Talmud do Sędziów 8:78

HALAKHAH: ²⁹This and the the following paragraph also are Halakhah 3:8 in Avodah zara, where the differences in spelling are noted. Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s³⁰Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature., etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house³¹Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry., etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination³²Deut. 14:2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load²In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything the menstruating woman lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he had touched the woman herself.. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone³³Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 2) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion³⁴Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity³⁵Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead³⁶Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in³⁷This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house³⁸A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body³⁹Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent⁴⁰Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it⁴¹The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common for impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size⁴²This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god⁴³Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus..

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals⁵³The first opinion is the teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishnah, the second is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Šabbat 83a.. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances⁵⁴The full text of Is. 30:22, which is the base of R. Aqiba’s argument, reads: You will defile the cover of your silver statues and the clothing of your golden casts; you shall throw it away like feeling miserable, you shall call it excrement. Therefore the reference of “feeling miserable”, which is the description of a female period, refers to appurtenances only. The second version of the position of R. Aqiba seems untenable.? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself⁵⁵The statue and its ornamental vestments were two separate objects of worship. Either explanation is possible., similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod⁵⁶Jud. 8:27.. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal⁵⁷Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:8. Since this sentence in the Mishnah precedes the statement of R. Aqiba who imposes the impurity of niddah also on the stones which form the shell of the house of worship but are not the object of worship.”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”⁵⁸Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:9. Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated?? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden⁵⁹Rav answers that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a.. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it⁶⁰One compares the rules concerning a pagan temple with those of a house dedicated to the Temple (Lev. 27:14–15). Improper use of dedicated things is larceny which must be expiated by a sacrifice and payment of a fine, (Lev. 5:14–16). Just as real estate cannot become forbidden by idolatry, larceny by improper use of dedicated objects does not apply to real estate. If a house is considered real estate, it cannot become forbidden by worship, and its improper use while in the possession of the Temple cannot trigger a fine for larceny. If it is not considered real estate since the building materials were movables before being used, but it can become forbidden and improper use can trigger the fine.? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.⁶¹Mishnah Parah 5:7. The ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify a person from the impurity of the dead, must be strewn on flowing water in a vessel (Num. 19:17). A vessel is movable; therefore a trough hewn into the rock is not a vessel. The water flowing from the source into the trough becomes standing water. Therefore it may be used neither (1) to fill a vessel for the ashes, nor (2) to put some ashes in the water, “to sanctify it”, nor (3) to sprinkle the water on impure persons to purify them.
In addition, a corpse in a “tent” makes everything in the tent impure including the contents of vessels whose cover is not tightly fastened (Num. 19:15). Since the trough is not a vessel, if it is under one roof with a corpse it only needs to be covered but the cover does not have to be fastened.
A miqweh (ritual bath) has to contain 40 seah of water. It becomes invalid if 3 log (⅛ seah) of water from a vessel is poured into it before it has reached the level of 40 seah. If the trough is not a vessel, its water cannot invalidate the miqweh. On the other hand, if the trough was a vessel before it was fastened in the rock, it can be used for the ashes of the red cow, and its water will disqualify the miqweh.
Since a house was not a vessel before being connected to the ground, it should be considered real estate and not be subject to prohibition because of worship.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it⁶²A vessel which is permanently fixed to the ground remains a vessel and can become forbidden.. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it⁶³A piece of loose rock which was cemented to the ground and then a trough was hewn from it does not become a vessel. Then why should a house become forbidden by being worshipped since it becomes a house only after being connected to the ground?. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them⁶⁴It is true that a finished house not built as a temple cannot become forbidden. But if the finished stones for a stone building were worshipped before being cemented in the house they already are forbidden and do not become permitted by use as building blocks.. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody⁶⁵The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”⁶⁶Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:10.? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them⁶⁷Then each individual stone remains forbidden; there is no contradiction to the Mishnah.. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted⁶⁸Babli Meˋilah 20a.. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden⁵⁹Rav answers that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a., a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera⁶⁹This refers to a holy tree which is worshipped as Ashera (Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:11) but no idol is found buried under it. Then as connected to the ground it should not be part of the real estate and not be forbidden. It becomes permanently forbidden only if it was planted as a holy shoot.”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

