חגיגה 11 — Soncino English Talmud

¹it refers to the treasurer [of the Sanctuary] to whom the building stones had been entrusted, so that wherever it is, it is in his possession! Rather [it can be explained] from the latter part [of the Mishnah]. If he built it into his house, he is not guilty of sacrilege until he dwells under it to the value of a perutah. See now, he has effected a change therein, what difference does it make whether he dwells [under it] or does not dwell [under it]! Therefore it says: LIke MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. But what is the objection? Perhaps it is [to be explained] according to Rab. For Rab said: It refers to a case where he placed it over a roof-aperture, [in which case] if he dwells in [the house] he is [guilty of sacrilege]. If he does not dwell in [the house] he is not [guilty]! — Therefore, it must be after all as Raba said: and as for your objection that the same applies to any person who spent [in error] sacred money for secular purposes, [one may answer]: There he knew full well that he had sacred money, he should therefore have taken care; but here, how could he know? Therefore [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR SCANT SCRIPTURAL BASIS BUT MANY LAWS. A Tanna taught: [The laws concerning defilement through] leprosy-signs and tent-covering have scant Scriptural basis and many laws. [You say] leprosy-signs have scant Scriptural basis? [On the contrary] leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis! — R. Papa said: It means as follows: Leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis and few laws, [defilement through] tent-covering has scant Scriptural basis and many laws. But what practical difference does it make? — If you are in doubt about anything concerning leprosy-signs search the Bible, but if you are in doubt about anything concerning [defilement through] tent-covering search the Mishnah. CIVIL CASES. But they are written [in Scripture]! — It is necessary only for the teaching of Rabbi. For it is taught: Rabbi said: Life for life [means] monetary compensation. You say [it means] monetary compensation; but perhaps [it means] actual life? — ‘Giving’ is mentioned below, and ‘giving’ is mentioned above: just as in the latter case [it means] monetary compensation, so in the former case [it means] monetary compensation. TEMPLE SERVICES. But they are written [in Scripture]! — It refers only to the carrying of the blood [to the altar]. For it is taught: And they shall present; this [means] the receiving of the blood. Now the Divine Law used for it an expression of ‘carrying’, as it is written: And the priest shall present the whole and make it smoke upon the altar, and the Master said: This [means] the carrying of the pieces [of the offering] to the altar ramp. This is to tell us that the ‘carrying’ [of the blood] is not to be excluded from the category of ‘receiving’ [the blood]. [LAWS OF] LEVITICAL CLEANNESS. But they are written [in Scripture]! — It refers only to the measure of a ritual bath, which is not stated in Scripture. For it is taught: And he shall bathe in water, [this means] in water of a ritual bath; all his flesh: [this means in] water which covers all his body. And how much is this? A cubit by a cubit to the height of three cubits; and the Sages fixed the measure of the ritual bath water at forty se'ahs. [LAWS CONCERNING LEVITICAL] UNCLEANNESS. But they are written [in Scripture]! — It refers only to [defilement caused by touching a part of a dead] creeping creature, which is the size of a lentil; this is not stated in Scripture. For it is taught: In them: I might think [it means] all of them, therefore Scripture teaches: ‘Of them’. I might then think [it means] even a part of them; therefore Scripture says: ‘in them’. How is this to be explained? [It means that he is not defiled] till he touches a part of one which is as the whole of one. The Sages fixed the measure at the size of a lentil, for a snail is at first the size of a lentil. R. Jose b. R. Judah said: [It must be] the size of the tail of a lizard. FORBIDDEN RELATIONS. But they are written [in Scripture]!^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:Thus he does not commit sacrilege till he gives it (i.e., the stone or beam) into the possession of his fellow.
^ᵇnote:A small coin. V. Glos.
^ᶜnote:E.g., by chiselling the beam or stone and fixing it into the house: through this alteration it becomes his own property.
^ᵈnote:He has already misappropriated sacred property.
^ᵉnote:vcurt (cf. Hos. XIII, 3; II Kings VII, 2), an aperture in the roof leading to the ground floor (answering to the Greek hypaithron, Roman compluvium), contrad. from iukj a garret-window in the wall projecting above the flat roof (Jast.); cf. also Levy s.v. By placing the beam over the aperture he in no way alters it and can always restore it, and is thus not guilty of sacrilege till he dwells in the house and enjoys the use of it.
