Bava Kamma 25b — the Talmud in English

The discharge of a man with a flux, and his saliva, and his semen, and his urine

of a man with a flux,

and menstrual blood,

which

impart impurity both through contact and through carrying,

here it is explicitly evident that there is a tanna who holds that the discharges of a man with a flux impart impurity through carrying.

And we object:

Perhaps here

in this Mishna

also,

the semen of a man with a flux itself does not impart impurity through carrying; rather, it imparts impurity through carrying

because it is impossible

for him

without traces of flux,

and we still have not found a tanna who says: The semen of a man with a flux itself imparts impurity through carrying!?

And we answer:

If so,

according to your words—that the semen of a man with a flux, which imparts impurity through carrying according to this Mishna, does so because of traces of flux—

let him teach it

“his semen”

alongside his discharge,

and let him teach as follows: “Above them are the discharge of a man with a flux, his semen, and his saliva,” for his semen too imparts impurity through carrying because of his discharge—

and

what is different, that he teaches it

“his semen”

alongside

“his saliva”

[close to his saliva]!?

Rather,

certainly the tanna therefore taught the semen of a man with a flux close to his saliva,

because it comes

to impart impurity through carrying by means of a kal va-chomer

from his saliva,

and not because of traces of flux.

He said

he challenged

Rav Aḥa of Difti to Ravina:

But this tanna—

in the beraita brought below—

does not expound

“it is enough”

even though the kal va-chomer is not undermined

by “it is enough”; and if so, we too should say that Rabbi Tarfon holds this way!?

For it was taught:

It is written [Numbers 31:19]: “And you shall encamp outside the camp for seven days; whoever has killed a person and whoever has touched a slain person, you shall purify yourselves [you shall become pure through the water of the red heifer] on the third day and on the seventh day, you and your captives [the captives whom you captured in the war of Midian]. And every garment and every leather vessel and every work of goats and every wooden vessel [which became impure through a corpse] you shall purify yourselves.”

And until here we have learned that these alone become impure through a corpse, but

a mat

[a mat designated for lying]—which is not included among these—which becomes impure

in the tent of

tent of

the corpse,

from where do we know this?

And it is a judgment: Just as small jugs

[whose mouths are narrow] of earthenware

which are pure in the case of a man with a flux,

the man with a flux does not render them impure with any of the impurities with which he renders other vessels impure, because, since their mouths are narrow, he cannot insert his hand into them, but touches them from their backs, and an earthenware vessel becomes impure only through its airspace; and even through the impurity of “the lying-impurity of a man with a flux [the sitting or lying of the man with a flux upon it],” the man with a flux does not render them impure, since they are not made for sitting; and even through shifting he does not render them impure, for every object suitable for impurity through contact is rendered impure by the man with a flux through shifting, and every object not suitable for impurity through contact is not rendered impure by the man with a flux through shifting—

nevertheless, they are

rendered impure

[become impure]

through a corpse,

for if small jugs were in the tent of a corpse, they would be impure.

A mat which

is

rendered impure through a man with a flux

with the lying-impurity, since it is suitable for the lying of a man with a flux and is made for this,

is it not a judgment that it should be rendered impure in

the tent of

a corpse?

And

this tanna

brings it

for the impurity of a mat through a corpse

both for one-day impurity and for seven-day impurity,

that is: not only for one-day impurity [impurity for one day, when he immerses on the day of his impurity and becomes pure at sunset], but he brings it for seven-day impurity [he is impure for seven days, and is sprinkled with the water of the red heifer on the third and seventh days, and immerses on the seventh day and becomes pure at sunset], and like small jugs, which become impure in the tent of a corpse with seven-day impurity.

And

if you say that this tanna holds that we say “it is enough,” then

why

is the mat rendered impure with seven-day impurity? And let us

say

[we should say]:

The kal va-chomer is effective

[after “it is enough” has been said]

for the

mat to be impure

with one-day impurity, and “it is enough” is effective

to exclude

from

the mat

seven-day impurity

like small jugs, because “it is enough” for the mat through a corpse that it should be like a mat through a man with a flux, which is impure only with one-day impurity.

