Shabbat 64a — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

We learned the impurity of creeping creatures from the impurity of a corpse because

we derive the vessel

mentioned concerning creeping creatures, as it is written: “Every vessel in which work will be done” —

the vessel

mentioned

there

concerning the impurity of a corpse, as it is written: “Every vessel made by work.”

We learned in a beraita:

An addition of sack

whatever it may be

to a garment that is impure because of weaving.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Is it so that a garment is not woven?

But surely a garment is even more woven than a sack?

And we answered:

This is what it is saying: An addition of sack

whatever it may be

to a garment,

for

even though

the sack

is not woven

like a garment, nevertheless

it is impure, and in this respect there is a stringency in a sack more than in a garment.

and in this respect sackcloth has a stricter law than a garment.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

For what is it fit?

What is that small sack fit for, which is not woven but is a small braid made from goat hair?

Rabbi Yohanan said: For a poor man braids three threads

of spun goat hair

and hangs them

as an ornament

on the neck of his daughter,

and although this is not actual weaving, nevertheless this braiding is considered an ornament and contracts impurity like weaving.

The Sages taught: “Sack”

mentioned in Scripture as contracting the impurity of a creeping creature,

I have only [learned] a sack

made for shepherds’ garments, made from goat hair.

From where [do we derive] to include the kilkeli

which is a stiff garment made from goat hair?

And the havak

a donkey’s saddle.

The verse states: “Or sack”

to include these as well.

I might [think that] I include

even

the ropes and the cords,

which are made for purposes of measuring and are twisted, but are neither spun nor woven.

The verse states: “Sack” —

specifically that which resembles a sack is impure.

Just as a sack is spun and woven —

so too everything spun and woven

contracts impurity. And one who braids three threads: they are spun, and this is their manner of weaving. But ropes and cords are not spun at all.

Behold, it says concerning the impurity of a

corpse:

“And every leather vessel and every work of goat hair, etc.; you shall purify yourselves,”

and we expound “every”

to include

the

kilkeli and the havak,

which are impure with the impurity of a corpse.

I might [think that] I include

with the impurity of a corpse also

the ropes and the cords,

for concerning the impurity of a creeping creature Scripture excluded them, whereas here it did not exclude them.

It is not so; they are not impure with the impurity of a corpse, and no verse is needed to exclude them.

And it follows by logical derivation

that we should not include them. For

the verse rendered impure

the object

with a creeping creature, and rendered it impure with a corpse: just as when it rendered it impure with a creeping creature, it rendered only spun and woven objects impure, so too when it rendered it impure with a corpse, it rendered only spun and woven objects impure.

But not ropes and cords.

And if you say that we cannot learn from a creeping creature, because

if it was lenient concerning one impure through a creeping creature, whose

impurity

is light,

for he is impure only until evening,

shall we be lenient concerning the impurity of a corpse, which is severe,

for he is impure for seven days?

The verse states:

we derive

“garment and leather”

“garment and leather” by a gezerah shavah.

For we learned the impurity of a corpse from the impurity of a creeping creature.

“Garment and leather” is stated concerning a creeping creature, and “garment and leather” is stated concerning a corpse —

just as “garment and leather” stated concerning a creeping creature rendered only spun and woven objects impure,

so too “garment and leather” stated concerning a corpse rendered only spun and woven objects impure.

And we further learned the impurity of a creeping creature from the impurity of a corpse by this gezerah shavah:

And just as “garment and leather” stated

concerning a corpse renders every work of goat hair impure,

to include the kilkeli and havak,

so too “garment and leather” stated concerning a creeping creature renders every work of goat hair impure.

I have only [learned] something that comes from goats,

from where [do we derive] to include something that comes from a horse’s tail and a cow’s tail?

The verse states: “Or sack”

to include them.

And we challenge the words of the beraita:

But you have already extracted it

for we have already expounded “or sack”

to

include

the kilkeli and havak;

how can we expound from that same verse everything that comes from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail?

And we answer:

That statement

that we expounded the kilkeli and havak from “or sack” to include the kilkeli and havak

was before there was the gezerah shavah.

Before we expounded the gezerah shavah, we needed this inclusion for them. But

now that the gezerah shavah has come,

we learn every work of goat hair by the gezerah shavah, and once again

“or sack” has become superfluous

so that they expounded it to include everything made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail.

And I have only

something made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail

in

the impurity of

a creeping creature,

as it is stated concerning it, “or sack.”

Concerning the impurity of a corpse, from where [do we derive it]?

And it follows by logical derivation:

we learned the impurity of a corpse from the impurity of a creeping creature.

It rendered [it] impure with a corpse and rendered [it] impure with a creeping creature: just as when it rendered [it]

impure with a creeping creature, it made something coming from a horse’s tail and from a cow’s tail like a work of goat hair, so too when it rendered [it] impure with a corpse, it made something coming from a horse’s tail and from a cow’s tail like a work of goat hair.

Perhaps you will say that we cannot learn the impurity of a corpse through a binyan av from the impurity of a creeping creature, for

if the verse increased

the objects

with the impurity of

a creeping creature, whose impurity is

until evening

alone,

which is more widespread,

for all impurities through contact are impurity until evening, such as a creeping creature, an animal carcass, semen, and a man with a discharge, as well as one who touches one impure through a corpse—shall

we increase

objects

with the impurity of

a corpse, whose impurity is

for seven days, which is less widespread,

for impurity lasting seven days was stated only concerning contact with the corpse itself?

The verse states:

we derive

“garment and leather”

“garment and leather” by a gezerah shavah.

“Garment and leather” is stated concerning a creeping creature, and “garment and leather” is stated concerning a corpse: just as “garment and leather” stated concerning a creeping creature made something coming from a horse’s tail and from a cow’s tail like a work of goat hair,

which contracts impurity,

so too “garment and leather” stated concerning a corpse made something coming from a horse’s tail and from a cow’s tail like a work of goat hair.

And it is available,

this gezerah shavah of “garment and leather,” because these two words are superfluous. But a gezerah shavah that is not available can be challenged.

For if it were not available,

this gezerah shavah, then

there is room to challenge:

What is there concerning a creeping creature, which renders impure with an olive’s bulk,

unlike a corpse, which does not render impure with an olive’s bulk?

Indeed,

in truth

it is available for derivation,

it is superfluous; what the Torah wrote “garment and leather” was in order that we expound a gezerah shavah, but for the impurity of a creeping creature itself this verse is unnecessary.

For

since a creeping creature is linked

in the verse

to semen, as it is written: “A man from whom there will issue semen,” and next to it: “A man who touches any creeping creature”; and it is written concerning semen: “And every garment and every leather upon which there will be semen.”

If so,

“garment and leather” that the Merciful One wrote concerning a creeping creature, why do I need it,

for this can be learned from the impurity of semen?

Conclude from this

that “garment and leather” stated concerning the impurity of a creeping creature is superfluous

for making available,

to teach us a gezerah shavah, against which no challenge can be brought, for it is as though the Torah explicitly wrote this law.

Even so,

one can raise the difficulty

that it is available on one side only.

Only that which is stated concerning a creeping creature is superfluous, but not that which is stated concerning a corpse.

This works for the one who says

that even a gezerah shavah which is

available on one side is learned,

as a gezerah shavah,

and is not challenged.

But according to the one who says: It is learned and is challenged —

what can be said?

Here it is available only on one side, and there is a challenge against it.

And we answer: It can be said

that

“garment and leather” stated concerning a

corpse too is available for derivation,

and is superfluous for this gezerah shavah.

For

since a corpse

also

is linked to semen, as it is written: “And one who touches any person impure through a corpse, or a man from whom there will issue semen”; and it is written concerning semen: “And every garment and every leather,”

if so,

“garment and leather” that the Merciful One wrote concerning a corpse, why do I need it,

for this can be learned from semen?

Conclude from this: It is available for derivation, and if so this gezerah shavah is available on both sides, and no challenge can be brought against it at all.

and therefore this derivation based on the identical expression is available on both sides, and no challenge can be raised against it at all.

In the section concerning the war of Midian it is stated:

“And we brought near the offering of the Lord, each man who found a golden vessel: a bracelet, and a clasp, a ring, an earring, and a kumaz.”

And we explain:

Rabbi Elazar said: An earring

mentioned there—

this is a mold for breasts

in which they are placed.

A kumaz

mentioned there—

this is a mold for the womb.

Rav Yosef said: If so,

that this is the kumaz mentioned there, it is understandable that

this is what we translate

in the translation of Onkelos the verse’s word “kumaz”—it is

a mahukh—

an object that brings to laughter,

to amusement and frivolity.

Rabba said to him: From the body of the verse itself you can understand

that a kumaz is a mold for the womb, because its name hints at it:

a kumaz

which is an acronym [a linguistic hint]—

“Here is the place of lewdness.”

It is further stated in the section concerning the war of Midian:

“And Moses became angry with the officers of the army.”

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: Moses said to Israel: Perhaps you have returned to your first corruption?

Perhaps you committed transgressions and corruption in Midian, like the deed at Shittim, when they fornicated with the daughters of Moab, and therefore you needed an offering.

They said to him,

Israel to Moses:

“Not one man was missing from us”

not one of us was lacking, for we all conducted ourselves according to the law. [The expression “was missing” is from the meaning “was lacking,” namely, lacking from his level in observance of the commandments.]

He said to them: If so, why [do you need] atonement?

Why did you need it?

They said to him: If we escaped from the matter of transgression,

for we did not stumble in it,

we did not escape from the matter of thought.

Immediately

they brought an offering, as it is stated:

“And we brought near the offering of the Lord.”

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: For what reason did Israel of that generation require atonement?