Bava Batra 20a — the Talmud in English

If so,

the barrel itself should serve as a barrier, since an earthenware vessel does not become impure from its outer surface.

Why do we need the dried figs? The barrel itself should serve as a barrier! Since an earthenware vessel does not become impure from its outer surface, and since the impurity of the corpse does not pass through the inside of the barrel, it should itself block the impurity.

The Gemara answers:

Actually, the mouth of the barrel is toward the inside.

The case is one in which the mouth of the barrel faces inward, that is, toward the house containing the corpse. Therefore, the impurity passes through its interior and renders it impure, and for this reason the barrel does not block the impurity.

And if you wish, say instead:

Another answer can be given:

Actually, the mouth of the barrel is toward the outside.

Rather,

with what are we dealing here? With a metal barrel.

The case is indeed one in which the mouth of the barrel faces outward; nevertheless, it does not block the impurity, because the case is one of a metal barrel, which becomes impure even from its outer surface.

The Gemara continues to challenge Shmuel:

The Gemara raises an objection:

We learned:

Grass that one uprooted and placed in a window, or that grew on its own in windows;

grass that grew elsewhere and was uprooted and placed in a window, or that grew in the window, thereby sealing the window and reducing its measure;

and scraps that are not three by three;

rags that are not three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, and therefore cannot become impure, since if they were three by three fingerbreadths they would become impure as a garment;

and a limb and flesh dangling from a domesticated animal or a wild animal;

a limb or flesh torn from a domesticated animal or wild animal while it was alive, which cannot become impure but remains partially attached, and which is placed in the window and reduces its measure;

and a bird that settled in a window;

a live bird that settles and rests in the window and reduces its measure;

and a gentile who sat in a window;

a gentile, who does not become impure, sitting in the window and reducing its measure;

and an eight-month child placed

in a window;

a child born after eight months, who is not viable and is considered a stillborn child; as long as he is alive, he cannot become impure, since he is not considered a person, nor does he transmit impurity as a corpse, since he is still alive;

and salt, an earthenware vessel, and a Torah scroll,

which are placed in the window and reduce its measure, but cannot become impure: salt, because it is not food in its own right, as it cannot be eaten by itself; the earthenware vessel refers to one whose mouth faces outward; and a Torah scroll is not considered a vessel and therefore cannot become impure:

All of them reduce the measure of the window.

All those listed here reduce the measure of the window.

But snow, hail, and ice,

water that froze on the surface of the earth or on the surface of water, such as the water of rivers that froze;

and frost,

liquid water that descends, such as rainwater, which froze;

and water

that is found in a vessel—

none of them reduce the measure of the window.

All these objects do not reduce the measure because they melt on their own and can no longer reduce it. Water in a vessel does not reduce the measure because if the vessel is removed, the water does not remain standing by itself; therefore, it does not reduce the measure, as explained with regard to straw and dried figs.

The Gemara asks:

But grass is fit for his animal,

as grass is suitable for his animal to eat. If so, he does not designate it permanently, so why does it reduce the measure of the window?

The Gemara answers:

It is afrazta.

The case is one of a type of grass that is poisonous to animals. Since it is not suitable for an animal, he designates it there permanently.

We learned in a beraita:

Or that grew on its own.

And

the Gemara asks:

Since they are harmful to the wall, he will remove them.

Since the case concerns grass that grows in the window, and we learned in our Mishna that seeds are harmful to a wall because they corrode the earth, he will not leave them there but will uproot them. Why, then, do they reduce the measure?

Rabba said: The wall of a ruin.

The case is one of a window in the wall of a ruin, a place where no one lives, with old walls that are liable to collapse. In such a case, people do not care that there is grass weakening the wall, since the walls are liable to collapse even without it.

Rav Pappa said: Even the wall of an inhabited place,

even if the case concerns the wall of an inhabited place, where people live and the walls are sturdy and not about to collapse, and where people care that there not be grass weakening the wall, nevertheless there is no difficulty, because here the case is one of grass

that comes from outside the three handbreadths from the window.

The grass does not grow in the window; rather, it grows three handbreadths away from the wall, but is tall and reaches into the window, reducing its measure.

The Gemara asks:

Scraps are fit for him to use for mending a garment.

Scraps are suitable for making a patch for a torn garment. If so, he does not designate them permanently, so why do they block the impurity? The Gemara answers:

With thick ones.

The case is one of scraps that are excessively thick, so that they are not suitable for making a patch for a garment.

The Gemara raises an objection:

They are fit for a bloodletter,

as they are suitable for a bloodletter to wipe the mouth of the wound.

The Gemara answers:

With riska.

The case is one of scraps made from “goat’s down,” coarse wool that scratches the hands; therefore, they are not suitable for wiping the mouth of the wound.

The Gemara raises another objection:

If it is riska,

if the beraita is dealing with scraps made from goat’s down, why did the tanna state that they are scraps

that are not three

fingerbreadths

by three?

But the tanna should have stated that they are scraps

that are not four by four.