^ᶠnote:I.e., in the case quoted in the objection.
^ᵍnote:I.e., in the case of the agent.
^ʰnote:For though the agent could hardly avoid the sacrilege, he is deemed to have committed sacrilege in error and is held responsible.
^ⁱnote:V. Lev. XIII-XIV.
^ʲnote:V. Num. XIX, 14, from which it is inferred that men and utensils under the same ‘tent’ (i.e., overshadowed by the same covering) as a corpse suffer corpse-defilement.
^ᵏnote:I.e., oral tradition.
^ˡnote:I.e., why then does the Mishnah say that they merely have something to rest on?
^ᵐnote:Ex. XXI, 23.
^ⁿnote:I.e., in our own case.
^ᵒnote:Ex. XXI, 22 (the preceding verse).
^ᵖnote:Lev. I, 5.
^ᵠnote:It is inferred from the fact that this clause comes immediately after the injunction to slaughter the animal; therefore it is taken to refer to the ‘receiving’ of the blood, for the blood cannot be ‘carried’ till it is ‘received’.
^ʳnote:E.V. ‘offer’, though it is the same verb as in verse 5.
^ˢnote:Lev. I, 13.
^ᵗnote:It cannot mean the burning of the pieces, for that is distinctly mentioned afterwards.
^ᵘnote:I.e., the inclined plane leading to the altar. Cf. Mid. III, 3.
^ᵛnote:I.e., though it is a part of the offering-service that can be omitted (e.g., if the animal is slaughtered close to the altar, so that the blood can be sprinkled forthwith), nevertheless if it is not omitted, it is an essential part of the service and is subject to all its conditions.
^ʷnote:Lev. XV, 16. This is evidently the verse intended. The words urac ,t (‘his flesh’), which really belong to Lev. Xlv, 9 must be deleted.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘gathering’ of water, which must contain water directly from a river or a spring, or rain water led directly to it; but ihcuta ohn (lit., ‘drawn water i.e., water from a receptacle) if added to the ritual bath above a certain measure, invalidates it.
^ʸnote:A measure equal to the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger (cf. Kel. XVII, 9.10).
^ᶻnote:Measure of capacity, equal to six kabs; v. Pes. 109a.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. XI, 31 ovc; E. V. ‘(whosoever doth touch) them’.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., he becomes unclean when he touches the whole of the unclean animal.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ibid. v. 32.
^ᵃᵈnote:I. e., however small.
^ᵃᵉnote:ynj (cf. ibid. 30). Rashi renders, ‘snail’; Jast., ‘lizard (chameleon)’; Levy, ‘Bindschleiche’ (slowworm, blindworm), or ‘Eidechse’ (lizard); Goldschmidt, ‘Schnecke’ (snail), ‘skink’ or ‘Blindschleiche’; B.D.B., a kind of lizard. From Hul. 122a it seems to be a vertebrate. Danby translates it there ‘land crocodile’.
^ᵃᶠnote:vtykv (cf. ibid.) Jast. regards the first v, as part of the word, except in Mishnah, Tosefta and Sifra, where it is the definite article attached to vtyk. The tail of the vtykv writhes after being cut off, thus showing independent life; hence it meets the requirements of the verse by being a part of an unclean animal and yet an entire life by itself, and is suitable as a measure for defilement. It is bigger than a lentil.

