Shekalim 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

And

if he found 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 a Festival, its immersion certainly took place beforehand, and it is pure.

And if

the cleaver was found

was found

tied to the knife—

it is like the knife.

Even if it was found on the fourteenth when it fell on a weekday, he may use it immediately, since it was certainly immersed together with the knife on the thirteenth, as it was 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 washerman

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

of gentiles there.

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

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Wild asses

[a wild ass; in the plural—wild asses]

were being slaughtered by incision

[killed by incision] by the gentiles

in Jerusalem

for the king’s lions.

And the pilgrims became immersed in their blood up to their knees, and came before the Sages

to ask whether they had become impure through this blood.

And they said nothing to them,

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

Rabbi

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

involving

the mule

of

Rabbi that died, and they declared its blood pure.

And they said that it does not render one impure

because of

the impurity of

a carcass.

And Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Simon: How much

is the measure of blood in a carcass that they declare pure?

And

Rabbi Simon

paid no attention to him

and did not answer his question.

And

Rabbi Eliezer asked

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the measure below which the blood of carcasses 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

Rabbi Eliezer became

angry that Rabbi Simon had not returned the teaching to him,

[Rabbi Eliezer was angry because Rabbi Simon had not given him an answer].

Rav Bibi was sitting and

was

repeating this incident,

that he was sitting and teaching this incident in which the blood of a carcass had been declared pure.

And Rabbi Isaac 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 Bibi [he pushed him with his foot], and did not answer him.

Rabbi Zerika said to him

Rav Bibi: Why,

because he asked you, did you kick him?

Why, merely because Rabbi Isaac asked you this question, did you reject and push 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 Ḥanan said:

With regard to whom does the verse speak in the curses in the portion of Ki Tavo:

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

It refers to one who buys [purchases]

wheat for a year,

eats from it, and has no field of his own, so that each year he must buy wheat; his life hangs in the balance, since he does not know whether he will have the means 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 grocer,

who sells grain little by little, and each day he worries that perhaps tomorrow he will have none.

And what is written:

“And you shall not trust in your life”—

this is one who buys

baked bread

from the baker

[the baker], buying bread each time he eats, and always remaining worried that perhaps he will not have bread for the next meal.

And Rav Bibi continued and said:

And I—

I rely on a baker!

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

And what is the conclusion?

[Like “What has become of the matter?” What is the conclusion—how much blood of a carcass did they declare pure?]

We learned: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora testified concerning the blood of a carcass that it is pure!

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

And the Gemara rejects this: It can be said that

what is pure

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora said is

pure with regard to rendering fit.

For food does not contract impurity until a liquid comes upon it, and the blood of a carcass is not considered a liquid and does not render food fit to contract impurity.

But with regard to rendering impure,

the impurity of a carcass, it may be said

that it does render impure.

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

For there we learned: The blood of a creeping creature

has the same law

as 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

food to contract impurity, since flesh is not a liquid, so too the blood of a creeping creature renders impurity with the impurity of a creeping creature but does not render food fit to contract impurity.

And the Mishna concludes:

And we have no comparable case.

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

Since no comparable thing has been found, it necessarily follows that if the blood of a carcass does not render fit, it also does not render impure. For if you say that it does not render fit but does render impure, then we have found another case 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 comparable case,” 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,

at the 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 that measure.

But although it is stated concerning the blood of carcasses that it “renders impure like its flesh,” its measure of impurity is not equal to that of its flesh. Flesh renders impure with an olive-bulk, whereas blood renders impure only with a quarter-log [since it can coagulate and amount to an olive-bulk].

It follows that we have no proof from the testimony of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora concerning the blood of a carcass that it is pure that it is completely pure. For it may be said that it is pure only with regard to rendering food fit to contract impurity, but with regard to rendering impure, it does render impure.

And the Gemara concludes:

Rabbi Yosei said: Two amoraim disagree about it:

One said

that the blood of a carcass is

impure

[with a quarter-log].

And one said that it is pure

completely, even in an amount greater than a quarter-log.

And the Gemara explains the dispute:

The one who says

that it is impure holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says in tractate Eduyot that there are six matters that are leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and one of them is the blood of a carcass: Beit Shammai declare it pure, while Beit Hillel declare it impure.

And the halakha follows Beit Hillel over Beit Shammai: it is impure.

