 21b. In the Babli, blood from bleeding gums has to be sucked off (it may be swallowed), in the Tosephta it has to be wiped off. Blood on the bread (no longer liquid) is only rabbinically forbidden.. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things⁶⁶The list is in Tosephta 7:11, Babli Ḥulin 67b. The derivation from the verse is only here; a different one in Sifra Šemini 12(1)., I might think [that they are forbidden] while they are inside the fruit, the verse says (Lev. 11:26,27,28): “They are impure,” when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return⁶⁷As soon as any part of a worm or insect developing inside a fruit is visible from the outside, it becomes forbidden. (In talmudic theory, worms and insects develop spontaneously, not from eggs, and, therefore, may be considered as part of the fruit.).

Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats [the bread]. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry⁶⁵Tosephta 7:11 (in the name of R. Joshua), Babli Keritut 21b. In the Babli, blood from bleeding gums has to be sucked off (it may be swallowed), in the Tosephta it has to be wiped off. Blood on the bread (no longer liquid) is only rabbinically forbidden.. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things⁶⁶The list is in Tosephta 7:11, Babli Ḥulin 67b. The derivation from the verse is only here; a different one in Sifra Šemini 12(1)., I might think [that they are forbidden] while they are inside the fruit, the verse says (Lev. 11:26,27,28): “They are impure,” when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return⁶⁷As soon as any part of a worm or insect developing inside a fruit is visible from the outside, it becomes forbidden. (In talmudic theory, worms and insects develop spontaneously, not from eggs, and, therefore, may be considered as part of the fruit.).

It is written (Lev. 11:28): “They are impure for you”. Why does it say (Lev. 11:35) “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct⁷⁵The argument is also found in Orlah 3:1 (fol. 63d), Pesaḥim 2:1 (fol. 28c), Baba Qama 7:10 (fol. 6a), Babli Pesaḥim 21b, Qiddušin 56b, Baba Qama41a, Ḥulin 114b. The formulation in the Babli is: R. Abbahu said, every place where it is stated “it should not be eaten, do not eat” implies both prohibition as food and of usufruct unless the Torah details the permission of usufruct as for cadavers (Deut. 14:21). One has to assume that “anything forbidden” mentioned here also means “anything forbidden as food.”. Anything forbidden by the Torah is forbidden for trade but everything whose prohibition is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey⁷⁶Donkey meat is forbidden. The camel should have been mentioned first since it is mentioned explicitly as forbidden animal; donkey meat is forbidden by the general clause permitting only ruminants.? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work. Rebbi Yehoshaiah traded in muries⁷⁷Brine possibly made with wine (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 156). The nature of the prohibition is discussed in Terumot 11:1 (fol. 47c); it is agreed that the prohibition is rabbinical., Rebbi Ḥuna traded in asafoetida⁷⁸It is not clear how and why asafoetida would be prohibited. The best explanation is that of Pene Moshe(Margalit) that medicines are neither food nor dyestuff and, hence, may be traded in the Sabbatical year..

Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats [the bread]. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry⁶⁵Tosephta 7:11 (in the name of R. Joshua), Babli Keritut 21b. In the Babli, blood from bleeding gums has to be sucked off (it may be swallowed), in the Tosephta it has to be wiped off. Blood on the bread (no longer liquid) is only rabbinically forbidden.. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things⁶⁶The list is in Tosephta 7:11, Babli Ḥulin 67b. The derivation from the verse is only here; a different one in Sifra Šemini 12(1)., I might think [that they are forbidden] while they are inside the fruit, the verse says (Lev. 11:26,27,28): “They are impure,” when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return⁶⁷As soon as any part of a worm or insect developing inside a fruit is visible from the outside, it becomes forbidden. (In talmudic theory, worms and insects develop spontaneously, not from eggs, and, therefore, may be considered as part of the fruit.).

It is written (Lev. 11:28): “They are impure for you”. Why does it say (Lev. 11:35) “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct⁷⁵The argument is also found in Orlah 3:1 (fol. 63d), Pesaḥim 2:1 (fol. 28c), Baba Qama 7:10 (fol. 6a), Babli Pesaḥim 21b, Qiddušin 56b, Baba Qama41a, Ḥulin 114b. The formulation in the Babli is: R. Abbahu said, every place where it is stated “it should not be eaten, do not eat” implies both prohibition as food and of usufruct unless the Torah details the permission of usufruct as for cadavers (Deut. 14:21). One has to assume that “anything forbidden” mentioned here also means “anything forbidden as food.”. Anything forbidden by the Torah is forbidden for trade but everything whose prohibition is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey⁷⁶Donkey meat is forbidden. The camel should have been mentioned first since it is mentioned explicitly as forbidden animal; donkey meat is forbidden by the general clause permitting only ruminants.? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work. Rebbi Yehoshaiah traded in muries⁷⁷Brine possibly made with wine (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 156). The nature of the prohibition is discussed in Terumot 11:1 (fol. 47c); it is agreed that the prohibition is rabbinical., Rebbi Ḥuna traded in asafoetida⁷⁸It is not clear how and why asafoetida would be prohibited. The best explanation is that of Pene Moshe(Margalit) that medicines are neither food nor dyestuff and, hence, may be traded in the Sabbatical year..

