Shabbat 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

And the Mishna continues: And if

they bowed to them,

meaning that the weight of the food and liquids tipped the pan of the scales, and they lifted the zav that was in the other pan—then they are

pure.

This is because a pure object that moves the source of impurity does not itself become impure, as the impurity of bearing was stated only with regard to a person who bears.

And they are not rendered impure on account of mishkav and moshav either [although in such a case, ostensibly, it should be included in the category of mishkav and moshav, since the zav is as though leaning upon them], because they are not designated for mishkav and moshav.

In accordance with whose opinion is that which was taught in a beraita: All sources of impurity that move

other objects are

pure [the objects that were moved],

[namely, the objects that were shifted],

except for the movement of a zav,

as the Torah innovated with regard to it that it renders impure the object that it moves,

as we find no parallel to it in the entire Torah

among the other sources of impurity?

Shall we say that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva?

For if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, idolatry is also included,

as it renders impure through movement [according to Rav Ashi’s explanation].

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The tanna

in the beraita

taught: A zav and anything similar to it,

as idolatry is also included in the category of a zav, since we derive its ability to render impure through movement from a menstruating woman, and a menstruating woman is equivalent to a zav.

Rav Hama bar Gurya raised a question: Idolatry

composed of sections that became separated—does it

retain its status in terms of its limbs,

so that each and every limb becomes impure on its own,

or does it not retain its status in terms of its limbs?

And we explain:

If an ordinary person can reassemble it,

there is no need for you to raise the question;

it is considered as though it were connected

as if it were actually connected,

.

When you must raise the question is in a case where an ordinary person cannot reassemble it—

what is the halakha?

And these are the sides of the uncertainty:

Perhaps we say:

Since an ordinary person cannot reassemble it—

it is considered as though it were broken,

as though it were broken and its status as idolatry had been nullified.

Or perhaps, it is not lacking anything,

as all its parts are present, and it is considered as though it were connected?

And there are those who raise the question in the opposite direction:

If an ordinary person cannot reassemble it—

you need not raise the question, as

certainly

it is considered as though it were broken.

When you must raise the question is in a case where an ordinary person can reassemble it—

what is the halakha?

Perhaps we say:

Since an ordinary person can reassemble it, it is considered as though it were connected.

Or perhaps, at present it has in fact been removed and is permitted,

as it is now disassembled into separate parts.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raised a question: Idolatry

that is whole but is

less than an olive-bulk—

what is its status?

Rav Yosef strongly objected: What practical difference

does it make?

If you say that it concerns the prohibition,

whether it is prohibited to derive benefit from it—surely it is obvious that it is prohibited.

It is nothing other than

like

“Baal-Zevuv,”

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

As it was taught:

It is written:

“And they appointed Baal-Berith

[the name of the idolatry]

as a god”—this is Baal-Zevuv!

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

he would take it out of his pocket, embrace it, and kiss it.

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

It is evident, then, that there is idolatry that is less than an olive-bulk, and therefore it is certainly prohibited to derive benefit from it.

Rather,

the question is

with regard to impurity.

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

what is the halakha?

Perhaps we say:

Since

idolatry

was juxtaposed to a creeping animal, just as a creeping animal renders impure with an olive-seed-sized amount, so too idolatry renders impure with an olive-seed-sized amount.

Or perhaps, it was also juxtaposed

to

a corpse [as will be explained below].

[as stated below].

Just as a corpse

renders one impure only

with an olive-bulk, so too idolatry renders one impure with an olive-bulk?

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

that it was juxtaposed to a corpse and its measure is an olive-bulk, from

that which was taught:

Idolatry that is less

than

an olive-bulk—

has no impurity whatsoever.

As it is stated: “And he scattered its dust

[the dust of the idolatry]

upon the graves of the common people.”

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

Just as a corpse

renders one impure

with an olive-bulk,

so too idolatry

renders one impure

with an olive-bulk.

