Shabbat 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Akiva—for what halakhic purpose

in what regard

was

idolatry

likened to a menstruant woman, despite the fact that it is not entirely comparable to her?

Since only

the matter of

carrying

was derived by analogy, and not the matter of a pressing stone, why was

idolatry not likened

to

a carcass,

which is entirely comparable to it with regard to its halakhot, as both impart ritual impurity through carrying but not through a pressing stone?

And we answer:

Indeed,

the verse could have likened it to a carcass!

Rather,

it was likened to a menstruant woman for this purpose, to tell you:

Just as a menstruant woman is not,

in whose case the impurity does not extend

to the limbs—

so too, idolatry is not [impure] by limbs.

And we challenge this:

But concerning the question that Rav Hama bar Gurya raised: Is old idolatry impure by limbs, or is it not impure by limbs?

Let him resolve it from this

that we said, for

according to both the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva, it is not

that idolatry imparts impurity

by limbs?

And we answer:

Rav Hama bar Gurya—

he teaches the dispute according to Rabba

as a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva.

And he raises his question according to Rabbi Akiva,

as we explained above according to Rabba.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

Idolatry

imparts ritual impurity

like a creeping animal, and

also

its accessories

impart impurity

like a creeping animal.

Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatry

imparts impurity

like a menstruant woman, and

whereas

its accessories

impart impurity

like a creeping animal.

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, this is satisfactory:

the statement taught in the words of the first tanna, that idolatry is like a creeping animal. For according to his view, the Rabbis indeed hold that idolatry does not impart impurity through carrying, and its status is entirely like that of a creeping animal.

But according to Rabba, this is difficult,

for according to his view, even according to the Rabbis, idolatry imparts impurity through carrying; if so, its status is not like that of a creeping animal.

And we answer:

Rabba could say to you: Is

this beraita

stronger than the Mishna

in tractate Avoda Zara,

which teaches

there that according to the Rabbis,

its wood, its stones, and its dust

of a house of idolatry

impart impurity like a creeping animal?

And we established: What is the meaning of “like a creeping animal”?—

That it does not impart impurity through a pressing stone,

but not that its status is entirely like that of a creeping animal, such that it would not impart impurity even through carrying.

So too,

the beraita that teaches “like a creeping animal” means

that it does not impart impurity through a pressing stone,

but it does impart impurity through carrying.

The Gemara raises another objection

from that which was taught:

A gentile man and a gentile woman,

concerning whom the Sages decreed that they impart impurity like those with a flux, and likewise

idolatry, and

likewise

its accessories—

behold,

they

are impure,

but not when moved.

If they are moved—that is, if they are carried—the one carrying them does not become impure, because they do not impart impurity through carrying.

And we now assume that the expression “when moved” means that others moved the source of impurity, unlike its meaning throughout the Gemara, where it indicates that the impure person moved others.

Rabbi Akiva says: They themselves and when moved,

as they also impart impurity through carrying.

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, this is satisfactory:

the statement that according to the Rabbis, idolatry does not impart impurity through carrying.

But according to Rabba, this is difficult,

for according to his view, even according to the Rabbis, idolatry imparts impurity through carrying.

And we answer:

Rabba could say to you: And according to your reasoning,

that the beraita is to be understood literally, is it so that

a gentile man and a gentile woman as well

are stated to be

“they themselves but not when moved,”

meaning that they do not impart impurity through carrying?

But it was taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning a flux:

“Speak to the children of Israel.”

And we derive:

The children of Israel impart impurity through a flux, but gentiles do not impart impurity through a flux. However,

the Sages decreed

that

they should have the status of those with a flux in all their matters,

even when they had not seen a flux.

It follows that gentiles impart impurity even through carrying, since it says that they should have the status of those with a flux in all their matters.

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that this beraita is corrupt and must be emended and explained; and if so,

Rabba also explains

and emends it

in accordance with his view,

as follows:

A gentile man and a gentile woman—

they themselves, when moved, and their pressing stone—

impart impurity.

Idolatry itself and when moved

impart impurity,

but it does not

impart impurity through

its pressing stone,

as Rabba established the dispute: According to the Rabbis, idolatry imparts impurity through carrying but not through a pressing stone.

Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatry

imparts impurity

itself, when moved, and through its pressing stone.

Idolatry also imparts impurity through a pressing stone.

And Rabbi Elazar explains it in accordance with his view,

as the beraita teaches as follows:

A gentile man and a gentile woman

impart impurity—

themselves, when moved, and through their pressing stone.

Idolatry

only

itself

imparts impurity,

but not when moved,

as it does not impart impurity even through carrying, but only through contact.

And Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatry—

it imparts impurity

itself and when moved,

as it imparts impurity through carrying but not through a pressing stone.

Rav Ashi challenged this

both according to Rabba and according to Rabbi Elazar:

If the interpretation of “when moved” in the beraita is that others moved them—that is, that a gentile man, a gentile woman, and idolatry impart impurity through carrying—

what is the meaning of “they themselves

are impure,” as stated by the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva?

Is it not obvious that they themselves are impure? If not, what relevance would there be to speaking of their being moved? They should not have mentioned their own impurity at all, but should have disputed only whether idolatry imparts impurity when moved.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what it means:

A gentile man and a gentile woman, whether they themselves moved others [the meaning of “when moved” here is the ordinary meaning of the term throughout the Gemara, namely, that the impure person moved others],

or whether others moved them [this is the meaning of “they themselves,” namely, that they were carried], are

impure,

because the Sages decreed that they should have the status of those with a flux.

And one with a flux imparts impurity both through being moved, when the one with a flux moves another object, and through carrying, when others carry him.

If idolatry moved others—

they are

pure,

as there is no impurity of movement in its case.

If others moved it—they are

impure

because of impurity transmitted through carrying.

Rav Ashi explains it according to Rabba: According to the Rabbis, idolatry imparts impurity through carrying, as it was likened to a menstruant woman. But it does not impart impurity through a pressing stone, because it was also likened to a creeping animal. The same law applies: It does not impart impurity through movement, as is the law with a creeping animal.

Its accessories, whether they themselves moved others or whether others moved them—

they are pure.

For even the impurity of carrying does not apply to accessories; they impart only impurity through contact.

Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man, a gentile woman, and idolatry, whether they themselves moved others, and whether

others moved them—

they are impure.

For idolatry also imparts impurity through movement, and the same applies to a pressing stone, as it was entirely likened to a menstruant woman.

Its accessories, whether they themselves moved others, and whether

others moved them—

they are pure.

For this is why idolatry was likened to a creeping animal: to exclude its accessories from impurity through carrying, and certainly from impurity through movement.

And this is how Rav Ashi explains the beraita according to Rabba:

A gentile man and a gentile woman—themselves [when they were carried] and when they moved others.

Idolatry—itself, but not when it moved others.

Its accessories—not themselves and not when they moved others.

Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man, a gentile woman, and idolatry—themselves and when they moved others; its accessories—not themselves and not when they moved others.

And according to Rabbi Elazar, Rav Ashi explains it as follows:

A gentile man and a gentile woman—themselves and when they moved others.

Idolatry and its accessories—not themselves and not when they moved others. [Even idolatry itself does not impart impurity through carrying, and certainly not through movement.]

Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man and a gentile woman—themselves and when they moved others. Idolatry—itself, but not when it moved others. [Idolatry imparts impurity through carrying but not through movement. The same applies to a pressing stone, as the two cases have the same law.]

Its accessories—not themselves and not when they moved others.

And we challenge Rav Ashi:

Idolatry—

granted, one can find a case in which others moved it.

But a case in which it moved others—

how can one find such a case?

How is it possible for idolatry to move another object?

And we answer:

Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said:

One can find such a case

as we learned

in tractate Zavim:

If

one with a flux was on one pan of a balance,

and

on the other side

opposite him

food and drink

were lying

on the pan

of the balance’s

other pan:

If

the one with the flux descended,

meaning that the pan on which he was located went down and the pan on which the food and drink were located rose—

the food and drink are impure

because of impurity through movement, for the one with the flux moved them. And in this manner one can find a case involving idolatry: It was on one pan of a balance, and its weight caused that pan to descend, thereby “moving” the object lying on the other pan.