Abba bar Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who slaughters an animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat.⁵⁸[Sifra Šemini 2(9), Babli Ḥulin69a] The verse reads: “All that has hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud, inside an animal, such you may eat.” This is taken to mean that a fetus inside an animal may be eaten after the slaughter of the mother. {Sadducees did require separate slaughter of the fetus; MMT lines 37–38.} It is stated here that this applies only if the fetus itself is a permitted animal. The question remains open, what is meant by בהמה “animal”? A four-legged animal, a mammal, or a kosher mammal?” You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an abomination inside an animal⁶⁸In the Babli, Ḥulin 69a, R. Joḥanan is quoted forbidding a pigeon found inside a slaughtered animal. That statement must have fallen out here since the interpretation of the verse also refers to birds which were not mentioned beforehand. On the other hand, the mention of the pig must have fallen out in the Babli since that source points out that the verse permits only the consumption of ruminants with cloven hoofs found inside a slaughtered animal. It is therefore determined, according to R. Jonah, that בהמה means only “kosher animal”, cf. Note 58..

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

MISHNAH: On the same day³³According to the Babli (Berakhot 28a), any Mishnah which starts “on the same day” was formulated on the day Rabban Gamliel was deposed. There is no proof that this ever was a Galilean tradition., Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.³⁴Lev. 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah.
The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material.” It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”³⁵Probably he reads יְטַמֵּא “it will defile” in place of יִטְמָא “it shall become impure”. Revocalization of the consonantal text is a technique accepted by R. Aqiba, rejected by R. Ismael.; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary.
Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since you were saying that a future generation would purify the tertiary loaf since there is nothing about it in the Torah³⁶He holds that the possibility of tertiary impurity for heave and sacrifices and quaternary for sacrifices is traditional rather than biblical.
The slightly enlarged text is also in Sifra Šemini Parasha 7(12)., but behold, your student Aqiba supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food³⁷The question is whether profane pure food touched by something impure in the second degree remains pure or becomes impure in the third degree.. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile³⁸See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food.. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food³⁹The Babli, 29a, knows only that Rav holds that tertiary impurity does not exist for profane food. It does not mention any contrary opinion.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁴⁰Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1.“If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid⁴¹Solid food can become impure only if it was in contact with either water or human body fluids under certain circumstances; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141. and a ṭevul yom⁴²A person who was impure and cleansed himself by immersion in water during daytime. It is explained in Lev.22:6–7 that impurity is removed by immersion in water during daytime “and when the sun disappears he will be pure; afterwards, he may eat sanctified food.” (The Babli, Berakhot2a/b, discusses whether וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ means “the sun disappears” or “the sun rises”). The ṭevul yom therefore is no longer impure but before sundown he is not pure for sanctified food; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 138; Terumot Chapter 2, Note 51. Since he is forbidden only sanctified food, one may assume that he is pure for profane food. In rabbinical terms, the ṭevul yom after immersion but before sundown is treated as impure in the second degree. or unclean hands⁴³Unwashed hands, of an otherwise pure person, are always rabbinically impure in the second degree until washed with at least a revi‘it (135 cl) of water; cf. Bikkurim Chapter 2, Note 4; Demay Chapter 2, Note 160. touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary⁴⁴Tithe food in the hand of a Levite is totally profane. The Levite is required to give 10% of the tithe to the Cohen as heave of the tithe, which is sanctified food. While the tithe before the separation of the heave is forbidden as ṭevel, it is not sanctified and any impurity, even secondary, would eliminate the tithe as a source of heave (cf. Ḥallah, Chapter 3, Notes 43–44). If the ṭevul yom may touch tithe from which no heave was given it proves that tertiary impurity does not apply to profane food., and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field⁴⁵A “broken field” is agricultural property of which it is known that it once contained a grave. The position of the grave is unknown; also it is unknown whether bones from the grave have been dispersed on the field by ploughing. Since there are doubts whether any impurity still exists or where it might be, and it is an open field (where a doubt of impurity is inactive, cf. Chapter 1, Notes 87–96), a person walking over the field is only rabbinically impure.. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”⁴⁶Lev. 11:32 has expressions of purity and impurity: “It shall be immersed in water, be impure until evening, and be pure”. This implies that a ṭevul yom vessel is both impure and pure; it is according to tradition that one decides in which domain it is pure and in which impure. In 22:6–7, the ṭevul yom person is only forbidden sanctified food in his intermediary state.. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating⁴⁷Since the distinction of the influence of a ṭevul yom on profane or sanctified food is one of interpretation, could one not understand from the verses that the ṭevul yom contaminates any food but is free to touch?? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating⁴⁸The rules of purification in stages by immersion in water (Lev.11:32) deal with vessels, which are inedible.?