²— This refers only to his daughter by a woman whom he had forced; this case is not written [in Scripture]. For Raba said: R. Isaac b. Abdimi told me, It is to be deduced by analogy from [the words] ‘they’, ‘they’, and from [the words] ‘lewdness’, ‘lewdness’. IT IS THEY THAT ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH, These are and those are not! — Say, therefore, these and those are essentials of the Torah. MISHNAH THE [SUBJECT OF] FORBIDDEN RELATIONS MAY NOT BE EXPOUNDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE, NOR THE WORK OF CREATION IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO, NOR [THE WORK OF] THE CHARIOT IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE, UNLESS HE IS A SAGE AND UNDERSTANDS OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE. WHOSOEVER SPECULATES UPON FOUR THINGS, A PITY FOR HIM! HE IS AS THOUGH HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD, [TO WIT], WHAT IS ABOVE, WHAT IS BENEATH, WHAT BEFORE, WHAT AFTER. AND WHOSOEVER TAKES NO THOUGHT FOR THE HONOUR OF HIS MAKER, IT WERE A MERCY IF HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD. GEMARA. You say at first: NOR [THE WORK OF] THE CHARIOT IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE; and then you say: UNLESS HE IS A SAGE AND UNDERSTANDS OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE! — This is the meaning: the forbidden relations may not be expounded to three, nor the work of creation to two, nor [the work of] the chariot to one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge. THE FORBIDDEN RELATIONS MAY NOT BE EXPOUNDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE. What is the reason? Shall one say, because it is written: Whosoever to any that is near of kin to him? ‘Whosoever’ [implies] two, ‘near of kin to him’ [implies] one; and the Divine Law said: Ye shall not approach to uncover their nakedness. But then since it is written: Whosoever curseth his God, Whosoever giveth of his seed unto Molech, are these [passages] also [to be interpreted] thus! — These, therefore, must be required to make Gentiles subject to the prohibition concerning blasphemy and idolatry like the Israelites; then this [verse] is also required to make Gentiles subject to the prohibition concerning the forbidden relations like the Israelites! It must be inferred, therefore, from the verse: Therefore shall ye keep My charge. ‘Ye shall keep’ [implies] two, ‘My charge’ [implies] one; and the Divine Law said: That ye do not any of these abominable customs. But then since it is written: Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread, And ye shall keep the charge of the holy things, are these [passages] also [to be interpreted] thus! — Therefore, said R. Ashi, THE FORBIDDEN RELATIONS MAY NOT BE EXPOUNDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE must mean: the secrets of the forbidden relations may not be expounded to three. What is the reason? It is a logical conclusion: when two sit before their master, one engages in discussion with his master and the other inclines his ear to the instruction; but [when there are] three, one engages in discussion with his master, and the other two engage in discussion with one another and do not know what their master is saying, and may come to permit that which is prohibited in the matter of the forbidden relations. If so, [the rule should apply to] the whole Torah also! The [subject of] forbidden relations is different, for the master said: Robbery and the forbidden relations, a man's soul covets and lusts for them. If so, [the rule should apply to] robbery also! [In the case of] the forbidden relations, whether [the opportunity] be before him or not before him, a man's inclination is strong; [in the case of] robbery, if [the opportunity] is before him, his inclination is strong, but if it is not before him, his inclination is not strong. NOR THE WORK OF CREATION IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO. Whence [do we infer] this? — For the Rabbis taught: For ask thou now of the days past; one may inquire, but two may not inquire. One might have thought that one may inquire concerning the pre-creation period, therefore Scripture teaches: Since the day that God created man upon the earth. One might have thought that one may [also] not inquire concerning the six days of creation, therefore Scripture teaches: The days past which were before thee. One might have thought one may [also] inquire concerning what is above and what is below, what before and what after, therefore the text teaches: And from one end of heaven unto the other. [Concerning the things that are] from one end of heaven unto the other thou mayest inquire, but thou mayest not inquire what is above, what is below, what before, what after.^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ

^ᵃᵍnote:The word vbv (‘they’) occurs in Lev. XVIII, 17 in connection with a legitimate daughter, and ibid. v. 10 in connection with the grand-daughter of an illegitimate wife (v. Yeb. 97a). By analogy, we infer that an illegitimate daughter is also a forbidden relation.
^ᵃʰnote:Having established an analogy between the legitimate and illegitimate daughter (v. n. 7), we go farther and say the word vnz (‘lewdness’). which implies the penalty of burning (v. ibid. XX, 14) for connection with one's legitimate daughter, applies also to connection with one's illegitimate daughter; v. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 4, nn. 8-12.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., the laws explicitly stated in Scripture are essentials of the Torah, and those not so explicitly stated are not!
^ᵃʲnote:V. p. 50, n. 8.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., it is forbidden to expound this subject in the presence of more than two.
^ᵃˡnote:V. Gen. I, 1-3; J.E. vol. IV, pp. 280f,s. ‘Cosmogony’, and vol. VIII, p. 235. The term ,hatrc vagn (Work of Creation) does not include the whole Talmudic cosmogony, only its esoteric aspects. The cosmogonic details mentioned infra in the Gemara (pp. 63f), such as the ten elements, the ten agencies etc., do not form part of the secret doctrine of Ma'aseh Bere'shith, for the Mishnah expressly forbids the teaching of the creation mysteries in public. The views recorded in the Talmud regarding the work of creation seem to belong chiefly to the realm of Aggadah. As regards their origin, they cannot with certainty be connected with the theosophic and cosmogonic doctrines of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, nor with Gnosticism; nor on the other hand can the mysticism of the Geonic period (e.g., as preserved in Sefer Yezirah with reference to the heavenly halls, angelology etc.) be regarded as a direct continuation of the Talmudic doctrines.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. Ezek. I, 4f, X, and Isa. VI; cf. Meg. IV, 10; and v. J.E. vol. VIII, p. 498. The mysteries of Creation and the Chariot were favourite themes with the mystics; for further information v. J.E. vol. III, p. 456f, s. ‘Cabala’.