Necessarily, this tanna holds that although the kal va-chomer would not be undermined if we were to say “it is enough,” since in the end the kal va-chomer teaches concerning a mat that it is impure with one-day impurity, nevertheless we do not say “it is enough.”

He said

he answered

to him,

Ravina to Rav Aḥa of Difti:

Rav Naḥman bar Zechariah already raised it

[already posed this difficulty]

to Abaye, and he said

he answered

him, Abaye:

The tanna

did not learn the mat through a corpse, that it is rendered impure with seven-day impurity, from the mat through a man with a flux; rather,

from a mat through a creeping creature

it is that he

brings it—

the mat through a corpse—through a gezerah shavah, as follows.

And

what the tanna learned by a kal va-chomer from a mat through a man with a flux,

this is what he says:

Since the Torah said [Leviticus 11:31]: “These [those mentioned there] are the impure ones for you among all the creeping creatures; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until the evening. And whatever falls upon any of them [of the creeping creatures] when they are dead shall be impure, of any wooden vessel or garment or skin or sack, any vessel in which work is done, it shall be brought into water and shall be impure until the evening, and it shall become pure”—

A mat through a creeping creature—

which is not included among all these—from where do we know that it becomes impure?

And concerning this the tanna says:

And

behold,

it is a judgment:

Just as small jugs which

are

pure in the case of a man with a flux

because they are not suitable for contact from within,

are impure

they

through a creeping creature, since a lentil-sized piece of it—which is the measure of its impurity—can enter the airspace of the vessels and render them impure.

since even a lentil-sized portion of it, which is the measure that conveys impurity, can enter the airspace of the vessels and make them impure,

A mat which renders impure through a man with a flux—is it not a judgment that it should render impure through a creeping creature?

The Gemara explains, according to what we answered, that the tanna learned by a kal va-chomer concerning a mat through a creeping creature and not concerning a mat through a corpse, and a mat through a corpse is learned from a mat through a creeping creature:

But a mat through a corpse, from where

that is, by what measure is it learned from a corpse?

The Gemara explains that it is learned through a gezerah shavah:

It is stated

“garment and skin”

with regard to a creeping creature, [“And whatever ... of any wooden vessel or garment or skin”];

and it is stated: “garment and skin”

with regard to a corpse, [“And every garment and every leather vessel ... you shall purify yourselves”]—

Just as

“garment and skin”

stated with regard to a creeping creature,

so too

a mat is impure through it

like a garment and skin

; so too,

“garment and skin”

stated with regard to a corpse,

so too

a mat is impure through it

like a garment and skin.

The Gemara explains that this gezerah shavah necessarily

is made available

[the identical words are superfluous for the gezerah shavah]!

For if it were not made available,

the rule is that if there is a refutation against the gezerah shavah, one does not learn from it; and here too

there is room to refute

the learning of a corpse from a creeping creature:

What is there concerning a creeping creature, since

it is more severe, for it

renders impure with

a small measure,

the size of a lentil,

and therefore the Torah was stringent concerning it, to render a mat impure;

can you say the same concerning a corpse,

which is lenient,

for

thus

it does not

render impure

with the size of a lentil, but with the size of an olive, and from where do we know that the Torah was also stringent concerning it, to render a mat impure!?

No,

necessarily it is made available;

it is made available,

for:

Since a creeping creature was compared to semen

[a creeping creature was, after all, compared to semen],

as it is written

[Leviticus 22:4]:

“Or a man from whom there goes out

semen,”

and adjacent to it is

[verse 5]:

“Or a man who touches any creeping creature

which renders him impure”—

And

behold, it has already been

written concerning semen

[Leviticus 15:17]:

“And every garment and every skin upon which there shall be semen

shall be washed in water and shall be impure until the evening”; and if so,

“garment and skin”

which the Merciful One wrote concerning a creeping creature, what do I need it for,

for we would learn it from the comparison!?