There¹⁰⁰Mishnah Ṭahorot 3:4. The discussion is about the second part of the Mishnah, not quoted in the text: “If they were put into the rain and swelled they are impure …” The volumes indicated are the minima that may carry impurity or make their consumption a criminal offense., we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass¹⁰¹Lev. 11:24–25., or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing¹⁰²Lev. 11:31–32., the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice]¹⁰³Rejected sacrifice is sacrifice made with the wrong intentions, Lev. 19:7; overdue is sacrifice left after the allotted time has expired (one night, day and night, or two days and the night in between, as the case may be; Lev. 7:17.), or of fat¹⁰⁴The fat in lumps in the body, Lev. 7:22–26., are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive¹⁰⁵In matters of impurity and dietary laws, it is not the actual volume that counts but the volume at the time the impurity or prohibition first arose. If impurity or prohibition are impossible in the original state, they cannot be acquired by subsequent swelling. Rebbi Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish hold that only the actual volume at the moment matters. Everybody agrees that his guidelines carry over to the determination of heave of the tithe.; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There¹⁰⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 5:1: “All flour sacrifices are brought unleavened except the breads for a thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:13) and the Two Breads [for Pentecost (Lev. 23:17)] which are leavened. Rebbi Meïr says, the sour dough is made from the dedicated flour. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is not of the best but he brings sour dough, puts it into the measuring vessel and fills the latter [with flour.] They said to him,that will make it deficient or redundant.”
The problem is that in each case, the amount of flour necessary is prescribed by biblical law. According to R. Meïr, one takes the exact amount, and then takes from this a small amount which is moistened to make it sour; then the sour dough is returned to the original flour which is moistened and kneaded. R. Jehudah notes that this will make poor bread; he prefers real sour dough to be used in addition to the flour of the offering. He is told that in this case, when the finished product must have specified size, his procedure probably will never be exactly right., we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks¹⁰⁷It does not actually shrink but will not rise. Since the measure was not full to start out with, in order to accomodate the rising dough, one now will have invalidated the offering because it is too small.; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant¹⁰⁸This text, confirmed by the mss., is impossible since the Southerners disagree with Rebbis Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish precisely in the case of swelling food. In must read: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbis Joḥanan, and Simeon ben Laqish all three say the same. The next sentence must then read: The Southerners, Rebbi Jonah and Yose all three say the same. The first group takes all food as is, the others agree only on shrinking, not on expanding food. The statements of Rebbis Jeremiah, Jonah, and Yose are in the preceding paragraph and deal with heave of the tithe.. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order¹⁰⁹To tithe or at least give heave of the tithe by the rules of demay.. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There¹⁰⁰Mishnah Ṭahorot 3:4. The discussion is about the second part of the Mishnah, not quoted in the text: “If they were put into the rain and swelled they are impure …” The volumes indicated are the minima that may carry impurity or make their consumption a criminal offense., we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass¹⁰¹Lev. 11:24–25., or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing¹⁰²Lev. 11:31–32., the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice]¹⁰³Rejected sacrifice is sacrifice made with the wrong intentions, Lev. 19:7; overdue is sacrifice left after the allotted time has expired (one night, day and night, or two days and the night in between, as the case may be; Lev. 7:17.), or of fat¹⁰⁴The fat in lumps in the body, Lev. 7:22–26., are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive¹⁰⁵In matters of impurity and dietary laws, it is not the actual volume that counts but the volume at the time the impurity or prohibition first arose. If impurity or prohibition are impossible in the original state, they cannot be acquired by subsequent swelling. Rebbi Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish hold that only the actual volume at the moment matters. Everybody agrees that his guidelines carry over to the determination of heave of the tithe.; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There¹⁰⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 5:1: “All flour sacrifices are brought unleavened except the breads for a thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:13) and the Two Breads [for Pentecost (Lev. 23:17)] which are leavened. Rebbi Meïr says, the sour dough is made from the dedicated flour. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is not of the best but he brings sour dough, puts it into the measuring vessel and fills the latter [with flour.] They said to him,that will make it deficient or redundant.”
The problem is that in each case, the amount of flour necessary is prescribed by biblical law. According to R. Meïr, one takes the exact amount, and then takes from this a small amount which is moistened to make it sour; then the sour dough is returned to the original flour which is moistened and kneaded. R. Jehudah notes that this will make poor bread; he prefers real sour dough to be used in addition to the flour of the offering. He is told that in this case, when the finished product must have specified size, his procedure probably will never be exactly right., we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks¹⁰⁷It does not actually shrink but will not rise. Since the measure was not full to start out with, in order to accomodate the rising dough, one now will have invalidated the offering because it is too small.; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant¹⁰⁸This text, confirmed by the mss., is impossible since the Southerners disagree with Rebbis Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish precisely in the case of swelling food. In must read: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbis Joḥanan, and Simeon ben Laqish all three say the same. The next sentence must then read: The Southerners, Rebbi Jonah and Yose all three say the same. The first group takes all food as is, the others agree only on shrinking, not on expanding food. The statements of Rebbis Jeremiah, Jonah, and Yose are in the preceding paragraph and deal with heave of the tithe.. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order¹⁰⁹To tithe or at least give heave of the tithe by the rules of demay.. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Does a dry piece of flour-offering start a count⁸⁰A flour offering in general needs to be mixed with oil. As noted later, food becomes susceptible to impurity only by contact with water or one of the fluids compared to water in a biblical verse, including olive oil. This contact is called “preparation for impurity”, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 141. The question now is whether flour never in contact with a fluid, which becomes disqualified by being in a combining vessel, also becomes impure to count derivative impurity of degrees 1,2,3,4 or not. Babli Ḥulin 36a.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is it not written⁸¹Lev. 11:34., of all foodstuff which is edible on which comes water is susceptible to impurity. Any whose impurity is caused by water starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by water starts a count. Rebbi Yose objected: Is there not a carcass of a kosher bird which causes impurity of foodstuff without preparation and without impurity, because it ends up causing severe impurity⁸²The meat of a kosher bird which was not slaughtered once it is in the mouth makes not only the eater but also his garments causes of original biblical impurity. The garments cause impurity to anything potentially susceptible to impurity, without “preparation.”? What about this? Of all foodstuff which is edible, any whose impurity is caused by the category of edibles⁸³Even if the particular item is not kosher to eat. starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by edibles the category of starts a count.

