Shabbat 82b — the Talmud in English

If

the place of the wall

belonged to him and to the idolatry,

so that half the thickness of the wall was within his domain and its other half within the domain of the idolatry —

it is judged as half and half.

That half belonging to him is considered to be included within the four cubits into which he must withdraw.

If, for example, the wall was two cubits thick, he need withdraw into his own area only three cubits, besides the cubit of the wall that belongs to him.

Its stones, its wood, and its dust,

of that wall that fell,

convey impurity like a creeping creature,

which conveys impurity through contact but not through carrying.

As it is stated: “You shall utterly detest it,”

the verse employed the expression “detestable thing” to say that its law is like that of a creeping creature.

Rabbi Akiva says: They convey impurity even through carrying

like a menstruous woman.

Just as one who carries a menstruous woman, a man with a flux, or a woman with a flux becomes impure, so too, one who carries idolatry becomes impure.

As it is stated,

“You shall cast them away —

like a menstruous woman.”

Idolatry was likened to a menstruous woman:

Just as a menstruous woman conveys impurity through carrying

to the one carrying her,

so too, idolatry conveys impurity through carrying.

Rabba said: “You shall cast them away,” as the verse says,

the meaning is as follows:

Separate it from yourselves,

distance it

from you, like a stranger.

And the continuation of the verse is:

“Go out, you shall say to it” —

“Enter,” do not say to it.

And Rabba said: With regard to carrying —

“Enter,” do not say to it.

everyone agrees that it conveys impurity,

idolatry,

for it was likened to a menstruous woman

in the verse “You shall cast them away like a menstruous woman.”

When they disagree is with regard to a stone of pressing

[from the expression “placed upon”], which is a stone that they placed upon supports, with vessels beneath it, and the idolatry above the stone.

And this is their disagreement:

Rabbi Akiva holds:

Thus the comparison tells us:

Idolatry conveys impurity

like a menstruous woman.

Just as a menstruous woman conveys impurity through a stone of pressing,

for if the menstruous woman sat on the stone, even though she did not press upon the vessels, the vessels are impure [as it is derived from a man with a flux, concerning whom it is written: “And everything that is beneath him [the man with a flux] shall become impure”] —

so too, idolatry conveys impurity through a stone of pressing

to the vessels beneath the stone. For they too are considered to be located “beneath the idolatry,” even though the idolatry does not press upon them, since it is situated on the stone, while the stone itself rests upon supports and does not rest upon the vessels.

And the Rabbis hold:

Idolatry is

like a creeping creature —

just as a creeping creature does not convey impurity through a stone of pressing

to the vessels beneath the stone,

so too, idolatry does not convey impurity through a stone of pressing

to the vessels beneath it.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, for what halakhic purpose was it likened

idolatry

to a creeping creature?

And we answer:

For objects serving idolatry.

For the vessels that serve idolatry convey impurity only through contact, like a creeping creature, but not through carrying and not through a stone of pressing.

And again we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And according to the Rabbis —

for what halakhic purpose was it likened

idolatry

to a menstruous woman?

And we answer:

For carrying.

As Rabba said, that everyone agrees that idolatry conveys impurity through carrying, for this is derived from a menstruous woman. Nevertheless, it does not convey impurity entirely like a menstruous woman, for idolatry does not convey impurity through a stone of pressing; for this purpose the comparison to a creeping creature is effective—to exclude it from a stone of pressing.

And we raise an objection against the Rabbis:

Let the Merciful One compare

idolatry

to a carcass,

which also conveys impurity only through carrying and not through a stone of pressing. Then we would no longer need to compare idolatry to a creeping creature in order to exclude it from a stone of pressing?

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so.

It would in fact have been possible to learn from the comparison to a carcass that idolatry does not convey impurity through a stone of pressing.

Rather,

the Torah compared it to a menstruous woman in order to teach another matter:

Just as a menstruous woman does not

convey impurity

to the limbs,

for if a limb was severed from the menstruous woman, the impurity of a menstruous woman does not apply to it [rather, it has the impurity of a limb from a living person, like a limb severed from another person. The difference between them is that a limb severed from a menstruous woman conveys impurity only through carrying and through a tent, but not through a stone of pressing] —

so too, idolatry does not

convey impurity

to the limbs.

For if the idolatry was composed of separate parts, each part by itself does not convey impurity; rather, it does so when it is whole.

And we raise an objection:

But as for this matter concerning which Rav Hama bar Gurya asked: Idolatry —

does it have

impurity

for the limbs, or does it not

have impurity

for the limbs?

Let him resolve it from this

that we said,

that according to the Rabbis it does not apply to the limbs?

And we answer:

Rav Hama bar Gurya

asked it according to Rabbi Akiva.

For although he compares idolatry to a menstruous woman with regard to a stone of pressing, it remains uncertain according to him whether it is also compared to a menstruous woman leniently, for purposes of declaring it pure, so that it does not convey impurity to the limbs like a menstruous woman, or perhaps it is compared to her only stringently, and not leniently.

And Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to a stone of pressing —

everyone agrees that it does not convey impurity,

idolatry.

When they disagree is with regard to carrying.

Rabbi Akiva holds:

Idolatry is

like a menstruous woman —

just as a menstruous woman conveys impurity through carrying, so too, idolatry conveys impurity through carrying.

And the Rabbis hold: Like a creeping creature —

just as a menstruant imparts impurity through carrying, so too, idolatry imparts impurity through carrying.

just as a creeping creature does not convey impurity through carrying, so too, idolatry does not convey impurity through carrying.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it, according to Rabbi Elazar, who established the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva as concerning only the impurity of carrying and not a stone of pressing:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, for what halakhic purpose was it likened

idolatry

to a creeping creature?

And we answer:

For objects serving idolatry,

which do not convey impurity through carrying.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And according to the Rabbis, for what halakhic purpose was it likened

idolatry

to a menstruous woman?

For its impurity is entirely like that of a creeping creature.

And we answer: It is to tell you:

Just as a menstruous woman does not apply to the limbs, so too, idolatry does not apply to the limbs.

Just as a menstruant does not impart impurity to limbs, so too, idolatry does not impart impurity to limbs.