Meilah 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rava to Rav Adda bar Ahava:

When the Merciful One draws an analogy

the analogy that the Torah draws between an animal and creeping creatures is

for the prohibition of “Do not make yourselves abominable”,

as it is stated there: “You shall not make yourselves abominable with any swarming creature that swarms, nor with any animal or bird, and with anything that creeps on the ground.” That is to say: The Torah equated them with regard to what they have in common, namely, that both are prohibited for consumption; but it did not equate an animal with a creeping creature in order to derive from it that the measure of eating an organ is less than an olive-bulk

. Mishna:

The Mishna continues discussing the combining of different sources of impurity with one another [and is explained here according to Rashi’s interpretation in Yoma 81a].

The blood of a creeping creature and its flesh

of a creeping creature

combine with one another

to reach the measure of impurity. That is, the blood of the creeping creature joins with and completes the flesh to the measure of a lentil, so that it conveys the impurity of a creeping creature through contact . This will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle: Anything whose impurity and measure are identical

such as two half-olive-bulks from two corpses, whose periods of impurity are identical, seven days, and whose measures are identical, an olive-bulk; and such as two half-olive-bulks from two animal carcasses, whose impurity lasts until evening and whose measure is an olive-bulk; or two half-lentil-bulks from two impure creeping creatures, the mole and the mouse, whose impurity lasts until evening and whose measure is a lentil ,

combine

to convey impurity.

But anything whose

impurity

is identical

but whose measure is not

such as a creeping creature and an animal carcass, both of which convey impurity lasting until evening, but whose measures for conveying impurity are not identical: the measure for a creeping creature is a lentil, whereas that of an animal carcass is an olive-bulk.

Likewise, anything whose

measure

is identical

but whose impurity is not

such as a corpse and an animal carcass, both of which have a measure of an olive-bulk, but whose impurities are not identical: a corpse conveys impurity lasting seven days, whereas an animal carcass conveys impurity lasting until evening,

and all the more so when

neither its impurity

is identical

nor its measure

as with a corpse and a creeping creature,

they do not combine.

So explained Rashi in tractate Yoma [there], and so explains the one attributed to Rashi and the Rabbenu Ovadia. According to this explanation, the comparison with regard to impurity means the duration of the impurity, whether until evening or for seven days. But the Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishna and in his book [Chapter 4 of the Laws of Food Impurity, halakha 11], explains that the comparison is in the manner in which they impart impurity, through contact, carrying, a tent, and the like. And this is his explanation: its impurity but not its measure. For example, the flesh of a corpse and the decomposition of a corpse, both of which impart impurity through contact, carrying, and a tent, but their measures are not equal, for the flesh of a corpse imparts impurity with an olive-bulk, while decomposition requires the fullness of two handfuls. Its measure but not its impurity. For example, the flesh of a carcass and the flesh of a corpse: both have a measure of an olive-bulk, but a carcass imparts evening impurity through contact and carrying [but not through a tent], whereas a corpse imparts seven-day impurity even through a tent. Not its impurity and not its measure. For example, the flesh of a carcass and a creeping creature, since a carcass has a measure of an olive-bulk and also imparts impurity through carrying, whereas a creeping creature has a measure of a lentil-bulk and does not impart impurity through carrying. So too write the Tosafot. The Tosafot of Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that Rashi certainly disagrees with the Rambam and the Tosafot. Rashi wrote that the impurity of a carcass and a creeping creature is equal, since the impurity of both is evening impurity. But according to the Rambam, their impurity is not equal, since a creeping creature does not impart impurity through carrying, while a carcass does impart impurity through carrying. In the following Mishna it will be explained that even the more severe does not combine with the less severe. That is, not only does half an olive-bulk of a carcass [the less severe] not combine to complete the measure of a creeping creature to a lentil-bulk [the more severe], but even half a lentil-bulk of a creeping creature [the more severe] does not combine to complete the measure of an olive-bulk of a carcass [the less severe]. So too wrote the Rambam [

Gemara:

In the following passage there are several explanations and textual versions. We have explained it according to the version of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon, as the Tosafot explained it. According to this interpretation, the Gemara’s discussion is whether the blood of one creeping creature combines with the flesh of another creeping creature.

Rav Hanin said in the name of Rav Zeira: And it.

That is, what the Mishna said, that blood combines with flesh, applies only when the blood is from that very same creeping creature. But the blood of one creeping creature does not combine with the flesh of another creeping creature.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina raised an objection

from what we learned in a beraita: The Torah said in the passage concerning creeping creatures [Leviticus 11], “These are

the impure

ones for you.” And we derive from the fact that it says “the impure ones” rather than “impure ones”

, that they combine, even a creeping creature and a creeping creature

combine. Even the flesh

of a creeping creature and blood, whether from the same name

such as the flesh of a mole and the blood of a mole,

or from two names

such as a mole and a mouse, combine to reach the measure of impurity.

The commentator attributed to Rashi. It follows that the blood of one creeping creature combines with the flesh of another creeping creature, which is difficult for the statement of Rav Zeira in the name of Rav.

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult. Here

where the beraita said that the blood of one creeping creature combines with the flesh of another, it is speaking

when it is all there,

meaning that the person who touched it touched everything, both the flesh and the blood.