And the one who says that it is pure,

holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora,

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

Rav Avduma of Min Neshota said to Rabbi Yosei,

who said that the one who says that the blood of a carcass is impure holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda:

And it is correct!

What you said is correct: Rabbi Yehuda declares the blood of carcasses impure.

Since

Rabbi Yehuda

was the halakhic authority of the house of the nasi.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

All spittle

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

And we raise a difficulty: Why is spittle found in the upper market of Jerusalem impure? Did

Rabbi Abbahu not say in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina: They did not decree

impurity

upon

uncertain

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:

there was a washerman

[a launderer]

of gentiles there,

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

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yosei says that spittle found in Jerusalem during the rest of the year is impure when found in the middle of the road and pure when found on the sides, while during the pilgrimage festival it is pure when found in the middle and impure when found on the sides, since the minority always withdraws to the sides.

And the Gemara explains the reason and how they walked during the festival and during the rest of the year:

During the rest of the year—

the impure walk in a column

[in the middle of the road]

and the pure walk on the side

so that they will 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,

the impure:

“Separate yourselves”

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; while 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 festival everyone purifies himself. Therefore, the pure

walk in a column

[in the middle],

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

without saying anything.

And the impure say to them: “Separate yourselves.”

For the minority always walks on 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 found 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 path of descent to the ritual bath are impure.

And we raise a difficulty: Did

Rabbi Abbahu not say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They did not decree concerning vessels that

are

found in Jerusalem

that they should be impure because of uncertainty?

And we answer:

Since they were found on the path of descent to the ritual bath, this became evidence,

that is, this proves that they had been impure and fell on the way when they were being taken to be immersed and purified.

With regard to the maritza that we learned in our Mishna—

Abba Shaul used to call them “birds”

and not a maritza.

And the Gemara explains why the tanna calls it a maritza and why Abba Shaul calls it birds:

The one who says “birds”

holds that this is its name, and calls it so because

the

point of the vessel

resembled a bird’s claw,

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

And

the one who says “maritza”

holds that this is its name, and calls it so because

it

was

a carrier

and brought

the stone to the cemetery.

We learned in the Mishna: If the

cleaver

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

It was taught:

When does this statement apply—that the law of the cleaver is like the law of the knife? When the form of the knot shows that the cleaver was tied to the knife; that is, the knife was the principal item and the cleaver 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 was apparent that the cleaver was the principal item and the knife subordinate to it, then

this

knife

is like it,

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

Halakha B - Mishna:

The parokhet that became impure

because it came into contact

with the impurity of a velad,

that is, it came into contact with liquids that had come into contact with a creeping animal, for although by Torah law these liquids, which are a rishon le-tuma, do not impart impurity to vessels, nevertheless, by rabbinic decree they do impart impurity to vessels.

For the Sages decreed that impure liquids impart impurity to vessels, as a safeguard because of the liquids of a man or woman with a discharge, such as his or her spittle and the like.

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

it is immersed inside,

in the mikveh in the Temple courtyard, and it need not be sent outside the camp, as are vessels that are impure by Torah law, which may not be left in the courtyard.

And they bring it

to its place

immediately

after it has been immersed, for since its impurity is rabbinic, it does not require sunset; that is, it need not wait for the day to pass.

But a parokhet

that became impure through a primary source of impurity,

whose impurity is by Torah law,

is immersed outside

the courtyard, since it must be sent outside the camp of the Divine Presence.

And they spread it out in the ḥeil,

which is the place adjacent to the courtyard on its outside.

And they do not bring it immediately to its place,

because it

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

requires sunset,

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

And

if it was

the parokhet

new,

they spread it out

until the stars emerge

on the roof of the itztaba

[a colonnade that stood on the Temple Mount], from where it could be seen from a distance,

so that the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful.

And the Mishna explains how the parokhet was made:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Ha-Segan:

The

parokhet was one handbreadth thick.

And

it was woven with seventy-two strands

[threads],

and

on

each and every strand

there were

twenty-four threads,

for the parokhet was made of four materials: sky-blue wool, purple wool, crimson wool, and linen; each material consisted of a thread doubled sixfold.

Its length

was

forty cubits, and its width twenty

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

And it was made for eighty-two myriad

dinars;

it was made.

And two

new parokhot

were made each year.

And

it was so heavy that

three hundred kohanim

would

immerse it!