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.⁴⁰Lev. 11:34: “Any food that can be eaten, if water comes upon it it may become impure, and any drink that can be drunk can become impure in any vessel.” For the notion of preparation for impurity based on this and the nearby verses, cf. Note 26.
The argument ascribed here to the rabbis is difficult to understand and is not found in any of the parallel sources; it is not followed up and is superseded later by the documented opinion of the rabbis. The emphasis is only on the arguments of R. Eliezer, to show that R. Eliezer’s position in the Mishnah is not practice, even if R. Eliezer’s position in the Tosephta would be accepted because he is supported by R. Meїr and R. Eliezer ben Jacob. {Maimonides, Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin 2:14, follows R. Eliezer; the interpretation here follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.}
In Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(1), fruit juices are excluded since the verse speaks only of “water”. It is concluded that only drinks described by a single noun can be meant. Blood is included [loc.cit. 8(4)] since it is compared to water in Ps. 110:7. Fruit juices are excluded since they are called “fruit water”.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included⁴¹“A general statement followed by a particular one” is the heading of one of the 13 hermeneutical rules of R. Ismael, listed in the Introduction to Sifra. The detailed description of the rule, that a general statement followed by a particular one applies only to that particular one, is no longer connected with the name of R. Ismael; it represents the opinion of the Sages. For an application, cf. Kilaim Chapter 8, Note 20.
It is asserted here and in Nazir 6:2 that R. Ismael disagrees with the interpretation of the Sages and holds that the particular statement is only an illustration. The concurrence of both mss. here and the one available ms. in Nazir shows that the statement cannot be amended away and that in the Introduction to Sifra, only paragraphs 1 and 2 are attributable to R. Ismael.
In our case, “any drink” is taken as a general statement, “that can be drunk” as a particular one.? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included⁴²This is a theoretical statement, not of relevance here, since the particular is not followed by a second general statement. However, it opens a window for a possible study of the development of the hermeneutical rules.. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea⁴³He is mentioned only here. Greek παρήγορος “comforting”, a sobriquet for Menaḥem; cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins (Hoboken, NJ, 1992; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996), entry Perigord.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food⁴⁴Sifra Šemini Pereq 9(1). Since spoiled food is no longer food, it is not subject to the impurity of food., so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start⁴⁵The expression is unclear since foodstuffs spoiled when coming into being never were food and, therefore, never subject to impurity of food., what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure⁴⁶This argument refers to the quote from Sifra, Note 50, that water is subject to impurity as long as it is acceptable to animals and birds.? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about⁴⁷Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:1: “All that is exclusively human food needs preparation [for impurity] but no thought.” Once prepared for impurity it automatically is ready to accept impurity. Tosephta Ṭevul Yom 1:5: “Foodstuffs [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than drinks, and drinks [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than foodstuffs. Food may have handles [the peduncles of apples, pears, etc. become impure with the fruit], they do not need thought to be food.” Any fluid other than water is a “drink” only if made for human consumption.? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure⁴⁸Since nobody will want them as human drink.! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought⁴⁹This refers to vetch which is human food only in times of famine and, according to R. Jehudah in Tosephta Uqeẓin 3:13, and the Sages in Mishnah Ḥallah 4:10, is treated as standard food if prepared as such. This means that vetch becomes human food only by a combination of intent and action, never by intent alone, in contrast to drinks., what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus⁵⁰Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(4).: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel³⁴Lev. 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah.
The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material. which had become impure by a reptile¹⁰¹A dead reptile from the 8 kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile¹⁰²Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grandfather” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, fol. 27d, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: ¹⁰³Lev. 7:19.“Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation⁹⁵If a person whose body was an original source of impurity is healed, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30; for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure at any place other than the Sanctuary. who does not disable heave disables sanctified food⁹⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:17., it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables¹⁰⁴Everywhere here, פוסל “disables” should read פסול “is disabled”, except the second occurrence (which infringes on the rules of דַּיּוֹ, Note 98). heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument¹⁰⁵It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zebaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices¹⁰⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical..

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is not food, so no food⁸³The same argument in the Babli, 21a. The interpretation of the rabbis’ position is quite different in the Babli.. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is detached, so everything detached⁸⁴This refers to Mishnah 4 where it is stated that a bill of divorce cannot be written on anything connected to the ground. The bill of divorce cannot be written on the walls of a house and the house given to the wife.. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food⁸⁵The stalks of fruits which usually are harvested together with the fruits have the status of fruits in the laws of impurity; this is the theme of Tractate Uqeṣin. The question is whether R. Yose the Galilean will forbid these inedible stalks as materials for bills of divorce since they are subject to the impurities of foodstuffs.? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers⁸⁶This baraita must be attributed to R. Yose the Galilean since for the rabbis the entire deer could have been given to the wife. The antlers are inedible bony structures attached to the living deer just as stalks are inedible wooden structures attached to fruits., shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to him⁸⁷This should be “her”, correctly in the Geniza text. As explained in the next Halakhah, “signing” covers not only the signatures of the witnesses but also the insertion of the necessary data into the formulaic text; cf. Note 100., it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off⁸⁸This proves that the antler is an integral part of the deer for R. Yose the Galilean. It is reasonable to assume that a stalk for him is an integral part of the fruit.
This rule also follows the rabbis of Mishnah 4 whose position is explained in the Babli (21b) from Deut. 24:1: “he writes and hands over to her” that no necessary action may intervene between signing and delivery of the document.. Rebbi Abba⁸⁹In the Geniza text: Aḥa. While it is known that R. Aḥa was a student of R. Miasha’s, the reading of the Leiden ms. cannot be rejected out of hand since Rabbis Abba and Aḥa were contemporaries. in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn⁹⁰This refers to horns of cattle and goats rather than deer. These horns consist of a horny sheath (the female horn) over a bony spur (the male).. But if he wrote on the sheath⁹¹Greek νάρθηξ; cf. Berakhot 5:2, Note 67. it is as if separated⁹²The rabbis of Mishnah 4 would certainly object and require that the entire animal be handed over to the wife; cf. Note 88. and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce⁹³While food is under rules of impurity that are much stricter than those for vessels, etc., harvesting alone does not transform produce into food for these rules; only intentional moistening will have that effect, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136–141.? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dropped from the animal on food⁹⁴In this case, the moistening was desired by him for the animal but not for the food. Mishnah Makhširin reads: Any fluid which at the start is desired, even if at the end it is not desired, or if at the end is desired, even if at the start it was not desired, fulfills the condition “that it be given” (i.e., it prepares for impurity by the terms of Lev. 11:38: “If water be given on seeds … it shall be impure for you”.) For the anonymous rabbis it is obvious that drops from water which was desired for the animal will prepare food for impurity by this Mishnah. But R. Yose the Galilean, who disqualifies animals as writing materials for bills of divorce, might equate animals to things connected to the soil which are disqualified for bills of divorce in Mishnah 4, and for objects of desire which act in impurity as explained in the following.. There, Rebbi Yose said “a scroll”, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so⁹⁵Does he exclude animals from the category of objects which prepare for impurity if watered? There seems to be no reason why this should be so.? There is a difference since it is written⁹⁶Lev. 11:34., “any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure”. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: “a vessel”⁹⁷A similar text is in Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(2): “I could think also [if it rained] into cisterns, ditches and caves? It is written: ‘a vessel’; since one of the characteristics of a vessel is that it is separated from the ground, so only things separated from the ground.” Everybody agrees that water collected in cisterns, etc., does not prepare for impurity; the reason for this has nothing to do with the controversy over writing materials..