It is written¹⁵⁸Is. 3:18–24. This paragraph simply explains the difficult words in the text, without connection to the rules of the Sabbath., on that day the Eternal will remove the splendor of the anklets, bark shoes¹⁵⁹Latin corticeus, a, um, “of bark, cork”., as you are saying, with their feet they skid¹⁶⁰Is. 3:16.. The head bands, שלטוניה¹⁶¹The word is unexplained; Arukh reads שרטטיא. Cf. the late Greek σαταρίς, σαταρνίς, -ιδος, ἡ “woman’s headdress” (E. G.)., as you are saying “the head-band of the hair net.¹⁶²Mishnah Negaim 11:11. The Mishnah explains that anything which may become impure by the impurity of a corpse may become impure by skin disease. As explained in Mishnah Kelim 28:10, the שְׁבִיס is a decoration of a hair net which covers the front from ear to ear.” The half-moons, necklaces¹⁶³With G read Greek μανιάκης, -ου, ὁ, “necklace” worn by Persians and Gauls. The word in the Leiden ms. is unexplained., as you are saying, he took the half-moons from the necks of their camels¹⁶⁴Jud. 8:21.. The pendants, Solomonic jewelry¹⁶⁵The translation is very tentative. The dictionaries propose to read Greek σταλαγμία “ear pendant” assuming the γ was elided.. Chains, chains¹⁶⁶The Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word of the verse.. Veils, silken¹⁶⁷For בלנידייא reading Latin lanicium, -ii, n., “wool, silk, cotton” (E. G.).. Head bands, diadems, as you are saying, your head bands on your heads¹⁶⁸Ez. 24:23.. Foot chains, ποδοψέλλα¹⁵⁴With G one has to read Greek ποδοψέλλιον τό “anklet”.. Tyings, bells. Belly wraps, Aquila translated אסטו מוכריאה¹⁶⁹The word is unexplained. Cf. Greek στόμιον, τό, “opening, bridle, female ornament for the neck” (E. G.)., something which is put on the place of breathing. And incantations, precious stones¹⁷⁰Arabic قديس “precious stone”. put on the larynx. Rings, rings¹⁶⁶The Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word of the verse.. Nose rings, something put on the nose. Overcoats, περιζόματα¹⁷¹Greek “body wrap”.. Wrappings, tunics¹⁷²Read קולבין for Greek κολόβιον “tunic”. and tunics¹⁷³The same as before in Aramaic.. The shawls, large fine tissues¹⁷⁴Greek σάβανον “fine tissue”.. Handbags, decorated belts¹⁷⁵Greek ζωνάριον “belt”. and decorated pure silk tissues¹⁷⁶Greek τό ὁλοσερικόν “pure silk tissue”.. As you are saying, he took from their hands and tied it in tissue¹⁷⁷Ex. 32:4.. The head covers, head covers¹⁶⁶The Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word of the verse.. The sheets, the sheets¹⁶⁶The Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word of the verse.. The turbans, אוֹלָרַייָא¹⁷⁸The meaning of this word is unknown. Cf. Latin velarium, -ii, n. “cover” or velamen, -nis, n., “veil, cover”., as you are saying, he said, put … the pure turban on his head¹⁷⁹Zech. 3:5.. And the veils, fine cloth¹⁸⁰Cf. Chapter 4, Note 45., as you are saying, they took away my veil, the watchmen on the walls¹⁸¹Cant. 5:7..

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. ¹⁷⁵This Halakhah also is Halakhah 9:1 in Šabbat(ש). Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations¹⁷⁶Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature.. About vermin, do not eat any abomination¹⁷⁷Deut. 14: 2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house¹⁷⁸Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry.. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load¹⁷⁴In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol., also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone¹⁷⁹Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 174) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁰In, Šabbat: Rav Jehudah. On one hand, the tradent in Šabbat is mentioned as R. Zeriqan, the Yerushalmi form, not the Babli form Zeriqa as here; but this is to be explained by the babylonized spelling of the text of the present Tractate. On the other hand, the tradent in the Babli (Šabbat 82b) is R. Eleazar, a known student of R. Ḥanina., but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion¹⁸¹Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity¹⁸²Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead¹⁸³Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity¹⁸²Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in¹⁸⁴This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house¹⁸⁵A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similiar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body¹⁸⁶Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁷In Šabbat: Ḥanania. The latter attribution is correct since he must have been a contemporary of R. Mana (II). said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent¹⁸⁸Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it¹⁸⁹The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common to impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size¹⁹⁰This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun¹⁹¹In ש: R. Ḥuna. said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god¹⁹²Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus..