Shabbat 83a — the Talmud in English

And we object:

“And Rabbi Akiva—for what halakhic purpose”

for what matter

was it compared

avodah zarah

to niddah,

although it does not resemble it entirely?

For only

with regard to carrying

was it compared, but not with regard to a stone placed above; and why was it not

compared

avodah zarah

to a carcass,

which resembles it entirely in its laws, as both of them convey impurity through carrying, but not through a stone placed above?

And we answer:

Indeed so—

the verse could have compared it to a carcass!

Rather,

it was compared to niddah for this purpose, to tell you:

Just as niddah does not

have its impurity

with regard to limbs,

so too, avodah zarah does not have it with regard to limbs.

And we object:

“Rather, regarding that which Rav Hama bar Gurya asked: Does an old avodah zarah have impurity with regard to limbs, or does it not have impurity with regard to limbs?”

Let him resolve it from this

that we said, for

whether according to the Sages or according to Rabbi Akiva, it does not

convey impurity—avodah zarah—

with regard to limbs?

And we answer:

Rav Hama bar Gurya

learns it according to Rabba

as the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Akiva.

And he asks it according to Rabbi Akiva,

as we answered above according to Rabba.

A refutation is raised:

It was taught in a beraita:

“Avodah zarah

is indeed impure

like a creeping creature, and

also

its accessories

are impure

like a creeping creature.”

Rabbi Akiva says: “Avodah zarah

conveys impurity

like niddah, and

these

accessories

are impure

like a creeping creature.”

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, it is satisfactory

that it teaches in the words of the first tanna that avodah zarah is like a creeping creature, since according to his view the Sages indeed hold that avodah zarah does not convey impurity through carrying, and its law is entirely like that of a creeping creature.

But according to Rabba, it is difficult,

for according to his view, even according to the Sages avodah zarah conveys impurity through carrying, and if so, its law is not like that of a creeping creature?

And we answer:

Rabba could say to you: Is

this beraita

stronger than the Mishna

in tractate Avodah Zarah,

which teaches

in it that according to the Sages

its wood, its stones, and its dust

of the house of avodah zarah

are impure like a creeping creature?

And we established: What does “like a creeping creature” mean?—

That it does not convey impurity through a stone placed above,

and not that their law is entirely like that of a creeping creature, so that they would not convey impurity even through carrying.

So too,

the beraita that teaches “like a creeping creature” means

that it does not convey impurity through a stone placed above,

but it conveys impurity through carrying.

A refutation is raised

from that which was taught:

“A gentile man and a gentile woman

upon whom the Sages decreed that they should convey impurity like those afflicted with a flux, and likewise

avodah zarah, and

likewise

its accessories—

they are

themselves

impure,

but not through their displacement.”

For if they were displaced—that is, if they were carried—one who carries them is not impure, since they do not convey impurity through carrying.

And at this point we are inclined to explain the expression “their displacement” as meaning that others displaced the impurity, and not as throughout the Talmud, where its meaning is that the impure person displaced others.

Rabbi Akiva says: “They themselves and their displacement”,

for they too convey impurity through carrying.

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, it is satisfactory

that according to the Sages avodah zarah does not convey impurity through carrying.

But according to Rabba it is difficult,

for according to his view, even according to the Sages avodah zarah conveys 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 the case that

a gentile man and a gentile woman also

are said concerning them

“themselves, but not their displacement,”

that they do not convey impurity through carrying!?

And it was taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning flux:

“Speak to the children of Israel.”

And we expound:

“The children of Israel convey impurity through flux, but gentiles do not convey impurity through flux. However,

they decreed

the Sages

upon them that they should be like those afflicted with a flux in all their matters,”

even when they did not see flux.

It follows that gentiles convey impurity even through carrying, since it says that they should be like those afflicted with a flux in all their matters.

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that this beraita is corrupt, and it is necessary to emend it and explain it; and if so,

Rabba also explains

and emends it

according to his position

as follows:

“A gentile man and a gentile woman—

they themselves, their displacement, and their stone placed above—

convey impurity.

“Avodah zarah itself and its displacement

convey impurity,

but it does not

convey impurity through

its stone placed above,

as Rabba established the dispute: according to the Sages, avodah zarah conveys impurity through carrying, but not through a stone placed above.

“Rabbi Akiva says: ‘Avodah zarah

conveys impurity

itself, through its displacement, and through its stone placed above.’

