Shekalim 21b — the Talmud in English

And if he finds it

on

the fifteenth

of Nisan, that is, on the Festival itself,

he slaughters with it

the Festival offerings

immediately.

Since it is forbidden to immerse vessels on the Festival, certainly it was immersed beforehand, and it is pure.

And if

the cleaver

is found

tied to the knife—

it is like the knife.

Even if it is found on the fourteenth when it falls on a weekday, he slaughters with it immediately, for certainly it was immersed together with the knife on the thirteenth, since it is tied to it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that spittle found in the upper market of Jerusalem is impure because of uncertainty. And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Avin

said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: There was a launderer

[a launderer; and because laundering shortens garments, he was called this]

belonging to gentiles there.

That is, there was a market of launderers there, and it belonged to gentiles. The Sages decreed concerning gentiles that they should be like zavim in every respect, and that their spittle should be impure. Therefore spittle found there is impure.

Rabbi Hanina said: Wild asses

[a wild ass is a donkey of the wild; in the plural—wild asses]

were being slaughtered

[killed by having their throats cut] by the gentiles

in Jerusalem

for the king’s lions.

And the pilgrims were sunk in their blood up to their knees, and they came before the Sages

to ask whether they had become impure through this blood.

And they did not say anything to them,

because the blood of carrion does not render impure, as follows.

Rabbi Simon

said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: There was an incident

with

Rabbi’s mule

which

died, and they declared its blood pure.

And they said that it does not render impure

because of

the impurity of

carrion.

And Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Simon: How much

is the measure of blood concerning which they purify carrion?

And

Rabbi Simon

paid no attention to him

and did not answer his question.

And Rabbi Eliezer asked

Rabbi Simon

from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the measure for which the blood of carrion is pure?

And he said to him: Up to a quarter-log

of blood, it is

pure. More than a quarter-log—

it is

impure.

And there burned

anger

against Rabbi Eliezer, because Rabbi Simon did not return the tradition to him,

[Rabbi Eliezer was angry because Rabbi Simon did not give him an answer].

Rav Beivi was sitting and

was

teaching this incident,

sitting and repeating the incident in which they purified the blood of carrion.

And Rabbi Yitzhak bar Kahana said to him,

asking him: Is it only

up to a quarter-log of blood that is pure,

and

more than this is impure?

And he kicked him

Rav Beivi [he pushed him with his foot], and did not answer him.

Rabbi Zerika said to him

to Rav Beivi: Is it because

he asked you, that you kick him?

Is it because Rabbi Yitzhak asked you this question that you rejected and pushed him?!

He said to him: Because

since

my mind was not

settled,

I kicked him,

I rejected him and did not answer him.

For Rabbi Hanan said:

Of whom does the verse speak, the verse in the curses in the portion of Ki Tavo:

“And your life shall hang in the balance before you”?

This is one who takes [buys]

wheat for a year,

and eats from it, but has no field of his own, and every year must buy wheat; and his life hangs in the balance, for he does not know whether he will have enough to buy it in the following year.

And what is stated [there]:

“And you shall fear night and day”—

this is one who buys

wheat from

the shopkeeper,

who sells produce little by little, and every day fears that perhaps tomorrow he will not have any.

And what is written:

“And you shall not believe in your life”—

this is one who buys

baked bread

from the baker

[the baker], who buys bread each time he eats, and always remains apprehensive that perhaps he will not have bread for the next meal.

And Rav Beivi continued and said:

And I—

rely on the baker!

[And I buy bread from the baker.] Therefore, because of the burden of livelihood, my mind is not settled, and for this reason I rejected him and did not answer him.

And what is it now?

[Like “What was decided concerning it?” What is the conclusion—how much did they declare the blood of carrion pure?]

We learned: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Patera testified concerning the blood of carrion that it is pure!

And it implies that even more than a quarter-log it is pure.

And the Gemara rejects this: It can be said:

What is “pure”

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Patera said?

Pure from rendering fit.

For foods do not receive impurity until a liquid comes upon them, and the blood of carrion is not considered a liquid, and does not render foods fit to receive impurity.

But to render impure,

with the impurity of carrion, it can be said

that it does render impure.

And we say: It is impossible to say this, that the blood of carrion renders impure but does not render fit.

For there we learned: The blood of a creeping creature

has the law

of its flesh.

Just as the flesh of a dead creeping creature

renders impure

with the impurity of a creeping creature,

and does not render fit

foods to receive impurity, since flesh is not a liquid—so too, the blood of a creeping creature renders impure with the impurity of a creeping creature, but does not render foods fit to receive impurity.

