Shabbat 83b — the Talmud in English

And the Mishna continues: And if

they bowed down,

the weight of the food and drink tipped the pan of the scales, and they carried the zav that was in the other pan—then they are

pure.

For a pure object that moves the impurity does not become impure, since the impurity of carrying was stated only with regard to a person who carries.

And they are also not to be rendered impure on account of mishkav and moshav [although in such a manner, seemingly, it is included in mishkav and moshav, since the zav is as though he were leaning upon them], because they are not designated for mishkav and moshav.

In accordance with whose view does this that was taught in a beraita go: All the impurities that move

others,

are pure [those that were moved]

[namely, the objects that were shifted],

except for the moving of a zav,

for with regard to him the Torah introduced that he renders impure the object that he moves,

for we have not found anything comparable to it in the entire Torah

with regard to other impurities.

Shall we say that it is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s view?

For if it is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s view, there is also idolatry

that becomes impure through being moved [according to Rav Ashi’s explanation].

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is Rabbi Akiva. The tanna

in the beraita

taught: a zav and everything that is similar to him,

since idolatry is also included in zav, for we derive that it becomes impure through being moved from a menstruating woman, and a menstruating woman is a zav.

Rav Hama bar Gurya inquired: Idolatry

that is composed of joints, which have come apart—

does it have [the status of] limbs,

so that each and every limb of it becomes impure in itself,

or does it not have [the status of] limbs?

And we explain:

Where an ordinary person can restore it

where an expert is not needed for this, do not raise the question for yourself,

for it is considered as though it were attached,

as though it were attached,

it is considered.

When you raise the question for yourself, it is where an ordinary person cannot restore it—

what is [the law]?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say:

since an ordinary person cannot restore it—

it is considered as though it were broken,

as though it were broken and nullified from idolatry?

Or perhaps, it is not lacking,

since all its parts are present, and it is therefore as though it were attached?

And there are those who raise it on the other side:

Where an ordinary person cannot restore it—

do not raise the question for yourself, for

certainly

it is considered as though it were broken.

When you raise the question for yourself, it is where an ordinary person can restore it—

what is [the law]?

Do we say:

since an ordinary person can restore it, it is considered as though it were attached?

Or perhaps, at present at any rate it is removed and permitted,

since now it is disassembled into parts?

And we conclude:

Let it stand!

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami inquired: Idolatry

that is whole, which is

less than an olive-bulk—

what is [the law]?

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this: For what

practical difference is there?

If you say, with regard to prohibition,

that it should be forbidden to derive benefit from it? It is obvious that it is forbidden. For

even if it were only

like

“the fly of Baal-zebub,”

which is the name of an idolatry small like a fly?

For it was taught:

it is written:

“And they placed for themselves Baal-berith [the name of the idolatry]

[the name of the idolatrous object]

“as a god”—this is the fly of Baal-zebub!

This teaches that each and every one made an image of his fear, and placed it inside his pocket. Once he remembered it,

he took it out of his pocket, embraced it, and kissed it.

And therefore Scripture called it “Baal-berith,” an expression of a covenant of love and affection.

It follows that there is idolatry less than an olive-bulk, and if so, certainly it is forbidden to derive benefit from it.

Rather,

the question is

with regard to impurity.

Does idolatry that is less than an olive-bulk become impure—

what is [the law]?

Do we say:

since

idolatry

was compared to a creeping creature: just as a creeping creature renders impure with a lentil-bulk, so too idolatry [renders impure] with a lentil-bulk?

Or perhaps, it was also compared

also

to a corpse [as follows].

[as stated below].

Just as a corpse

renders impure specifically

with an olive-bulk, so too idolatry [only] with an olive-bulk?

Rav Avya said, and some say Rabba bar Ulla: Come and hear

that it was compared to a corpse, and its law is with an olive-bulk, from this

that was taught:

Idolatry that is less

which is

than an olive-bulk—

has no impurity whatsoever.

As it is stated: “And he cast its dust [of the idolatry]

[the dust of the idolatrous object]

upon the grave of the people.”

Idolatry was compared to the grave of a corpse, to teach you:

just as a corpse

renders impure

with an olive-bulk—

so too idolatry

renders impure

with an olive-bulk.

And we inquire concerning this:

And the Rabbis—for what halakhic purpose,

that is, from where do the Rabbis derive that specifically leniently, saying that in their view what

was compared

idolatry

to a creeping creature

is for leniency, to teach

that it does not render impure through carrying,

as they disputed above with Rabbi Akiva and derived from a creeping creature that it does not render impure through carrying [according to Rabbi Elazar].