For avodah zarah conveys impurity even through a stone placed above.

“And Rabbi Elazar explains it according to his position

that this is what the beraita teaches:

“‘A gentile man and a gentile woman

convey impurity—

themselves, their displacement, and their stone placed above.’

“Avodah zarah

only

itself

conveys impurity,

but not through its displacement,

for it does not convey impurity even through carrying, but only through contact.

“And Rabbi Akiva says: ‘Avodah zarah—

it conveys impurity

itself and through its displacement,”

for it conveys impurity through carrying, but not through a stone placed above.

Rav Ashi challenges this

both according to Rabba and according to Rabbi Elazar:

If the explanation of “their displacement” in the beraita is that others displaced them—that is, that a gentile man and a gentile woman and avodah zarah convey impurity through carrying—

what does “themselves

are impure,” which the Sages and Rabbi Akiva say, mean?

But surely it is obvious that they themselves are impure? For otherwise, what relevance would there be to speaking of their displacement? And they should not have mentioned at all their own impurity, but only disputed whether avodah zarah conveys impurity through displacement or not.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: “This is what it teaches”:

“A gentile man and a gentile woman, whether they themselves displaced others

[this is the explanation of that which it teaches “their displacement,” which is like every displacement in the Talmud, where the impure person displaced others],

or whether others displaced them

[this is the explanation of that which it teaches “themselves”—that is, they carried them through carrying, they are]

impure,

since the Sages decreed upon them that they should be like those afflicted with a flux.

And one afflicted with a flux conveys impurity both through displacement, when the person afflicted with a flux displaced another object, and through carrying, when others carried him.

“Avodah zarah that displaced others—

they are

pure,

since it does not have impurity through displacement.

Others that displaced it—

[they are] impure

because of impurity through carrying.

Rav Ashi explains it according to Rabba, for according to the Sages avodah zarah conveys impurity through carrying, since it was compared to niddah. But not through a stone placed above, because it was also compared to a creeping creature. And the same law applies: it does not convey impurity through displacement, in accordance with the law of a creeping creature.

“Its accessories, whether they themselves displaced others or whether others displaced them”—

[they are] pure.

For there is not even impurity through carrying in the accessories, but only impurity through contact.

“Rabbi Akiva says: ‘A gentile man and a gentile woman and avodah zarah, whether they themselves displaced others, and whether

others displaced them”—

[they are] impure.

For avodah zarah also conveys impurity through displacement, and the same law applies with regard to a stone placed above, since it was compared entirely to niddah.

“Its accessories, whether they themselves displaced others, and whether

others displaced them”—

[they are] pure.

For this is why avodah zarah was compared to a creeping creature: to exclude the accessories from impurity through carrying, and all the more so from impurity through displacement.

And this is what the beraita teaches, according to Rav Ashi and according to Rabba:

A gentile man and a gentile woman—themselves [when they were carried] and their displacement.

Avodah zarah—itself, but not its displacement.

Its accessories—not themselves and not their displacement.

Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man and a gentile woman and avodah zarah—themselves and their displacement; its accessories—not themselves and not their displacement.

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

A gentile man and a gentile woman—themselves and their displacement.

Avodah zarah and its accessories—not themselves and not their displacement. [For even avodah zarah itself does not convey impurity through carrying, and all the more so through displacement].

Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man and a gentile woman—themselves and their displacement. Avodah zarah—itself, but not its displacement. [For avodah zarah conveys impurity through carrying, but not through displacement. And likewise not through a stone placed above, since their law is the same].

Its accessories—not themselves and not their displacement.

And we object to Rav Ashi:

“Avodah zarah—

granted, one can find a case of others displacing it.

But of it displacing others—

how can one find such a case?

How is it possible for avodah zarah to displace another object?

And we answer:

Rami, son of Rav Yevai, said:

One can find it

as we learned

in tractate Zavim:

If

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

one

and

opposite it

food and drink

were lying

on the pan

of the balance, the

second:

For if

the one afflicted with a flux bent down,

so that the pan on which the one afflicted with a flux was located descended and the pan on which the food and drink were located opposite it rose—

they are impure,

the food and drink, because of impurity through displacement, for the one afflicted with a flux displaced them.

And in such a manner one can find it with avodah zarah: it was on one pan of a balance, and its weight caused the pan to descend, and thereby it “displaced” the object lying on the second pan.