Shabbat

the meaning of utensil' [here] from [the employment of] 'utensil' there, answered he. 'A sack goes beyond a garment, in that it is unclean as woven material.' Is then a garment not woven material? — This is its meaning: A sack goes beyond a garment, for though it is not of woven material, yet it is unclean.  For what is it fit? — Said R. Johanan: A poor man plaits three threads [of goats' hair]  and suspends it from his daughter's neck. Our Rabbis taught: [And upon whatsoever any of them … doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood … or] sack:  I know it only of a sack:  how do we know to include a horse cover and the saddle band?  Therefore it is said, 'or sack'.  I might think that I can include ropes and cords;  therefore 'sack' is stated: just as a sack is spun and woven, so must everything be spun and woven.  Now, concerning the dead it is stated, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats' hair … ye shall purify yourselves:  this is to include a horse cover and the saddle band.  I might think that I can include ropes and cords. (But it [the reverse] is logical:  [the Divine Law] teaches defilement by a dead reptile, and it teaches defilement by the dead: just as when it teaches defilement by a reptile, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven; so when it teaches defilement by the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven. How so! If it is lenient in respect to defilement through a reptile, which is lighter, shall we be lenient  in respect to defilement by the dead, which is graver?)  Therefore 'raiment and skin' is stated twice, to provide a gezerah shawah.  Thus: raiment and skin are mentioned in connection with reptiles,  and also in connection with the dead:  just as the 'raiment and skin' which are mentioned in connection with reptiles, it [Scripture] declares unclean only that which is spun and woven, so the 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven;  and just as 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, anything made of goats' hair is unclean, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with reptiles, anything made of goats' hair is unclean.  Now, I know it only of that which comes from goats: how do I know to include what is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow? Therefore it is stated, 'or sack'.  (But you have utilized it in respect of a horse cover and saddle bands? — That was only before the gezerah shawah was adduced; but now that we have the gezerah shawah, it [sc. the 'or'] is superfluous.)  And I know this only in the case of a reptile: how do we know it in respect to defilement by the dead? But it is logical:  [Scripture] declares uncleanness through the dead, and also declares uncleanness through reptiles: just as when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow as that which is made of goats' hair, so when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow as that which is made of goats' hair. How so! If it [Scripture] includes [this] in defilement until evening, which is extensive, shall we include [it] in seven days' defilement, which is limited?  Therefore 'raiment and skin' are stated twice, to provide a gezerah shawah. 'Raiment and skin' are stated in connection with reptiles, and 'raiment and skin' are stated also in connection with the dead; just as raiment and skin,' which are stated in connection with reptiles, that which comes from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair. And this must be redundant.  For if it is not redundant, one can refute [the deduction]: as for a reptile, that is because it defiles by the size of a lentil.  In truth, it is redundant. For consider: a reptile is likened to semen, for it is written, a man whose seed goeth from him,  in proximity to which it is written, or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing;  while in respect to semen it is written, and every garment and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation;  then what is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with reptiles? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.  Yet it is still redundant [only] on one side:  this is well on the view that where it is redundant on one side we can learn [identity of law] and cannot refute [the deduction]; but on the view that we can learn, but also refute,  what can be said? — That [stated] in connection with the dead is also redundant. For consider: the dead is likened to semen, for it is written, 'and whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him'; while in respect to semen it is written, 'and every garment and every skin, whereon shall be the seed of copulation. What then is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with the dead? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant. And we have brought the Lord's oblation, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, ankle chains, and bracelets, signet-rings, ear-rings, and armlets.  R. Eleazar said: 'Agil is a cast of female breasts; kumaz is a cast of the womb. R. Joseph observed: Thus it is that we translate it  mahok, [meaning] the place that leads to obscenity [gihuk]. Said Rabbah to him, It is implied in the very Writ itself: Kumaz=here [Ka-an] is the place [Mekom] of unchastity [Zimmah]. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host.  R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Moses said to Israel: 'Maybe ye have returned to your first lapse [sin]?'  'There lacketh not one man of us,  they replied. 'If so,' he queried, 'Why an atonement?' 'Though we escaped from sin,' said they. 'yet we did not escape from meditating upon sin.' Straightway, 'and we have brought the Lord's offering'  The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why were the Israelites of that generation in need of atonement? Because