And the Mishna concludes:

And we have no equivalent to it.

And the Gemara understood that we have found no other thing like this, which does not render fit but does render impure.

And since no similar thing has been found, it necessarily follows that if the blood of carrion does not render fit, it also does not render impure. For if it were said that it does not render fit but does render impure, then we would have found another thing besides the flesh of a creeping creature that renders impure but does not render fit.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps

when we say concerning the flesh of a creeping creature, “And we have no equivalent to it,” the intention is not that we have found no other thing that renders impure but does not render fit.

Rather, only

with regard

to

the measure of its impurity

did they say

that its blood

of a creeping creature

renders impure like its flesh,

with that same measure.

That is, just as the flesh of a creeping creature renders impure even in a small measure, the size of a lentil [a type of legume], so too the blood of a creeping creature renders impure in this measure.

But concerning the blood of carrion, although it is said of it that it “renders impure like its flesh,” its measure of impurity is not equal to that of its flesh, for flesh renders impure in the measure of an olive, whereas if the blood renders impure, it does so only in the measure of a quarter-log [since it can coagulate and stand at the measure of an olive].

It follows that we have no proof from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Patera’s testimony concerning the blood of carrion, that it is pure, that it is completely pure. For it can be said that it is pure only from rendering foods fit to receive impurity, but as for rendering impure, it does render impure.

And the Gemara concludes:

Rabbi Yose said: Two amoraim disputed this matter:

One said

that the blood of carrion is

impure

[in the measure of a quarter-log].

And one said that it is pure,

completely, even when it is more than a quarter-log.

And the Gemara explains the dispute:

The one who says

that it is impure holds

like Rabbi Yehuda,

in tractate Eduyot, who said that there are six matters that are leniencies of the House of Shammai and stringencies of the House of Hillel, and one of them is the blood of carrion: the House of Shammai declares it pure, and the House of Hillel declares it impure.

And the halakha follows the House of Hillel over the House of Shammai, that it is impure.

And the one who says that it is pure,

holds

like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Patera,

mentioned above, who testified concerning the blood of carrion that it is pure.

Rav Avduma of Min Neshuta said to Rabbi Yose,

who had said that the one who says that the blood of carrion is impure holds like Rabbi Yehuda:

And it is fitting!

It is correct what you said, that Rabbi Yehuda renders the blood of carrion impure.

Since

Rabbi Yehuda

was the decisor of the house of the prince.

He was one who issued rulings in the house of the prince, that is, with Rabbi. And Rabbi’s mule died, and he issued a ruling in accordance with his position: since there was there less than a quarter-log of blood, therefore he declared it pure.

We learned in the Mishna:

All spittle

found in Jerusalem is pure, because they did not decree concerning things found in Jerusalem that they should be rendered impure because of uncertainty, except for the upper market.

And we raise an objection: Why is spittle found in the upper market of Jerusalem impure? Is it not so that

Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Hanina: They did not decree

impurity

upon

the uncertainty of

spittle in Jerusalem?!

And we answer:

This was stated concerning it: Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

said: This is the reason that spittle found in the upper market of Jerusalem is impure:

the launderer

[the launderer]

belonged to gentiles there,

and they render impure like zavim by the decree of the Sages. Therefore, there the majority of spittle is impure, and for this reason spittle found there is impure.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yose says that spittle found in Jerusalem during the rest of the days of the year is impure when it is in the middle of the road and pure when it is found on the sides; whereas during the pilgrimage festival, that which is found in the middle is pure and that which is found on the sides is impure, since the minorities always withdraw to the sides.

And the Gemara explains the reason, and how they would walk during the festival and during the rest of the year:

During the rest of the year—

the impure walk in a row

[in the middle of the road]

and the pure walk from the side

so that they should not become impure through them.

And the impure,

who are the majority,

walk ordinarily

and are not careful not to touch the pure.

And the pure,

who are the minority,

say to them,

to the impure:

Withdraw

from us and do not render us impure.

Therefore, on the sides of the roads there are only pure people, and spittle found there is pure; whereas in the middle of the road the zavim walk, and spittle found there is impure.

But

during the pilgrimage festival—

the pure

are the majority, since during the pilgrimage festival everyone purifies himself. Therefore the pure

walk in a row

[in the middle],

and the impure walk from the side, while the pure walk ordinarily,

and say nothing.

And the impure say to them: Withdraw.

For the minorities always walk at the side, and they warn the majority.