It was stated²⁴⁹Tosephta Kilaïm 1:15.: One may sow vegetable seeds and tree seeds together. But he who sows with grape kernels is whipped 40 times²⁵⁰“40 times” means 39 times, the maximal punishment for the transgression of a Biblical prohibition (Deut. 25:3).. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow your vineyard with two kinds;” the main produce²⁵¹The main produce are grapes and the part used for sowing is grape seed. of your vineyard you should not sow with two kinds. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked before Rebbi Yose: There²⁵²In the rules of ritual impurity, e. g. Mishnah Makhshirin 1:2, all rules that apply to vegetables and grain also apply to tree fruits. “Here” refers to the rules of kilaïm. This shows that the main place of these paragraphs is in tractate Kilaïm (8:1). they say that tree seeds are called seeds but here you say that tree seeds are not called seeds. He said to him: There²⁵³In the answer, “there” and “here” should be switched; the first answer deals with kilaïm (and refers to the question dealt with there whether one transgresses the prohibition of sowing different kinds in a vineyard only if one sows there two kinds different from vines or only one.) the verse excluded them since usually people do not call them “seeds,” but here the verse added (Lev. 11:37) “any sown seed that may be sown.”

There⁷⁰Mishnah Miqwaot8:1. we have stated: “The Land of Israel is pure and its ritual baths are pure⁷¹There is a universal presumption that every Jewish congregation in the Land of Israel will see to it that its ritual baths are built according to the rules (in particular, that the water is natural, ground water or rain water, not from vessels, and that the amount of water is at last 40 seah(a Roman culleus, 20 amphorae) as required by rabbinic tradition. A visitor may use any such miqweh without first investigating its status. Cf. Berakhot3:4, Notes 164–166..” ⁷²Tosephta Miqwaot6:1.“The land of the Samaritans is pure; its ritual baths, and its dwellings⁷³Gentile dwellings and paths are impure even in the Land of Israel since one has to worry that Gentiles bury their stillborn in their dirt floors or on their paths. Anybody walking over such a spot would become impure by “tent impurity.” The opinion that Gentiles are not sources of “tent impurity” is not found in Yerushalmi sources (Babli Yebamot61a, attributed to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai.), and its paths are pure.” Its paths are pure; it is a presumption that they would not select a path unless it was pure⁷⁴They are assumed to be more strict in matters of impurity than rabbinic Jews.. And its ritual baths are pure; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose⁷⁵The Tanna.: that is, to believe them that they are not from drawn water⁷⁶Which is a source of impurity., but not for the measure of forty; for they explain, only a spring or a cistern, a collection of water⁷⁷Lev. 11:36.,” just as a spring cleanses in any amount, any collection of water cleanses in any amount⁷⁸In Sifra Šemini Paraššah9(1) the argument attributed here to Samaritans (as Sadducees) is rejected only because of the rule that אַךְ “only” must indicate an exclusion. This characterizes the rule that flowing water purifies in any quantity but standing water only in 40 seah as rabbinical but in essence it is also found in the Damascus Document CD X 11...

Their daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, in seven places it is written do not intermarry with them³²⁹The text as quoted is written only once, Deut. 7:3, an equivalent text is Ex. 34:16. In any case, since the prohibition is biblical, how can it be counted as rabbinic decree? Babli Avodah zarah 36b. In the Genizah fragment published by L. Ginzberg (p. 67) one reads בשבועה מקומות “in oath places”. S. Liebermann wants to delete “places” and retain the statement “an oath, it is written”, i. e., it cannot be a rabbinic prohibition. The text as it appears here is quoted in Soṭah 1:8 (Note 285). Rebbi Abun said, to forbid seven peoples³³⁰As enumerated in Deut. 7:1. The prohibition of all other Gentiles is rabbinic.. Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated, to forbid their eggs. Rebbi Ismael stated, and the ostrich’s daughter³³¹Lev. 11:16.. This is the ostrich’s egg³³²Eggs of impure birds are forbidden like the birds. Babli Ḥulin 64b..