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna, concerning the weaving of the parokhet, that each and every strand contained twenty-four threads. The Gemara brings a source for this:

Had the verse said

in the account of the making of the parokhet

“thread,”

I would have said that each thread was made of

one

single thread.

And had the verse said

“doubled,”

I would have said that it was made of threads, each of which was doubled

into two.

And had the verse said

“braided,”

I would have added and said that each one was doubled

into three

threads.

Now that it says

“twined,”

we interpret this to mean that it was braided and doubled twice. That is, each material was made by twisting

six

threads together.

And since there were

four

materials—sky-blue wool, purple wool, crimson wool, and linen—

from here

we find that each and every thread was made of

twenty-four

threads.

In a beraita

it was taught:

Each and every thread was braided from

thirty-two

threads!

How so?

Had it said “thread,”

I would have said that each thread was made of

one

single thread; had it said

“doubled,”

I would have said that each thread was doubled

into two.

Had it said

“braided,”

I would have doubled each of those doubled threads, and it would follow that each thread was braided

into four

threads; now that it says

“twined,”

we derive that each of those four was doubled, and it follows that each thread was braided

into eight;

and since there were

four

materials, each doubled eightfold,

from here—

“behold, thirty-two”;

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

In another beraita

a tanna taught:

Each thread was made of

forty-eight

threads!

How so?

Had it said “thread,”

I would have said that each thread was made of

one

single thread;

“doubled”—

into two; “plaited”—

into three; “braided”—

into six.

Now that it says

“twined,”

we interpret this to mean that it was braided and doubled, that is, each thread was braided

into twelve

threads; and since there were

four

materials,

from here—

“behold, forty-eight.”

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

While the Gemara is interpreting the exposition of “six twined,” which is written concerning the parokhet, it interprets another verse that is stated concerning the parokhet.

One verse

concerning the making of the screen at the entrance of the Tabernacle

says

that its weaving was made as

“the work of a weaver.”

And one verse

concerning the making of the parokhet

says

that its weaving was made as

“the work of a designer.”

And the Gemara explains the distinction between them:

“The work of a weaver”—

that is,

one figure,

meaning that the forms produced in the weaving were visible from only one side, on the face of the fabric.

“And the work of a designer”—

that is,

two figures,

so that the form was visible from both sides, front and back.

And

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagreed about this:

One

of them

said: “The work of a weaver”

means that there was a depiction of

a lion on this side,

on one side of the weaving,

and it was smooth on this side,

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

“And the work of a designer”

means a depiction of

a lion on this side and

a depiction of

a lion on this side,

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

And the other said

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

“the work of a weaver”

was made in such a manner that the form of

a lion

was visible

on this side

and the form of

a lion on this side,

so that the same 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:

“It was made for eighty-two myriad

the parokhet

was made,”

and three hundred kohanim would immerse it.

Rabbi

Yitzḥak bar Bizna said in the name of Shmuel:

That which was taught—that three hundred kohanim would immerse it—was merely

an exaggeration;

the Mishna meant to say that many kohanim would immerse it, but the number three hundred is not exact.

And we find another expression of exaggeration in the Mishna as well.

There

in tractate Tamid

we learned

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

“At times there was

a pile

of approximately three hundred kor upon it.”

Rabbi

Yosei bar Rabbi Bun said in the name of Shmuel: “It is an exaggeration.”

Indeed.

Halakha 3—Mishna:

The meat

of

most sacred offerings that became impure, whether

it became impure

through a primary source of impurity,

such as by coming into contact with a creeping animal or an animal carcass,

or whether

it became impure

through an offspring of impurity,

such as by coming into contact with something that had come into contact with a primary source of impurity, which is a first-degree source of impurity,

or whether

it became impure

inside

the courtyard,

or whether

it became impure

outside

the courtyard,

Beit Shammai say: Everything is burned inside,

in the ash house in the courtyard, for anything whose disqualification occurred in the sacred area is burned in the sacred area,

except for

that

which became impure through a primary source of impurity outside;

since two stringent conditions apply to it—it became impure with severe impurity and also became impure outside the courtyard—it is not brought inside to be burned in the courtyard; rather, it is burned outside.

And Beit Hillel say: Everything is burned outside

the courtyard,

except for

that

which became impure through an offspring of impurity inside,

since two lenient conditions apply to it—it became impure only with lesser impurity and also became impure inside the courtyard; therefore, it is burned in the ash house in the courtyard.