חגיגה 11:1 — Soncino English Talmud

it 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.