Chagigah 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

As Shmuel said:

Although one who removes an item from the domain of the Temple treasury to his own domain is liable for misuse, nevertheless

here

our Mishna is speaking of

a treasurer to whom consecrated building stones were entrusted

—it is

with regard to him that we are dealing, for wherever he places them, they are placed in his domain.

That is to say: Even before he took them for himself, they were lying in his own domain. Consequently, when he took them, he did not change anything about them, such that taking them out of the domain of the Temple treasury would be considered misuse.

And we explain:

Rather, from the latter clause—

that is, the latter clause of the Mishna presents a novel ruling dependent on a hairsbreadth:

If he built it into his house, he has not committed misuse until he dwells beneath it

—beneath the stone—

at

a value of

one peruta.

But this is difficult:

Granted,

when he built it into his house, he

changed it with a change

[that is, he changed it] by shaping it and setting it into the building; and since that is so,

what difference is there whether he dwells beneath it or does not dwell beneath it

? This change itself should be considered misuse!

This is indeed like mountains suspended by a hair.

And we reject this:

But what is the difficulty?

Perhaps it is in accordance with the interpretation of Rav,

that is, according to Rav’s interpretation.

As

Rav

said,

what are we dealing with here?

For example, he placed it

as it was

on top of

the opening of the

skylight

[made like a window in the house], and did not change anything about it such that it would be considered misuse. Therefore, only if

he dwells beneath it

and derives benefit from it,

yes,

indeed this is misuse; but if

he does not dwell beneath it, no,

he has not committed misuse.

And therefore we explain our Mishna:

Rather, actually, it is in accordance with Rava’s interpretation,

who interpreted our Mishna with regard to that which is taught in a beraita: If the homeowner remembered but the agent did not remember, the agent has committed misuse. This is a novel ruling, since the “poor agent,” who committed misuse in a circumstance close to אונס, what did he do?

And if it is difficult to you

what novelty there is in this matter, for surely he should be liable for misuse,

it is just as

other

people who take consecrated money for non-sacred use

unintentionally—who commit misuse; and the agent’s misuse, too, is not אונס but an inadvertent act, and it is logical that the agent should commit misuse?!

Do not raise this difficulty, for the case under discussion is not comparable to the proof:

There,

every person who takes consecrated money because it was confused with his own money is liable for misuse for this reason:

he knew that there was consecrated money

[he knew that he had consecrated money in his possession], and therefore

he should have examined

[he should have checked whether he had mistakenly taken consecrated money]. Consequently, he is not considered subject to אונס, but rather to inadvertence, and therefore he is liable for misuse.

But

here,

in the case of an agent who received money directly from the homeowner—

how could

the agent have known that the homeowner had consecrated money in his possession, and that there was concern that the two types of money had become confused? This is merely a circumstance close to אונס, and he should have been exempt; his liability for misuse is therefore a novel ruling.

And

this is indeed like mountains suspended by a hair.

We learned in the Mishna that they are

a small amount of Scripture and many halakhot:

The tanna

in a beraita taught: The laws of ritual impurity of

leprosy and

the laws of

tents

with regard to corpse impurity are

a small amount of Scripture

and

many halakhot.

And we wonder: Are

leprosy, a small amount of Scripture

? But

leprosy

has an extensive Scriptural treatment!

Rav Pappa said: This is what it means:

Leprosy has an extensive Scriptural treatment and few halakhot,

whereas

tents have a small amount of Scripture and many halakhot.

And what practical difference does it make?

It teaches you:

If you are uncertain about a matter concerning leprosy, examine the verses.

And if you are uncertain about a matter concerning tents, examine the Mishnayot.

We learned in the Mishna: The

civil laws, etc., have what to rely upon. We infer from the expression “what to rely upon” that these laws are not explicitly set forth in the Torah, but have a Scriptural basis. Therefore we ask:

But

they are explicitly written

in the Torah!

And we answer:

It was necessary

for our Mishna, which said with regard to the civil laws that they have only a basis and are not explicit,

only with regard to that which

Rabbi

said, and to similar civil laws [Rashi], which are not explicit in the Torah.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi says:

It is written: “When men fight and they collide with a pregnant woman [without intending to do so], and her children emerge, and there is no fatality [to the woman, who did not die], he shall surely be fined [the one who collided with her, by paying the value of the offspring], as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him, and he shall give it through the judges [in the court].” “

And if there is a fatality [that the woman died], and you shall give

a life for a life.”

And Rabbi interpreted “a life for a life” as a payment of

money,

the monetary value of the life, because he did not intend to kill the woman, but only his fellow, her husband.

You say

that the verse intends a payment of

money, or perhaps it means

taking an actual

life,

so that the one who struck her is liable to receive the death penalty even though he did not intend to kill the woman, but only her husband?

You learn this by means of a gzera shava:

“Giving” is stated below

with regard to the woman [“and you shall give a life for a life],

and “giving” is stated above

[“and he shall give it through the judges”] with regard to the payment for the offspring.