Rather,

learn from it—

“garment and skin” which the Merciful One said with regard to a creeping creature—

is for making available

that from it one may learn concerning a corpse, that a mat too becomes impure through it.

And still

we object: But it is only

made available on one side

[the words are superfluous in only one of them, namely “garment and skin” concerning a creeping creature]—

and if so,

this works for the one who says:

even a gezerah shavah which is

made available on one side is learned

from it

and one does not refute

it even when there is something with which to refute—

well,

it is understandable that one learns a corpse from a creeping creature, even though there is a refutation against it.

But for the one who says:

a gezerah shavah which is made available on only one side

is learned

from it

but

nevertheless

is refuted

if there is something with which to refute,

what is there to say!?

How shall we learn a corpse from a creeping creature, even though there is something with which to refute the learning: What is there concerning a creeping creature, since it renders impure with the size of a lentil!?

And we answer: “Garment and skin”

concerning a corpse is also made available,

for:

Since a corpse was also compared

also

to semen, as it is written

[Leviticus 22:4]: “He shall not eat of the holy things until he becomes pure,”

“and one who touches every impure person”

[that is, corpse-impurity],

“or a man from whom goes out

semen” —

And

already

it is written concerning semen:

“And every garment and every skin upon which there shall be semen”,

and if so,

“garment and skin”

which the Merciful One wrote concerning a corpse

also

why do I need it!?

Rather,

learn from it that it is for making available

that it was written,

and

if so, behold it

is made available on both sides,

and concerning anything made available on both sides, according to everyone one does not refute, even when there is something with which to refute.

And still we object: Even according to the answer—that a mat through a corpse is not learned by a kal va-chomer from a mat through a man with a flux, because one can say “it is enough,” that it should be like a mat through a man with a flux, which is impure only with one-day impurity, but rather it is learned from a mat through a creeping creature by means of a gezerah shavah—

This works for the one who says

with regard to every gezerah shavah:

“Learn from it and establish it in its place”,

[learn from the source of the learning and establish it in the place of the object being learned]; for example, a mat through a corpse which is learned from a creeping creature: one does not say, “Just as a mat through a creeping creature becomes impure only with one-day impurity, so too a mat through a corpse should become impure only with one-day impurity”; rather, one says: After you have learned to include a mat, that it should be impure through a corpse, establish it in the place of a corpse, and just as all other vessels which become impure through a corpse become impure with seven-day impurity, so too a mat becomes impure with seven-day impurity.

But for the one who says

with regard to every gezerah shavah:

“Learn from it, and from it”,

[learn from the source of the learning, and make it like the source of the learning]; for example, a mat through a corpse which is learned from a mat through a creeping creature: we say, “Just as a mat through a creeping creature becomes impure only with one-day impurity, so too, when you learn it concerning a corpse, it should become impure only with one-day impurity”—

if so,

what is there to say!?

And from where shall we learn concerning a mat through a corpse, to render it impure with seven-day impurity!?

He said

he answered

Rava:

For

the verse says

concerning a corpse:

“And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day

and become pure,” and we learned:

All the impurities with which you render impure through a corpse shall not be less than seven,

and it is a decree of the verse to say concerning a mat: Learn from it and establish it in its place.

Here the Gemara returns to the laws of damages and raises several difficulties:

a.

And let tooth and foot be liable in the public domain

for at least half-damages,

by means of a kal va-chomer:

Just as concerning horn, which in the domain of the injured party he does not pay

the owner

more than half-damages, in the public domain it is liable,

for half-damages,

tooth and foot, concerning which in the domain of the injured party he pays

the owner

full damages, is it not a judgment that in the public domain it should be liable,

and although it is impossible to obligate him for full damages, because “it is enough for what emerges from the law to be like the subject of the law,” and with horn in the domain of the injured party he pays only half-damages, nevertheless, at least half-damages should be imposed upon him!?

And we answer: Behold, the verse says concerning damages of tooth and foot: “And he shall send forth his animal

and it shall consume in another’s field,”

from which we learn that the Torah obligated for tooth and foot only in the domain of the injured party

and not in the public domain.