Shabbat

from the Tabernacle. Here it is written, This is the law when a man dieth in a tent [ohel];  and there it is written, and he spread the tent [ohel] over the Tabernacle:  just as there [the covering] of linen is designated tent, so here too, [a covering] of linen is designated tent.  If so, just as there it was twisted and the thread was doubled sixfold,  so here too it must be twisted and its thread doubled sixfold? — The repetition of tent  is an extension.  If the repetition of tent is an extension, then everything else  too should be included? — If so, what avails the gezerah shawah?  Yet [perhaps] say, just as there [the Tabernacle was of] boards, so here too [a tent of] boards [is meant]? — Scripture saith, And thou shalt make boards for the tabernacle:  the tabernacle  is called tabernacle, but the boards are not designated tabernacle. If so, [when it is stated,] and thou shalt make a covering  for the tent [ohel],  is the covering indeed not designated tent [ohel]? But when R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin of an unclean animal  be defiled by overshadowing  the dead? — [What doubt was there] seeing that the skin of a clean animal cannot be defiled,  is there a question of the skin of an unclean animal  — There it is different, because Scripture restored it,  as it is written, they shall bear the curtains of the tabernacle, and the tent of meeting, its covering and the covering of sealskin that is above it:  thus the upper [covering]  is assimilated to the lower:  just as the lower is designated tent,  so is the upper designated tent. [To revert to] the main text: 'R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin  of an unclean animal be defiled with the defilement of tents?'  What is his problem? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: His question relates to the tahash which was in the days of Moses, — was it unclean or clean? R. Joseph observed, What question is this to him? We learnt it! For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was declared fit. R. Abba objected: R. Judah said: There were two coverings, one of dyed rams' skins, and one of tahash skins. R. Nehemiah said: There was one covering  and it was like a squirrel['s].  But the squirrel is unclean!-This is its meaning: like a squirrel['s], which has many colours, yet not [actually] the squirrel, for that is unclean, whilst here a clean [animal is meant]. Said R. Joseph: That being so, that is why we translate it sasgawna [meaning] that it rejoices in many colours. Raba said: That the skin of an unclean animal is defiled by overshadowing  the dead [is inferred] from the following. For it was taught: [Scripture could state] skin; [by stating or in] skin  it extends [the law to] the skin of an unclean animal and to one which was smitten [with leprosy] in the priests hand.  If one cuts off [pieces] of all these  and makes one [piece] out of them, how do we know [it]?  From the verse, 'or in any thing [meleketh] made of skin'.  But this [Raba's statement] can be refuted: as for leprosy, [the reason  is] because the warp and the wool is defiled in their case?  Rather it is learnt from leprosy. For it was taught: Skin:  I know it only of the skin of a clean animal; how do I know it of the skin of an unclean animal? Therefore it is stated, or skin.  But this may be refuted: as for reptiles, [the reason is] they defile by the size of a lentil.  Let leprosy prove it.  And thus the argument revolves: the characteristic of one is not that of the other, and vice versa: the feature common to both is that skin is unclean in their case, and the skin of an unclean animal was assimilated to that of a clean animal: so also do I adduce the tent of the dead, that skin is unclean in its case,  and the skin of an unclean animal is assimilated to that of a clean animal. Raba of Barnesh  observed to R. Ashi: But this can be refuted: as for the feature common to both, it is that they defile others in less than the size of an olive:  will you say [the same] of the dead, which defiles only by the size of an olive? Rather, said Raba of Barnesh,