If the case concerns scraps made from goat’s down, that is, sackcloth, since sackcloth is made from goat’s down, and the measure of sackcloth sufficient to contract impurity is four handbreadths by four handbreadths, the statement of the beraita is difficult. It says that scraps that are not three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths reduce the measure, implying that if they are three by three fingerbreadths they contract impurity and do not block the impurity. But since the case concerns sackcloth, whose measure for contracting impurity is four handbreadths by four handbreadths, any piece that is less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths does not contract impurity and should block the impurity.

The Gemara answers:

It is something resembling riska.

The case is indeed one of scraps that are a garment and not sackcloth; they are not made from goat’s down, but they are unsuitable for wiping the mouth of a wound because they scratch the hands like sackcloth.

We learned in a beraita:

And a limb and flesh dangling from a domesticated animal or a wild animal.

The Gemara asks:

It will run away and go,

as the domesticated animal or wild animal can run away. If so, why does the dangling limb or flesh block the impurity? It has not been designated there permanently.

The Gemara answers:

With one that is tied.

The case is one in which the domesticated animal or wild animal is tied and cannot run away.

The Gemara raises another objection:

He can slaughter it,

as he can slaughter it and eat it. If so, he does not designate it there permanently.

The Gemara answers:

With a non-kosher animal.

The case is one of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild animal, which is forbidden to eat.

The Gemara raises another objection:

He can sell it to a gentile.

He can slaughter it and sell its meat to gentiles.

The Gemara answers:

With an emaciated one,

the case is one of an emaciated animal that has little meat and is not normally eaten.

The Gemara raises another objection:

He can cut it off and throw it to the dogs,

as he can cut off the dangling limb or flesh and give it to the dogs.

The Gemara answers:

Since there is animal suffering, he will not do so.

Since cutting it would cause the animal suffering, he does not do so and designates it there permanently. We learned in a beraita:

And a bird that settled in a window.

The Gemara asks:

It will fly away and go,

as it can fly away and leave.

The Gemara answers:

With one that is tied,

the case is one in which it is tied and cannot fly away.

But it is still difficult:

He can slaughter it,

as he can slaughter it and eat it.

The Gemara answers:

With an impure one,

which is not fit to eat.

The Gemara raises an objection:

He can sell it to a gentile,

as he can sell it to a gentile.

The Gemara answers:

With a kelanita.

The case is one of a very emaciated bird that is fit for no person.

The Gemara raises another objection:

He can give it to a child,

as it is suitable to give to a child to play with.

The Gemara answers:

With one that scratches,

the case is one of a bird that scratches, and therefore it cannot be given to a child.

The Gemara raises another objection:

A kelanita does not scratch,

as we said above that the case is one of a kelanita, and a kelanita does not scratch.

The Gemara answers:

Something resembling a kelanita.

The case is one of a bird resembling a kelanita, which is very emaciated but does scratch; it is not an actual kelanita, which does not scratch.

We learned in a beraita:

And a gentile who sat in a window.

The Gemara raises an objection:

He can stand and go,

as he can stand up and leave from there. The Gemara answers:

With one whose legs are bound,

the case is one in which he is tied there.

The Gemara raises another objection:

His fellow can come and untie him,

as his fellow can come and release the knot.

The Gemara answers:

With a leper,

the case is one of a leper, whom people do not approach so that they will not contract his leprosy.

The Gemara raises another objection:

His fellow leper can come and untie him,

as his fellow, who is also a leper, can come and release him.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, with prisoners of the government.

The case is one in which he is tied there by order of the government, which sentenced him to life imprisonment.

We learned in a beraita: And an eight-month child placed in a window.

The Gemara raises an objection:

His mother will come and carry him away,

as his mother can come and take him from there.

The Gemara answers:

On Shabbat,

the case is one of Shabbat, when it is forbidden to move him.

As it was taught in a beraita: An eight-month child is like a stone, and it is forbidden to move him on Shabbat,

as he is considered like a stone with regard to the prohibition against moving him due to muktzeh.

But his mother bends over him and nurses him because of the danger.

It is permitted for his mother to bend over and nurse him because of the danger to the mother, lest the excess milk in her breasts harm her.

We learned in a beraita:

Salt

reduces the measure of the window.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is fit for him,

as it is fit for eating, and he does not designate it permanently.

The Gemara answers:

With bitter salt.

The case is one of salt that is bitter and unfit for eating.

The Gemara raises another objection:

It is fit for hides,

as it is suitable for tanning hides.

The Gemara answers:

When it contains thorns,

the case is one in which it contains thorns, so that it cannot be used to tan hides, as they scratch his hands.

The Gemara raises another objection:

Since it is harmful to the wall, he will remove it,

as we learned in our Mishna that salt is harmful to a wall. If so, he will remove it from there for that reason.

The Gemara answers:

It is resting on a potsherd,

the case is one in which the salt is situated on an earthenware shard, and therefore it does not damage the wall.

The Gemara raises another objection:

The potsherd itself should serve as a barrier,

as the potsherd itself should block the impurity. Why, then, is the salt needed to serve as a barrier?