And likewise, from where do they know that what idolatry was compared

to a menstruating woman

is for leniency, to teach

that it does not

render impure

through limbs,

as we said above [82b].

And likewise, from where do they know that this, which

was compared to a corpse,

was intended to teach leniently,

that it does not render impure with a lentil-bulk?

Say instead,

the opposite, that

stringently

we should compare it and expound as follows:

For what halakhic purpose did the Merciful One compare

idolatry

to a creeping creature—

to render it impure with a lentil-bulk.

To a menstruating woman

Scripture compared it—

to render it impure through a covering stone [and all the more so through carrying].

[and all the more so through carrying].

And likewise

the Merciful One compared it to a corpse—

to render it impure in a tent.

And we answer:

the impurity of idolatry is rabbinic,

for all the comparisons to a menstruating woman and to a corpse are not written in the Torah, but in the Prophets. And the comparison to a creeping creature from “You shall utterly detest it” is also merely an asmachta, since sheketz is not an expression for a creeping creature, but is an appellation, a derogatory name.

And

when we have before us a choice between

leniency and stringency

in matters of rabbinic enactment—

we compare for leniency; we do not compare for stringency.

Mishna:

From where [do we know] that a ship is pure?

That it does not receive impurity,

as it is stated: “The way of a ship in the heart of the sea.”

And we expound from here that the ship is like the sea, which does not receive impurity.

Gemara:

And we explain the derivation of the Mishna from the verse: What does the verse teach us? But

it is obvious

that

a ship is in the heart of the sea?

Rather,

this it teaches us:

that the ship’s status is

like the sea—

just as the sea is pure, so too the ship is pure.

It was taught: Hanania says: It is learned

that a ship is pure

from a sack,

for a ship is a wooden vessel, and a wooden vessel was compared to a sack, as it is written: “From any wooden vessel, or garment, or leather, or sack.”

And we expound:

just as a sack is movable

both when it is

full

and when it is

empty, so too everything

mentioned in that verse does not receive impurity unless it is

movable full and empty. To exclude

to exclude

a ship, which is not movable full and empty,

for it is impossible to move it when it is full because of its size.

And we explain:

what is the difference between them,

between the tanna of the Mishna and Hanania?

There is a difference between them: an earthenware ship,

which was not compared to a sack, and it is not written in that verse.

The one who says

that we derive that a ship is pure from

“A ship in the heart of the sea”—this

earthenware ship

is also in the heart of the sea,

and it is pure.

Whereas

according to the one who says

because it is

like a sack,

it is specifically

those that are written with regard to a sack,

such as a vessel or ship made of wood, concerning which we say

that if it is movable full and empty, [then it receives impurity]; if not,

then it receives impurity

if not, not.

But an earthenware ship,

since it is not written with regard to a sack,

even though it is not movable full and empty,

it is nevertheless impure.

Alternatively,

there is a difference between them:

the ship of the Jordan,

which is small [because the river is small].

According to the one who says “A ship in the heart of the sea,” this too is a ship in the heart of the sea [and “sea” is not דווקא, but a river is also included in this].

[and “sea” is not meant specifically; a river is included as well].

According to the one who says

we require

movable full and empty, this too is movable full and empty.

For Rabbi Hanina bar Akavia said: Why did they say that the ship of the Jordan is impure?

Because they load it on dry land and lower it into the water,

and it is therefore movable even when it is full.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A person should never keep himself away from the study hall, even for one hour. For this Mishna was recited for many years

of tractate Kelim, that the ship of the Jordan is impure,

in the study hall, and its reason was not revealed,

why it differs from every other ship.

Until Rabbi Hanina ben Akavia came and explained it.

Rabbi Yonatan said: A person should never keep himself away from the study hall and from words of Torah, even at the time of death, as it is stated: “This is the Torah: a person who dies in a tent,”

and we expound:

even at the time of death, you shall be occupied with Torah!

Reish Lakish said: Words of Torah endure only in one who mortifies himself over them, as it is stated: “This is the Torah: a person who dies in a tent.” [And the Hazon Ish wrote in his letters [I, 3] that the death mentioned here is: the killing of superficial life. For this killing is what creates true life.]

[The Ḥazon Ish wrote in his letters [I:3] that the death mentioned here means killing superficial living. That act of putting it to death creates true life.]