^ᵃⁿnote:Heb. hu,r or hu,r; but Mishnah ed., MS. M. and var. lec. in Aruch have hutr (‘he is looked upon as though’). Jastrow, who takes hu,r to mean ‘relief, mercy, pity’, renders as in text; Rashi translates: ‘it were better for him’, taking the root meaning to be ‘mercy’; Levy translates: ‘it were more advantageous for him’; Goldschmidt and Danby: ‘it were better’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Sc., the sky stretching over the heads of the ‘living creatures of the Chariot (Rashi).
^ᵃᵖnote:Sc., the ‘living creatures’.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., beyond the sky eastward and westward (Rashi). This makes the reference spatial, and this explanation is supported by the use of the terms infra (p. 62); but from the Gemara 16a and the Tosef. it is clear that the terms have also a temporal significance. i.e., what happened before Creation and what will happen hereafter (Tosaf. a.l.).
^ᵃʳnote:Explained infra 16a.
^ᵃˢnote:V. p. 59, n. 5.
^ᵃᵗnote:This means, apparently, that a person is not permitted to study the mysteries of the Chariot even by himself, although the fact that he can study without the aid of a teacher shows that he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge.
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e.,the number refers to the pupils and does not include the teacher.
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., is able to speculate by himself. Such a disciple will not require to ask his teacher questions, for these mysteries may not be explained explicitly. D.S. omits the ‘and’; cf. p. 77.
^ᵃʷnote:Lev. XVIII, 6.
^ᵃˣnote:Heb. aht aht lit., ‘man man’, i.e., two men, as a minimum.
^ᵃʸnote:Ibid. I.e., to reveal the reasons underlying the laws of the forbidden relations.
^ᵃᶻnote:Ibid. XXIV, 15.
^ᵇᵃnote:Ibid. XX, 2.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘blessing of God’, a euphemism.
^ᵇᶜnote:Ibid. XVIII, 6.
^ᵇᵈnote:For the seven ‘Noachian Precepts’ which all humanity, Gentiles as well as Jews, must observe v. Sanh. 56a-b, (Sonc. ed. pp. 381-2 and nn. a.l.)
^ᵇᵉnote:Lev. XXIV v. 30.
^ᵇᶠnote:The plural (‘Ye’) implies at least two.
^ᵇᵍnote:Ibid. V. p. 60, n. 8.
^ᵇʰnote:Ex. XXXI, 14.
^ᵇⁱnote:Ibid. XII, 17.
^ᵇʲnote:Num. XVIII, 5.
^ᵇᵏnote:I.e., according to Rashi, such forbidden relations as are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but are inferred, e.g., a man's daughter by a woman he violated, the mother of his father-in-law, or the mother of his mother-in-law (v. Sanh. 75a); according to Maharsha, the secrets of the reasons for the prohibitions; according to Goldschmidt, the details and subtleties of the subject.
^ᵇˡnote:vakak: this marginal correction is indubitably correct as against vakac (‘in the presence of three’), of cur. edd.
^ᵇᵐnote:I.e., it is founded on reason and not deduced from Scripture.
^ᵇⁿnote:I.e., that not more than two pupils may study with the master.
^ᵇᵒnote:Mak. 23b.
^ᵇᵖnote:Heb. lit., ‘the first days’, i.e., the days of creation; Deut. IV, 32.
^ᵇᵠnote:I.e., one pupil may study with the master.
^ᵇʳnote:Ibid.
^ᵇˢnote:I.e., up to the creation of man; for the verse quoted above permits inquiry only from the time of the creation of Adam, which occurred at the end of the sixth day.
^ᵇᵗnote:Heb. lit., ‘the first days’, i.e., even from the first day onward.
^ᵇᵘnote:Ibid.
^ᵇᵛnote:Ibid.