Just as there,

with regard to the payment for the offspring, it means

money,

so too here,

with regard to the woman, it means

money,

and not death, since he did not intend to kill the woman.

We learned in the Mishna, among the matters dependent on a hairsbreadth:

the sacrificial rites

of an offering:

And we wonder: But the laws of the sacrificial rites

are explicitly written

in the Torah and are explicit, and are not merely based upon inference?!

And we answer:

It was necessary only with regard to the

rite of

carrying the blood

in all offerings, for the principal aspect of this rite is not explicitly written in the Torah.

As it is taught: “And the sons of Aaron

the priests shall bring the blood,”

this is the receiving of the blood—

And

therefore

the Merciful One expressed

the rite of receiving the blood

in the language of carrying

[for the Torah described the receiving of the blood with the expression “and they shall bring,” which refers to the rite of carrying the blood].

Similarly, we find that “bringing near” means carrying,

as it is written: “And he shall bring

[i.e., bring near]

the priest all of it, and he shall burn it on the altar,” and the Master said: “

And he shall bring”—

this is the carrying of the limbs to the ramp.

In order

to indicate

[to teach us]:

that

the rite of

carrying

the blood

is not removed from the category of receiving!

That is, do not remove it from the laws of the rite of carrying the blood, but let it be equivalent to it in all its particulars.

The verse needed to equate them in order to teach us that although carrying is a rite that “can be nullified”—that is, it is not required in every circumstance like the other rites, but there are times when one may refrain from performing it, for example, if one wishes, he may slaughter the animal close to the altar, in which case carrying is unnecessary—

nevertheless, where it has not been nullified, carrying the blood is included among the sacrificial rites, and if one entertained a pigul intention during the rite of carrying, he has rendered the offering pigul. Likewise, the rite of carrying, like the rite of receiving, must be performed specifically by a koen wearing priestly garments; and the service of an onen, one who is sitting, or an uncircumcised person invalidates it [Rashi].

We learned in the Mishna, among the matters dependent on a hairsbreadth:

purities:

And we wonder: But the laws of ritual purity

are explicitly written

in the Torah?!

And we explain:

It was necessary only with regard to the measure of a ritual bath, which is not written.

As it is taught:

It is written: “And a man, when there is emitted from him an emission of seed, shall immerse all his flesh in water”:

And the verse is interpreted:

“And he shall immerse in water”—

[the letter bet has a patah vowel, as though the verse had said “in the water,” meaning known and designated water], to teach you that he must immerse

in the water of a ritual bath

and not in drawn water.

“All his flesh”,

indicates that he must immerse all his flesh at once [Rashi, Eruvin], in order to teach you the measure of a ritual bath: it must contain

water

in a quantity sufficient for

the entire body

of an average person to

be immersed in it.

And how much is that? One cubit by one cubit, with a height of three cubits.

And the Sages measured the water of a ritual bath

as

forty se’a.

We learned in the Mishna: And the

ritual impurities, etc., have what to rely upon:

And we wonder: But the laws of ritual impurity

are explicitly written

in the Torah?!

And we explain:

It was necessary only with regard to the

measure of

a lentil-sized portion of a creeping creature

that transmits impurity,

which is not written

explicitly in the Torah.

As it is taught:

It is written: “And this is for you the impure among the creeping creatures that creep upon the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the lizard according to its kinds; and the ferret, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. These are the impure ones for you among all the creeping creatures.

Anyone who touches them after their death shall be impure until evening.

And everything upon which one of them falls after their death shall become impure.”

And we expound: “Anyone who touches

them.”

One might

think that a person who touched the mentioned creeping creatures would not become impure until he touched

all of them

[all eight of the impure creeping creatures mentioned in the passage]?

The verse states: “And everything upon which one of them falls,”

and

one of them

indicates even part of one of them.

One might

think that one who touched

part of them

would become impure—the eight creeping creatures?

The verse states: “Anyone who touches

them,”

which indicates that he does not become impure until he touches all of them.

how [is this to be understood]?

And since one verse says this and another verse says the opposite,

how is this to be reconciled?

He does not become impure

until he touches part

of a creeping creature

that is

such that the measure of that part of the creeping creature is

the size of

another creeping creature

in its entirety.

That is, even if he touched part of a creeping creature that contains the measure of an entire creeping creature, the smallest of the creeping creatures, he becomes impure.

And

the Sages measured

this measure as

the size of a lentil.

For the snail—

which is one of the eight creeping creatures that transmit impurity—

at its beginning

[at the beginning of its formation] is

the size of a lentil.

Therefore, one who touches even part of a creeping creature becomes impure if it contains a lentil-sized portion, which is the measure of an entire creeping creature [the snail].

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: “The part that is like the whole,” which transmits impurity, means a part of a creeping creature that sometimes retains vitality like an entire creeping creature,

such as the tail of a lizard

—

which twitches even after it has been severed from the lizard.

We learned in the Mishna: And

forbidden sexual relations

have what to rely upon:

And we wonder: But the laws of forbidden sexual relations

are explicitly written

in the Torah, and are not merely based upon inference?!