Therefore spittle found on the sides during the pilgrimage festival came from the impure and is impure, while that in the middle came from the pure and is pure.

We learned in the Mishna:

And all vessels that are found

in Jerusalem on the way of descent to the ritual bath are impure.

And we raise an objection: Is it not so that

Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They did not decree concerning vessels that

were

found in Jerusalem

that they should be impure because of uncertainty?

And we answer:

Since they were found on the way of descent to the ritual bath, they became a proof,

that is, this is proof that they had been impure and fell on the way when they brought them to immerse and purify them.

The maritza that we learned in our Mishna—

Abba Shaul would call them “birds”

and not maritza.

And the Gemara explains why the tanney calls it maritza, and why Abba Shaul calls it “birds”:

The one who says “birds”,

that this was its name, calls it so because

its

point, the point of the vessel,

resembled birds,

like a person’s fingernail, which is pointed at its end; and this too was pointed, in order to shatter with its point the stones needed for graves.

And

the one who says “maritza”,

that this was its name, calls it so because

it

was

a carrier

and brought

the stone to the cemetery.

We learned in the Mishna: The

cleaver

was tied to the knife—it is like the knife; and even if it was found on the fourteenth, which fell on a weekday, it is pure.

It was taught:

When do these words apply, that the law of the cleaver is like the law of the knife? When one sees from the form of the knot that the cleaver is tied to the knife. That is, the knife is primary and the cleaver is subordinate to it, and therefore the law of the cleaver is like the law of the knife.

But if

the knife was tied to it,

and it is recognizable that the cleaver is primary and the knife subordinate to it, then

this

knife is

like it,

for the law of the knife is like the law of the cleaver.

Halakha 2 - Mishna:

The curtain that became impure

through having touched

a liquid of impurity,

that is, it touched liquids that had touched a creeping creature; behold, even though according to Torah law these liquids, which are a first degree of impurity, do not render vessels impure, nevertheless, by rabbinic enactment they do render vessels impure.

For the Sages decreed concerning impure liquids that they render vessels impure, as a decree on account of the liquids of a man or woman with a flux, such as his or her spittle, and the like.

And the Mishna explains that since the impurity of this curtain is rabbinic, therefore

they immerse it inside,

in the ritual bath in the Courtyard, and it does not require being sent outside the camp, like vessels impure by Torah law, which it is forbidden to leave in the Courtyard.

And they bring it

to its place

immediately

after it has been immersed, for since its impurity is by rabbinic teaching, it does not require sunset, that is, the passing of the day.

But a curtain

that became impure through a primary source of impurity,

whose impurity is by Torah law,

they immerse it outside

the Courtyard, since it requires being sent outside the camp of the Divine Presence.

And they spread it out in the rampart,

which is the place adjoining the Courtyard on its outside.

And they do not bring it immediately to its place,

because it

is called, after the immersion, one who has immersed that day, and

requires sunset,

that is, that the day pass; then it is completely pure, and they bring it to its place.

And

if it was

the curtain

new—

they spread it out

until the appearance of the stars

on the roof of the portico [

a colonnade that was on the Temple Mount], from which it could be seen from afar,

so that the people would see its workmanship, that it was beautiful.

And the Mishna explains how the curtain was made:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben the deputy High Priest:

the

curtain was a handbreadth thick.

And

with seventy-two threads [

strands] it was

woven,

and

on each and every thread

there were

twenty-four threads,

for the curtain was made of four kinds: sky-blue wool, purple wool, crimson wool, and linen, and each kind and kind had its thread doubled sixfold.

Its length

was

forty cubits, and its width twenty

cubits, corresponding to the dimensions of the entrance of the vestibule, whose height was forty and whose width was twenty.

And from eight hundred and twenty thousand

dinars

it was made.

And two

new curtains

they made every year.

And

it was so heavy that

three hundred priests

were

immersing it!

For all vessels completed for the needs of the Temple, even though they were completed and made in purity, required immersion in order to be fit for the sacred.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna, concerning the making of the curtain’s fabric, that on each and every thread there were twenty-four threads. And the Gemara brings a source for this:

If the verse had said

in the account of the curtain

“thread,”

I would say that each thread is made of

one

single thread.

And if the verse had said

“doubled,”

I would say that it is made of threads, each one doubled

into two.

And if the verse had said

“twined,”

I would add and say that each one is doubled

into three

threads.

Now that it says

“double-twined,”

we interpret that it is twined, doubled twice. That is, each kind and kind is made by the twisting together of

six

threads.