And we raised a difficulty:

And according to the Rabbis, what is the halakhic purpose

of this juxtaposition? That is: From where do the Rabbis derive that they should expound specifically leniently and say that, in their view, that which

was juxtaposed

to a creeping animal

is

a lenient juxtaposition, teaching

that it does not render impure through bearing,

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

And likewise, from where do they derive that the fact that idolatry was juxtaposed

to a menstruating woman

is a lenient juxtaposition, teaching

that it does not

render one impure

through its limbs,

as we said above [83b].

And likewise, from where do they derive that the fact that it was juxtaposed

to a corpse

was intended to teach a leniency,

that it does not render one impure with an olive-seed-sized amount?

Say

the opposite: that we juxtapose it

stringently,

and expound as follows:

For what halakhic purpose did the Merciful One juxtapose

idolatry

to a creeping animal—

to render one impure with an olive-seed-sized amount.

To a menstruating woman

Scripture juxtaposed it—

to render one impure through a stone that presses

[and all the more so through bearing].

And likewise,

the Merciful One juxtaposed it to a corpse—

to render one impure in a tent.

And we answer:

The impurity of idolatry is rabbinic,

as all the juxtapositions to a menstruating woman and to a corpse are not written in the Torah but in the Prophets. And the juxtaposition to a creeping animal, from the verse “You shall utterly detest it,” is also merely an allusion, since shekets is not an expression meaning creeping animal, but rather a derogatory designation.

And

when we have before us a choice between

a leniency and a stringency

in matters of rabbinic law—

we juxtapose leniently; we do not juxtapose stringently.

Mishna:

From where is it derived that a ship is pure?

That it does not contract impurity,

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

And we derive from here that a ship is like the sea, which does not contract impurity.

Gemara:

And we explain the derivation of the Mishna from the verse: What does the verse come to teach us? Is it not

obvious

that

a ship is in the heart of the sea?

Rather,

this is what it comes to teach us:

That a ship has the status

of the sea—

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

It was taught in a beraita: Ḥananya says: We learn

that a ship is pure

from a sack,

as a ship is a wooden vessel, and wooden vessels were juxtaposed to a sack, as it is written: “From any wooden vessel or garment or leather or sack.”

And we derive:

Just as a sack can be moved

whether it is

full

or whether it is

empty, so too everything

mentioned in that verse contracts impurity only if it

can be moved when full and empty. This excludes

a ship,

which cannot be moved when full,

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

And we explain:

What is the difference between them,

the tanna of the Mishna and Ḥananya?

There is a difference between them with regard to a clay ship,

which was not juxtaposed to a sack and is not mentioned 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

clay ship

is also a ship in the heart of the sea,

and it is pure.

Whereas

the one who says

that it is pure because it is

like a sack

holds that specifically

those mentioned with regard to a sack,

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

that if it can be moved when full and empty, it

then contracts impurity;

if not, it does not.

But a clay ship,

which is not mentioned with regard to a sack,

even though it cannot be moved when full and empty,

is also impure.

Alternatively,

the difference between them concerns

a Jordan boat,

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 meant specifically, but includes a river as well].

According to the one who says

that we require it to be

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

As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Akavya said: Why did they say that a Jordan boat is impure?

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

and it can therefore be moved even when full.

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

in tractate Kelim, that a Jordan boat is impure,

in the house of study, but its reason was not revealed,

why it differs from every other ship.

Until Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya came and explained it.

Rabbi Yonatan said: A person should never absent himself from the house of study or from words of Torah, even at the moment of death, as it is stated: “This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent.”

And we derive:

Even at the moment of death, one should be engaged in Torah!

Reish Lakish said: Words of Torah endure only in one who kills himself over them, as it is stated: “This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent.”

[And the Hazon Ish wrote in his letters [I:3] that the death mentioned here means the killing of superficial life; this death is what creates true life.]