MISHNAH: The koy¹⁵⁴Since no cognate language has any animal name close to כוי, its identity cannot be determined. It might exist only for the sake of argument.
The Babli (Ḥulin 80b–81a) has a long discussion about the legal differences between the offspring of a he-goat which mated with a hind or a stag which mated with a she-goat. The Babli quotes a baraita which ascribes the opinion of R. Eleazar to anonymous authors, the opinion of the rabbis to R. Yose, and a third, anonymous, opinion that כוי is a wild goat. in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals.
How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal¹⁴⁹Lev. 17:13. The blood of domestic kosher animals (cattle, sheep, and goats) may be used for industrial purposes but not that of wild animals or birds.; one does not slaughter it on a holiday¹⁵⁰While one may slaughter on a holiday for immediate consumption and may cover the blood of a wild animal or bird, one may not move earth on the holiday for a questionable case. but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal¹⁵¹Since all fat of a wild animal can be eaten, it is not distinguished from its body and, unless the animal is correctly slaughtered, its entire body becomes impure as a carcass (Lev.11:39); cf. Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:9.; that impurity is one of doubt¹⁵²Since the koy might be a domestic animal. If a person who has become impure by touching fat from a koy carcass visits the Temple enclosure, he cannot be prosecuted but he will induce impurity by his touch. This rule and the one about covering the blood on a holiday are really rules distinct from those valid for domestic or wild animals.. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey¹⁵³Ex. 13:13 requires that the first-born of a female donkey be redeemed by a sheep or goat given to a Cohen..
How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals¹⁵⁶Lev. 7:23, prohibition restricted to “cattle, sheep, and goats.”, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem¹⁵⁷Since tithe money should be used to buy well-being sacrifices (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4) and a koy cannot be a sacrifice. and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]¹⁵⁸Deut. 18:3, the part Cohen’s of profane slaughter of cattle or sheep or goats.. Rebbi Eleazar frees¹⁵⁹The person slaughtering does not have to give away the foreleg, jaw, and stomach. Since these gifts are profane, the Cohen can collect only if he can prove that the koy is subject to these rules. R. Eleazar quoted here is the Tanna R. Eleazar ben Shamua. since the claimant has to bring proof.
How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son¹⁶⁴In a gift document., he did not include the koy¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat¹⁶⁶Lev. 11:39. like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “The only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon⁸⁰In the Babli, Šabbat 95a/b, this is a statement explicitly attributed to R. Simeon., but for the rabbis there are others: A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not. He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is guilty, from one without a hole he is free from punishment⁸¹Mishnah Šabbat 10:7. Harvesting on the Sabbath is a criminal offense but one cannot harvest plants that do not grow on the earth. Plucking a plant from a pot without a hole is forbidden but cannot be cause for criminal prosecution. The Mishnah states that R. Simeon excludes prosecution in both cases.. A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares⁸²Food can become impure only after the harvest and only after having been wetted, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141. A plant in a pot with hole is a plant in the earth and nothing can make it prepared for impurity at this stage. A plant in a pot without hole is already harvested since it can be plucked on the Sabbath without fear of prosecution; if it is watered, it becomes subject to possible impurity.. Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanina quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown, it is pure⁸³This explains why R. Simeon agrees with the rabbis that a flower pot with hole is immune from impurity and is not comparable to a pot with hole: The verse insists that anything sown in any way acceptable in agriculture is pure..”

Isaac bar Orion said, where do they disagree⁷⁴The disagreement between the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon about harvesting from flower pots on the Sabbath; cf. Notes 17,18. The main part of the paragraph is from Kilaim 7:6, Notes 80–83.? If he did not pluck it off over the hole. But if he plucked it off over the hole also Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If everything was in the Land but the hole outside the Land⁷⁵This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath but with agricultural laws, such as heave, tithes, and the Sabbatical year, which are intrinsically restricted to growth of the Holy Land. If the rabbis consider a flower pot agricultural land, what is the status of such a pot standing in the Land but drawing its moisture from outside the Land? For Isaac bar Orion obviously the pot belongs to the outside.? It turns out that you may say what was questionable for Rebbi Jeremiah was obvious for Isaac bar Orion. These are it⁷⁶This is a shortened reference to the text in Kilaim which has become unintelligible. The text referred to reads in full: It was stated: “the only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis there are others. (Babli 95a/b,). But there are others! “A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not sanctify⁷⁷A part of Mishnah Kilaim 7:8 in the independent Mishnah mss., not in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi. Growth of produce other than vines in a vineyard makes everything forbidden for usufruct; Deut. 22:9..” “A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares.⁷⁸Mishnah Uqeṣin 2:10. Food can become impure only after the harvest and only after having been wetted, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141. A plant in a pot with hole is a plant in the earth and nothing can make it prepared for impurity at this stage. A plant in a pot without hole is already harvested since it can be plucked on the Sabbath without fear of prosecution; if it is watered, it becomes subject to possible impurity.” “He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, from one without a hole he is not liable.¹⁷Because it is connected to the ground by the hole at the bottom, plucking from the flower pot is harvesting. If there is no hole at the bottom, plucking is harvesting only rabbinically, not creating liability.” Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanania quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac⁷⁹In another quote of this sentence, in Maˋserot 5:2 (Note 46): Rebbi La.: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants⁸⁰Lev. 11:37. This explains why R. Simeon agrees with the rabbis that a flower pot with hole is immune from impurity and is not comparable to a pot with hole: The verse insists that anything sown in any way acceptable in agriculture is pure. The main point of the argument is lost in the quote here (which again shows that its origin is in Kilaim). The “etc.” hides the final statement of the verse: it is pure. The quote of the verse also is truncated in the Babli, 95b.: If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown, etc.