Whereas

here,

the statement of Rav Hanin in the name of Rav Zeira that the blood of one creeping creature does not combine with the flesh of another creeping creature is speaking of a case where the person who touched it touched only

part of it,

whether the blood or the flesh. In that case, only if the blood and flesh are from the same creeping creature, and he touched part of it, does the person who touched it become impure, since the matter is considered as though the blood and flesh of that same creature were joined together. But when the blood and flesh are from two creeping creatures, each one is considered a separate entity, and one who touches one of them is not considered to have touched them all.

The Gemara continues:

And from where do you say this

that a distinction is made between touching all of it and touching part of it?

The Gemara brings proof from a beraita taught with regard to the laws of impurity imparted by a corpse.

a. An olive-bulk of a corpse conveys impurity through a tent, and likewise a quarter-log of blood from a corpse.

b. The impurity of a tent over a corpse applies in three ways: First, when a person and the corpse are under one roof [tent]. Second, when a person or a vessel forms a tent over a corpse. Third, when a corpse forms a tent over a person or over vessels.

As it was taught:

If

a quarter-log of blood from a corpse

spilled onto the floor

[outside, and not under a tent ],

and its location

on the floor

was sloping,

formed like a slope, so that the blood did not remain in one place but flowed down the slope, then if

a person formed a tent

over

part of it, he is pure.

But if he

formed a tent over all of it, he is impure.

It follows that there is a distinction between forming a tent over part of it and forming a tent over all of it. Therefore, likewise with regard to touching a creeping creature, a distinction should be made between touching part of it and touching all of it, as will be explained.

The Gemara explains:

What is meant by “part of it”

what is the beraita referring to when it says, “he formed a tent over part of it”?

If you say

that the intention is

part of the blood,

meaning that less than a quarter-log of blood spilled onto the floor ,

but Rabbi Hanina said

in the name of Rabbi: A quarter-log of blood

from a corpse

that one stirred

with a spoon or a reed, in a manner in which he does not become impure through contact impurity,

is pure,

and he cannot be rendered impure by the law of one who forms a tent over a corpse, because the one stirring the blood formed a tent only over part of the blood .

It follows that even though there was a quarter-log of blood from a corpse there, since the person formed a tent over only part of it, he is pure.

Rather, is it not

proven from here that when the Mishna said “part of it,” it did not mean blood measuring less than a quarter-log; rather, it means that he formed a tent over part of it. And when it said “all of it,” it means that he formed a tent over all of it.

Conclude from it: Here it is when he formed a tent over all of it, and here it is when he formed a tent over part of it.

The conclusion of the Gemara is: Indeed,

conclude from it!

And likewise, with regard to blood and flesh that come from two creeping creatures, we distinguish between touching part of it, in which case the one who touched it is pure, and touching all of it, in which case he is impure. We learned in the Mishna that the blood of a creeping creature conveys impurity. The Gemara now derives the source for the impurity of the blood of creeping creatures.

The Gemara relates:

Rabbi Mattia ben Heresh asked

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai in Rome

Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai said to him:

From where is it derived that the blood of creeping creatures is impure?

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai said to him

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai:

As the verse states

in the passage concerning creeping creatures [there]:

“And this is impure for you.”

And we derive from the word “and this” [the letter vav being superfluous], or from the word “the impure” [the letter he being superfluous], that it comes to include the blood of a creeping creature as being impure .

His students said to him

the students of Rabbi Mattia ben Heresh to Rabbi Mattia:

How wise is ben Yohai,

is ben Yohai so clever, and is he such a great sage that he expounded the verse so beautifully?

He said to them

Rabbi Mattia ben Heresh said to his students: This is not his own teaching, but rather

an established teaching in the mouth of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei!

That is, he heard this teaching from him.

The Gemara relates when he heard this teaching from Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei.

Once the kingdom issued a decree,

wicked Rome

issued

three decrees. The first was

that the Jews should not observe

Israel

the Shabbat.

And

the second was

that they should not circumcise their sons.

And

the third was

that they should have intercourse with menstruating women,

meaning that they closed the ritual immersion houses .

Rabbi Reuven ben Istrobeli went and had his hair cut in the Roman style,

shaving the hair of his head in the manner that the gentiles do, in order to disguise himself, so that they would not recognize that he was a Jew,

and he went

to Rome,

and sat with them,

with the great men of Rome.

Rabbi Reuven said to them,

Rabbi Reuven to the great men of Rome:

One who has an enemy,

what does he wish for him,

that he become poor or that he become rich?

The great men of Rome said to him,

the great men of Rome:

That he become poor!

Rabbi Reuven said to them,

Rabbi Reuven:

If so, let the Children of Israel not perform

the Children of Israel

labor on Shabbat, so that they become poor!

The great men of Rome said,

the great men of Rome:

He has spoken well ,

the matter is correct, and it is good to annul this decree!

And they annulled it,

this decree.

Rabbi Reuven again said to them,

Rabbi Reuven:

One who has an enemy, should he become weaker or become healthy? They said to him: Let him become weaker!

He said to them: If so, let them circumcise their sons on the eighth day, and they will become weaker! They said: He has spoken well! And they annulled it,

also this decree.

He again said to them: One who has an enemy, should he increase or diminish? They said to him: Let him diminish! He said to them

If so, let them not have intercourse with menstruant women,

and since they will wait until the time of their immersion, they will diminish!

They said: He has spoken well! And they annulled it.

In the end

they recognized that he was a Jew,

and all his aim was for the benefit of the Jews.

They reinstated them,

the three decrees.

The Sages and leaders of Israel said,

the Sages and leaders of Israel:

Who will go

to Rome,

and annul the decrees?