Chagigah 11a — the Talmud in English

For Shmuel said:

even though one who removes [an item] from consecrated property to his own domain is considered to have committed sacrilege, nevertheless

here

our Mishna is dealing with

a treasurer to whom building stones were entrusted

of consecrated property that

we are dealing with, for wherever it is placed, it is placed in his domain.

That is to say: even before he took them for himself, they had been lying in his own domain; it follows that when he took them, he did not change anything in them, so that it should be considered removal from the domain of consecrated property.

And we explain:

Rather, from the latter clause,

that is to say: the latter clause of the Mishna contains a novelty dependent on a hair’s breadth:

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

of the stone

at

a value

worth a peruta.

But one must wonder:

Since

when he built it into his house, it follows that he

changed it with a change

[he changed it] by hewing it and setting it into the building, and since this is so,

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

for this change itself should be considered sacrilege?!

This is [a matter] like mountains suspended by a hair.

And we reject [this]:

And what is the difficulty?

Perhaps [the Mishna is] according to Rav,

that is to say: according to Rav’s explanation.

For he said

and explained

Rav:

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 into the house], and he did not change anything in it so that it should be considered sacrilege; therefore, only if

he dwells beneath it

and derives benefit from it,

there is

indeed sacrilege in this, but if

he did not dwell beneath it, there is not

he has not committed sacrilege.

And therefore we explain our Mishna:

Rather, actually, [it is] according to Rava,

who explained our Mishna with regard to that which was taught: “The homeowner remembered, but the agent did not remember,” that the agent committed sacrilege. And it is a novelty, since the “poor agent,” who committed sacrilege in a matter close to coercion, what did he do?

And as for what is difficult for you

what novelty is there in the matter, for surely he ought to commit sacrilege,

just as is the case with

other

one who takes consecrated money for ordinary use

unwittingly—he commits sacrilege; and the agent’s sacrilege too is not coercion but inadvertence, and it is logical that the agent should commit sacrilege?!

This is not difficult, for the matter under discussion is not comparable to the proof:

There,

every one who takes consecrated money because it became confused for his own money—for that reason he commits sacrilege; and we do not consider him coerced, because

he certainly knew that there was consecrated money

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

he ought to have examined

[he ought to have checked whether he had mistakenly taken consecrated money], and therefore he is not considered coerced but inadvertent, and therefore he is liable for the sacrilege.

But

here,

with an agent who received money from the homeowner—

did he know

that the homeowner had consecrated money in his possession, and that one should be concerned lest these became confused with those?! This is only close to coercion, and he ought to have been exempt; and his liability for sacrilege is a novelty.

And

this is [a matter] like mountains suspended by a hair.

We learned in the Mishna: that they are

[based on] few verses and numerous halakhot:

The tanna

taught in a beraita: The laws of impurity of

afflictions and

the laws of

tents

with regard to corpse impurity,

[are based on] few verses

they

and numerous halakhot.

And we wonder: Is it that

afflictions are [based on] few verses? But

afflictions—

[their] verses are numerous!

They are [based on] many verses!

Rav Pappa said: This is what it means:

Afflictions: [their] verses are numerous, but [their] halakhot are few,

whereas

tents: [their] verses are few, but [their] halakhot are numerous.

And what practical difference does it make?

To instruct you:

If a matter is uncertain to you with regard to afflictions, examine the verses.

And if a matter is uncertain to you with regard to tents, examine the Mishnayot.

We learned in the Mishna: The

laws and so forth have something upon which they may rely. And we analyze the expression “upon which they may rely,” which implies that they are not explicit in the Torah, but have a support; and therefore we wonder:

But

the laws

are explicitly written

in the Torah!

And we answer:

It was necessary

for our Mishna, which said concerning the laws that they have only a support and are not explicit,

only for that which

said

Rabbi,

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

For it was taught: Rabbi says:

It is written: “When men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman [without intending to do so], and her children emerge, and there is no harm [to the woman, for she did not die], he shall surely be fined [the one who struck her, payment for the unborn children], as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him, and he shall give it through the judges [in court].” “

And if there is harm [that the woman died], you shall give

a life for a life.”

And Rabbi explained “a life for a life” as meaning payment of

money

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

You say

that the verse intends payment of

money, or perhaps it is nothing but

the taking of

an actual life,

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

You learn it through a gezeira shava:

“Giving” is stated below

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

and “giving” is stated above

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

Just as there

with regard to payment for the unborn children, it means

money,

so too here,

with regard to the woman, it means

money

and not death, since he did not intend [to strike] the woman.