And since there are

four

kinds: sky-blue wool, purple wool, crimson wool, and linen,

from here, behold

it is found that each and every thread is made of

twenty-four

threads.

In a beraita,

it was taught:

each and every thread was twined from

thirty-two

threads!

How?

If it had said “thread,”

I would say that each thread is made of

one

single thread; if it had said

“doubled,”

I would say that each thread is doubled

into two.

If it had said

“twined,”

I would double each of these doubled strands, and it is found that each thread is twined

into four

threads. Now that it says

“double-twined,”

we derive that each of these four is doubled, and it is found that each thread is twined

into eight;

and since there are

four

kinds, and each one is doubled eightfold,

from here—

behold, thirty-two;

from here we see that each thread was made of thirty-two threads.

In another beraita,

it was taught:

each thread was made of

forty-eight

threads!

How?

If it had said “thread,”

I would say that each thread was made of

one

single thread;

“doubled”—

into two; “braided”—

into three; “twined”—

into six.

Now that it says

“double-twined,”

we interpret that it is twined doubled, that is, each thread is twined

into twelve

threads; and since there are

four

kinds,

from here—

behold, forty-eight.

From here we see that each thread was made of forty-eight threads.

While they explain the exposition of “six, double-twined,” which is written concerning the curtain, the Gemara explains another verse that is stated concerning the curtain.

One verse

concerning the making of the screen of the entrance, for the entrance of the Tabernacle,

says

that its weaving was made

“the work of a weaver.”

And one verse

concerning the making of the curtain

says

that its weaving was made

“the work of a designer.”

And the Gemara explains the distinction between this and that:

“The work of a weaver”—

that is,

one figure,

meaning that the forms made in the weaving are visible from one side, on the front of the fabric.

“And the work of a designer”—

that is,

two figures,

so that the figure is visible from both sides, front and back.

And they disagreed about this,

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemya:

One

of them

said: “The work of a weaver”

means that there was depicted

a lion on this side,

on one side of the weaving,

and a smooth surface on this side,

for its other side was smooth and there was no drawing on it at all; and this is as we said: “the work of a weaver”—one figure.

“And the work of a designer”

means the form of

a lion on this side and

the form of

a lion on this side,

for on both sides of the weaving the form woven into it was visible. And this is what we said: “the work of a designer”—two figures.

And the other said

and the other of these tannaim said: “The work of a designer” and “the work of a weaver” are both made with two figures. Rather, the distinction between them is that

“the work of a weaver”

is made in such a manner that the form of

a lion

is seen

on this side

and the form of

a lion on this side,

for that weaving was visible from both sides.

And

“the work of a designer”

means that they wove the form of

a lion on this side and

the form of

an eagle on this side,

so that on each side of the fabric there was a different form.

We learned in the Mishna:

“With eight hundred and twenty thousand it was

the curtain

made,”

and three hundred priests immersed it.

Said

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Bizna in the name of Shmuel:

This that it was taught that three hundred priests were immersing it is

an exaggeration

alone, and the Mishna wished to say that many priests were immersing it, but the number three hundred is not exact.

And likewise we find elsewhere in the Mishna language of exaggeration. For

there

in tractate Tamid

we learned

concerning the ashes of the offerings that were heaped upon the apple-shaped pile on the altar:

“At times it was

heaped

upon it like three hundred kor.”

Said

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Bun in the name of Shmuel: “An exaggeration”

it is.

Halakha 3—Mishna:

The flesh

of

most sacred offerings that became impure, whether

it became impure

through a primary source of impurity

such as by touching a creeping creature or an animal carcass,

or whether

it became impure

through a derivative of impurity

such as by touching something that had touched a primary source of impurity, which is a first degree of impurity,

or whether

it became impure

inside

the Courtyard,

or whether

it became impure

outside

the Courtyard,

The House of Shammai say: Everything is to be burned inside

in the place of the ash in the Courtyard, for anything whose disqualification occurred in the sacred realm has the law that it is burned in the sacred realm,

except for

that which

became impure through a primary source of impurity outside,

for since two stringent conditions were fulfilled in it—that it also became impure with severe impurity and also became impure outside the Courtyard—they do not bring it inside to burn it in the Courtyard, but burn it outside.

And the House of Hillel say: Everything is to be burned outside

the Courtyard,

except for

that which

became impure through a derivative of impurity inside,

for since two lenient conditions were fulfilled in it—that it became impure only with light impurity and also became impure inside the Courtyard—therefore it is burned in the place of the ash in the Courtyard.