Shabbat 82b (פב:) — the Talmud in English

If

the place of the wall

belonged both to him and to the idolatry,

so that half the wall’s thickness was within his domain and its other half was within the domain of the idolatry -

it is judged as half and half.

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

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

Its stones, wood, and dust

of that fallen wall

impart impurity like a creeping creature,

which imparts impurity through contact but not through carrying.

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

the verse uses the term “detestable thing” to indicate that its status is like that of a creeping creature.

Rabbi Akiva says:

They impart impurity even through carrying,

like a menstruant.

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

As it is stated:

“Cast them away -

like a menstruant.”

Idolatry is compared to a menstruant:

Just as a menstruant imparts impurity through carrying,

to the one who carries her,

so too, idolatry imparts impurity through carrying.

Rabba said: “Cast them away,” as the verse says -

the meaning is as follows:

“Make them foreign,”

distance it

from you, as a foreign thing.

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,

everyone agrees that it imparts impurity,

idolatry.

For it is compared to a menstruant

in the verse “Cast them away like a menstruant.”

When they disagree is with regard to a stone that presses [

from the expression “placed upon”], which is a stone placed on top of posts, with vessels beneath it, and the idolatry on top of the stone.

And this is the dispute:

Rabbi Akiva holds:

This is what the comparison teaches us:

Idolatry imparts impurity

like a menstruant.

Just as a menstruant imparts impurity through a stone that presses,

for if the menstruant sat on the stone, even though she did not weigh down upon the vessels, the vessels are impure [as this is derived from a man with a discharge, concerning whom it is written: “And whoever touches anything that shall be under him [under the man with a discharge] shall be impure”

so too, idolatry imparts impurity through a stone that presses

to the vessels beneath the stone. They too are considered to be located “beneath the idolatry,” even though the idolatry does not weigh down upon them, since it is situated on the stone, while the stone itself rests on posts and does not rest on the vessels.

And the Rabbis hold:

Idolatry has the status

of a creeping creature -

just as a creeping creature does not impart impurity through a stone that presses

to the vessels beneath the stone,

so too, idolatry does not impart impurity through a stone that presses

to the vessels beneath it.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, for what halakhic purpose is it compared

idolatry

to a creeping creature?

And we answer:

With regard to its accessories.

The vessels that serve the idolatry impart impurity only through contact, like a creeping creature, but not through carrying or through a stone that presses.

And we further raise a difficulty:

And according to the Rabbis -

for what halakhic purpose is it compared

idolatry

to a menstruant?

And we answer:

With regard to carrying.

As Rabba said, everyone agrees that idolatry imparts impurity through carrying, for this is derived from a menstruant. Nevertheless, it does not impart impurity in every respect like a menstruant, as idolatry does not impart impurity through a stone that presses; for this purpose the comparison to a creeping creature is effective—to exclude it from impurity through a stone that presses.

And we challenge the Rabbis:

Why did the Merciful One not compare

the idolatry

to an animal carcass,

which likewise imparts impurity only through carrying and not through a stone that presses? Then there would be no need to compare idolatry to a creeping creature in order to exclude impurity through a stone that presses.

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so.

It would in fact have been possible to derive that idolatry does not impart impurity through a stone that presses from the comparison to an animal carcass.

Rather,

the Torah compared it to a menstruant in order to teach an additional matter:

Just as a menstruant does not

impart impurity

to limbs,

for if a limb is severed from the menstruant, the impurity of a menstruant does not apply to it [rather, it has the impurity of a limb severed from a living person, like a limb severed from any other person. The difference between them is that a limb severed from a menstruant imparts impurity only through carrying and in a tent, but not through a stone that presses] -

so too, idolatry does not

impart impurity

to limbs.

If the idolatry was composed of separate parts, each individual part does not impart impurity on its own; rather, it does so when it is whole.

And we challenge this:

But if so, concerning that which Rav Hama bar Gurya asked: Idolatry -

does it have,

does it possess impurity,

with regard to limbs, or does it not,

does it not possess impurity

with regard to limbs?

Let him resolve it from this

that we stated,

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

And we answer:

Rav Hama bar Gurya

asked his question according to Rabbi Akiva,

who indeed compares idolatry to a menstruant with regard to a stone that presses. But according to him, one can still be uncertain whether he also compares it to a menstruant leniently, for purposes of declaring it pure, so that it does not impart impurity to limbs like a menstruant, or whether he compares it only stringently and not leniently.

And Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to a stone that presses -

everyone agrees that it does not impart impurity,

idolatry.

When they disagree is with regard to carrying.

Rabbi Akiva holds:

Idolatry has the status

of a menstruant -

And the Rabbis hold: Like a creeping creature —

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

And the Rabbis hold: It has the status of a creeping creature -

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

And we raise a difficulty according to Rabbi Elazar, who established that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva concerns only impurity through carrying and not a stone that presses:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, for what halakhic purpose is it compared

idolatry

to a creeping creature?

And we answer:

With regard to its accessories,

which do not impart impurity through carrying.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to the Rabbis, for what halakhic purpose is it compared

idolatry

to a menstruant?

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

And we answer: It is to teach you:

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