Three expressions of lo’ are written lamed-alef²⁶Meaning ‘not’. but read as lamed-waw.²⁷Which means ‘to him, has’. They are: ’asher lo’²⁸לא, lit. ‘which not’ but read לו ‘which has’. jointed legs above their feet;²⁹Lev. 11, 21. ’asher lo’ ḥomah;³⁰ibid. XXV, 30, lamed-alef, meaning ‘which has no wall’ but read as lamed-waw ‘which has a wall’. E.V. in a walled city. and ’asher lo’ ye‘adah.³¹Ex. 21, 8. The written form with lamed-alef means ‘who hath not espoused her’, but the reading with lamed-waw means, as E.V., who hath espoused her to himself.

The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi, as it was stated: If somebody dedicated his wild and domestic animals to the Temple, he did not dedicate the koy. Rebbi said, he dedicated the koy¹⁶⁶Lev. 11:39..

¹⁰⁰This is from Ševi’it 7:4, Notes 75–76 (‘Orlah 3:1, Pesaḥim 2:1). It is written¹⁰¹Lev. 11:28.: “They are impure for you”. Why does it say¹⁰²Lev. 11:35. “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden [by the Torah is forbidden for trade, but everything whose prohibition]¹⁰³Text missing in the Leiden ms.; (the scribe skipped from איסורו to איסורו), taken from E, supported by the Genizah text and the parallels. is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work.

²³⁴The entire paragraph, dealing with divorce documents, is from Gittin 2:3, explained there in Notes 83–97. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath²³⁵Greek νάρθηξ, -ηκος, ὁ. it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written²³⁶Lev. 11:34., any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

¹⁰⁰This is from Ševi’it 7:4, Notes 75–76 (‘Orlah 3:1, Pesaḥim 2:1). It is written¹⁰¹Lev. 11:28.: “They are impure for you”. Why does it say¹⁰²Lev. 11:35. “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden [by the Torah is forbidden for trade, but everything whose prohibition]¹⁰³Text missing in the Leiden ms.; (the scribe skipped from איסורו to איסורו), taken from E, supported by the Genizah text and the parallels. is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work.

The waw of gaḥon⁶Lev. 11, 42, belly. must be enlarged,⁷lit. ‘upright, erect’. because it is the middle of the letters of the Torah;⁸The number of letters from the beginning of the Pentateuch to the waw of gaḥon equals the number from the waw to the end. darosh darash⁹ibid. X, 16, diligently inquired. is the middle of the words of the Torah. Darosh is written at the end of the line¹⁰Indicating the end of the first half of the number of words. and darash at the beginning of the next line.¹¹Marking the beginning of the second half of the number of words.

It is written²⁷¹Deut. 17:3. If not for R. Zeˋira’s interpretation, one would translate or to the sun, or to the moon.: He went and worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and to the moon. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is not said to the sun but and to the sun. That is not principle and detail but addition²⁷²By the rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “principle, detail, and principle: nothing is covered but the detail,” the verse seems to imply that only worship of sun or moon are capital crimes, not the worship of other gods (cf. Note 213). Since the detail is not standing alone but is connected to the general category by and, even R. Ismael will agree that the verse adds the worship of celestial bodies as bodies, rather than deities, to the definition of pagan worship.. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina objected before Rebbi Ze`ura; is it not written any which have fins and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales²⁷³Lev. 11:9: This you may eat from anything which is in the water: Any with fin and scale in the water, in seas and rivers, those you may eat. On the face of it, the verse declares a principle of what may be eaten from the water, followed by a detail, from lakes (standing water) and rivers (flowing water).? Then this is not principle and detail but additions since there is written and²⁷⁴As explained later, the preceding argument would allow to eat seafood grown in barrels and aquariums, against the received rules, unless one accepts every and, even those needed by the rules of grammar, as additions. This may be R. Aqiba’s approach; it certainly is unacceptable for R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules. Babli Ḥulin66b.? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, anywhere I am encountering and, I am deleting it²⁷⁵This is essentially R. Ismael’s approach that “the Torah speaks human speech;” no word needed by the basic rules of grammar and syntax carries a hidden meaning.. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria²⁷⁶Latin vivarium “game, fish preserve”. should be permitted. The verse says, and anything which lives in water, an addition²⁷⁷Because of the introductory clause, the verse must be read as principle, principle, and detail; this does not fit the scheme of “principle and detail” but the wordiness must be interpreted as intended to cover all possible cases.
The verse as quoted does not exist; in Lev. 11:9–10, Deut. 14:9 one reads מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמָּ֑יִם, the partitive mem indicating that not everything living in the water can be eaten, but not referring to the varieties of water..

Thirteen things they changed for King Ptolemy. They wrote for him, “God created the beginning³⁷⁶Gen. 1:1; change not found in LXX..” “I shall make man in stature and form³⁷⁷Gen. 1:26; change not found in LXX..” “Male and his openings He created them³⁷⁸Gen. 1:27; change not found in LXX..” “He finished on the Sixth and rested on the Seventh³⁷⁹Gen. 2:2; change found in LXX.” “Now I shall descend³⁸⁰Gen. 11:7; change found in LXX..” “Sarah laughed in her surroundings, saying.³⁸¹Gen. 18:12; LXX: “in herself”.” “For in their rage they slew a bull and in their will uprooted a trough³⁸²Gen. 49:6; change not found in LXX..” “Moses took his wife and his sons and let them ride on people-carriers³⁸³Ex. 4:20. LXX: “beast of burden”..” “The dwelling of the Children of Israel, which they dwelled in Egypt and other lands, was 430 years.³⁸⁴Ex. 12:40. LXX: “In the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.”” And the hare³⁸⁵Lev. 11:6 (in LXX 11:5). LXX: “rough-foot”, a designation of the hare., “and the young of foot.” King Ptolemy’s mother was called “hare³⁸⁶The dynasty of the Ptolemies was called the Lagides, after an ancestor Lagos “hare”.”. “Not one precious thing I took from them³⁸⁷Num. 16:15; change found in LXX.” “Which the Eternal, your God, distributed them to give light to all peoples under all the heavens.³⁸⁸Deut. 4:19; change not found in LXX.” “Which I did not command peoples to worship them.³⁸⁹Deut. 17:3; change not found in LXX.
The comparisons with the LXX text was done on the basis of Rahlfs’s edition; the history of the text between the time of the Jewish translation in Alexandria and its adaptation by Christian editors in the Roman Empire is unknown. The same list is in the Babli 9a.”