We learned in the Mishna among the matters dependent on a hair’s breadth:

the sacrificial services

of the offering:

And we wonder: But the laws of the sacrificial services

are explicitly written

in the Torah and are explicit, and are not merely supported?!

And we answer:

It was necessary only for the

service of

bringing the blood

in all the offerings, for the principal part of this service is not written explicitly in the Torah.

For it was taught: “And the sons of Aaron

the priests shall bring the blood,”

this is receiving the blood—

And

therefore

the Merciful One brought out

the service of receiving the blood

in the language of bringing

[for the Torah wrote the receiving of the blood in the language “and they shall bring,” which is the service of bringing the blood].

And similarly, we find that “bringing near” means bringing,

as it is written, “And he shall bring

[like: “and he shall 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 bringing the limbs to the ramp.

In order

to say

[to teach us]:

that

the service of

bringing

the blood

does not depart from the category of receiving!

That is to say, do not remove it, as the service of bringing the blood, from the category of the laws of the service of receiving the blood; rather, it shall be equal to it in all its matters.

And the verse needed to equate them in order to inform us that although the service of bringing is a service that “can be annulled,” meaning that it is not required in every circumstance like the other services, but there are times when it is possible to refrain from performing it—for example, if he wishes, he may slaughter the animal close to the altar, and then he does not require bringing it—

nevertheless, where he did not annul it, bringing the blood is part of the sacrificial service, and if he formulated a pigul intention during the service of bringing, he rendered the offering pigul. Likewise, the service of bringing, like the service of receiving, must be performed specifically by a priest wearing priestly garments; and the service of an onen, or one who is seated, or an uncircumcised man, disqualifies it [Rashi].

We learned in the Mishna among the matters dependent on a hair’s breadth: the

purities:

And we wonder: But the laws of purities

are explicitly written

explicitly?!

And we explain:

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

For it was taught:

It is written: “And a man, when there issues from him a discharge of semen, shall immerse in water his entire flesh”:

And he explains the verse:

“And he shall immerse in water” [

the letter bet is vocalized with patah, as though the verse said “in the water,” meaning known and designated water], to teach you: he shall immerse

in the water of a ritual bath

and not in drawn water.

“All his flesh”,

which implies that he must immerse all his flesh at once [Rashi, Eruvin], in order to teach you the measure of a ritual bath: that there be

water

in the measure in which

the entire body

of an average person

can rise in it.

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

And the Sages measured the water of a ritual bath

as being

forty seah.

We learned in the Mishna: And the

impurities

and so forth have something upon which they may rely:

And we wonder: But the laws of impurities

are explicitly written

explicitly?!

And we explain:

It was necessary only for the

measure of

a lentil-sized portion from a creeping creature

which renders impure,

which is not written

explicitly in the Torah.

For it was taught:

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

Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until evening.

And everything upon which one of them shall fall when they are dead shall become impure.”

And we expound: “Whoever touches

them.”

One might have thought

that the one who touched the mentioned creeping creatures would not become impure until he touched

all of them

[all eight creeping creatures that render impure, mentioned in the passage].

The verse says: “And everything upon which one shall fall

of them,”

which implies even part of them.

One might have thought

that the one who touches

part of them

the eight creeping creatures would become impure?

The verse says: “Whoever touches

them,”

which implies that he is not impure until he touches all of them.

And since one verse says this and another verse says something else,

how [is this to be understood]?

He is not impure

until he touches part of

the creeping creature

which is

that its measure, the measure of part of the creeping creature,

is like

the measure of another creeping creature

in its entirety.

That is to say: 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 is impure.

And

the Sages measured

that this measure is

the size of a lentil.

For the skink—

which is one of the eight creeping creatures that render impure—

at its beginning

[at the beginning of its formation] is

the size of a lentil.

And therefore one who touches even part of a creeping creature, if it contains the measure of a lentil, which is the measure of an entire creeping creature [the skink], is impure.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah says: “The part of it that is like its entirety” which renders impure means a part of a creeping creature that sometimes possesses vitality like an entire creeping creature,

such as the tail of a lizard,

which twitches even after it has been cut off from the lizard.

We learned in the Mishna: And

forbidden sexual relations

have something upon which they may rely:

And we wonder: But the laws of forbidden sexual relations

are explicitly written

explicitly, and are not merely a support?!

And we wonder: But the laws of forbidden sexual relations

are explicitly written

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