“And everything found is judged by a majority.”²⁸⁰This sentence does not really belong here but is an intrusion from the Tosephta quoted in the sequel. It is also quoted in the Babli, 15a, in the same context. What is meant here is that a find is pure if most things in town are pure, otherwise it is impure. In principle, this can also be applied to permitted or prohibited things: If 9 stores in town sell kosher meat and 1 non-kosher, then any meat found on the street can be considered as kosher (Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel disagrees, Tosephta Tahorot 6:1). In difficult cases the rabbis compare this²⁸¹The status of the rape victim. to crawling things²⁸²Lev. 11:29–30 contains a list of “crawling things”, mostly reptiles, whose cadaver is a source of impurity. The only cadavers that produce impurity are those of crawling things and mammals., as it was stated²⁸³A shorter version of this baraita is in the Babli 15a, Niddah 18a and Tosephta Tahorot 6:2.: “Nine frogs and one crawling thing²⁸⁴They are all dead; the dead frogs do not carry impurity. in a private domain²⁸⁵Questions of doubt in matters of ritual impurity must be resolved by a presumption of impurity in private domains and a presumption of purity in public domains; cf. Soṭah 1:2, Note 88., if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is impure. If he transferred to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. If he returned to the private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands²⁸⁶This is not rational, since the place where the object was found should be of importance.. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them²⁸⁷The Sages. A similar expression in the heading of the baraita of Abot. and their words; do not compare this²⁸⁸The case of the raped girl whose disqualification would be a case of impurity. to a private domain but to the public domain! As it was stated: “Nine crawling things and one frog between them in the public domain, if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is pure²⁸⁹Even against all probabilities.. If he transferred to a private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. If he returned to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them and their words; is the spring of Sepphoris not public domain? Rebbi Yose said, since the two could be alone together it is treated as private domain²⁹⁰The difference between public and private domains is not in the ownership but in accessibility. A cave in the public domain has the status of private domain. Rav Ḥisda is justified; this kind of argument is not relevant to explain the relation of Mishnah 10 to Mishnaiot 8,9..

He also used teach four things in the Babylonian tongue: One who pursues a name, loses his name; One who does not serve the sages, deserves death; One who does not increase, loses; and One who makes use of the crown, perishes, and then it is lost to him.
One who pursues a name, loses his name. How so? This teaches us that a person should not seek to be known in the state, for eventually they will begin to take note of him, and then kill him and take his money.
He who does not serve the sages, deserves death. How so? (They tell) There is a story about a person from Beit Ramah who conducted himself with great piety. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai sent one of his students to go check up on him. The student went, and found him putting oil on a stovetop, and then taking it off and putting it on beans. The student said to him: What are you doing? He replied: I am a high priest, and I am eating the priestly tithe in a state of [ritual] purity. The student said: But is that stovetop impure or pure? He said: Does it say anywhere in the Torah that a stovetop can be impure? The Torah speaks only of an oven becoming impure, as it says (Leviticus 11:33), “Everything in it becomes impure.” The student replied: Just as the Torah speaks of an oven becoming impure, so it speaks also of a stovetop becoming impure, as it also says (Leviticus 11:35), “An oven and a stovetop must be smashed; they are impure.” And if that is so, you have never eaten the priestly tithe in a state of purity in your entire life!
He who does not add, loses. How so? This teaches us that if a person learns only one tractate – or even two, or three – but does not keep adding to them, in the end he will forget even those he did learn.
He who uses it as a crown, perishes, and then it is lost to him. How so? For anyone who uses the Ineffable Name of God has no share in the World to Come.

He also used teach four things in the Babylonian tongue: One who pursues a name, loses his name; One who does not serve the sages, deserves death; One who does not increase, loses; and One who makes use of the crown, perishes, and then it is lost to him.
One who pursues a name, loses his name. How so? This teaches us that a person should not seek to be known in the state, for eventually they will begin to take note of him, and then kill him and take his money.
He who does not serve the sages, deserves death. How so? (They tell) There is a story about a person from Beit Ramah who conducted himself with great piety. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai sent one of his students to go check up on him. The student went, and found him putting oil on a stovetop, and then taking it off and putting it on beans. The student said to him: What are you doing? He replied: I am a high priest, and I am eating the priestly tithe in a state of [ritual] purity. The student said: But is that stovetop impure or pure? He said: Does it say anywhere in the Torah that a stovetop can be impure? The Torah speaks only of an oven becoming impure, as it says (Leviticus 11:33), “Everything in it becomes impure.” The student replied: Just as the Torah speaks of an oven becoming impure, so it speaks also of a stovetop becoming impure, as it also says (Leviticus 11:35), “An oven and a stovetop must be smashed; they are impure.” And if that is so, you have never eaten the priestly tithe in a state of purity in your entire life!
He who does not add, loses. How so? This teaches us that if a person learns only one tractate – or even two, or three – but does not keep adding to them, in the end he will forget even those he did learn.
He who uses it as a crown, perishes, and then it is lost to him. How so? For anyone who uses the Ineffable Name of God has no share in the World to Come.

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).