A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 1: Kelim: Chapters One Through Eleven 9781597529259, 1597529257

Citation preview

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART ONE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART ONE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART ONE

KELIM CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH ELEVEN Wustrated by Suzanne Richter Neusner

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene,Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 1 Kelim: Chapters One Through Eleven By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1974 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-925-9 ISBN: 1-59752-925-7 Publication date 9/19/2006 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1974

For Frits Wieder,Jr., and the firm of E. ]. Brill

CONTENTS PART I

KELIM. CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH ELEVEN Preface ......•....

XI

Abbreviations and Bibliography. Transliterations

XXI

XXIV

Introduction . . I. Kelim Chapter II. Kelim Chapter III. Kelim Chapter IV. Kelim Chapter V. Kelim Chapter VI. Kelim Chapter VII. Kelim Chapter VIII. Kelim Chapter IX. Kelim Chapter X. Kelim Chapter XI. Kelim Chapter

1

15

One Two . Three Four. Five . Six Seven Eight Nine . Ten . Eleven

45

77 101 112

157 170 183

216 239

262 PART II

KELIM. CHAPTERS TWELVE THROUGH THIRTY Preface ............ XII. Kelim XIII. Kelim XIV. Kelim XV. Kelim XVI. Kelim XVII. Kelim XVIII. Kelim XIX. Kelim XX. Kelim XXI. Kelim XXII. Kelim XXIII. Kelim XXIV. Kelim XXV. Kelim XXVI. Kelim

Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter

. Twelve . Thirteen Fourteen Fifteen . Sixteen . Seventeen . Eighteen . Nineteen . Twenty . . Twenty-One Twenty-Two Twenty-Three . Twenty-Four Twenty-Five. Twenty-Six . .

XI

1

17 29 49 66 85 119

143 165 190 197 213 221 234 257

VIII

CONTENTS

XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXX.

Kelim Kelim Kelim Kelim

Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter

Twenty-Seven . Twenty-Eight Twenty-Nine Thirty

275 299 322 331

PART III

KELIM. LITERARY AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS Preface .................. . XXXI. Mishnah-Tosefta Kelim: Translation . . . . . . . . XXXII. Mishnah and Tosefta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. The Relationship between Mishnah and Tosefta . ii. Tosefta as Commentary to Mishnah . . . . . . iii. Tosefta as Independent of, but Correlative to Mishnah . 1. Tosefta and Mishnah Differ on the Same Law . . . 2. Tosefta Corresponds to, but Is Autonomous of Mishnah, with No Clear Evidence of Priority . . . . . . . 3. Mishnah Seems to Gloss Tosefta . . . . . . . . iv. The Larger Units of Tradition: Chapters and their Relationships . . . . . . . v. Conclusion ...... . XXXIII. Forms and Formulary Patterns i. Definitions . ii. Forms ........ . 1. Ladders ...... . 2. Stories and Narratives 3. Disputes and Debates iii. Formulary Patterns . . . 1. Lists . . . . . . . . 2. Question + Answer(s) 3. The Apocopated Sentence 4. X Unclean/Y Clean . . iv. The Declarative Sentence v. Conclusion . . ..... XXXIV. Attributions . . . . . . . . i. Attributions and their Probative Value . ii. Unattributed Sayings . . . . . . . . 111. Attributed Traditions and Attestations . XXXV. The Weaving of the Law: Yavneh and Usha i. Definition of the Problem ii. Uncleanness . . . . . . . . . ." iii. The Tent of the Corpse . . . . iv. The Beginning of Susceptibility . v. The Susceptibility of Materials and Objects . vi. Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii. Dividing Utensils . . . . . . . . . . . . viii. The End of Susceptibility: Whole Objects . ix. The End of Susceptibility: Sherds and Remnants x. The Fabric of the Law . . . . . . . . XXXVI. The Weavers of the Law: Yavneh and Usha. i. Definition of the Problem ii. Yavneans

• XI

1

154 154 160 169 170

171 175 175 191 192 192 194 194 195 196 210 211

214 216 221 226

236 237 237 244

249 273 273 276 277 280 283 298 306 308 317 323

328 328 329

CONTENTS

lX

5. Sin1con b. Gamaliel . 6. Nehemiah. Eliezer b. Jacob iv. The Role of Individuals . v. Did Yosc Redact Kelim? Kelim Before 70 . . . . . . i. Definition of the Problem 11. The Yavnean Presuppositions iii. The Houses . . . . . . i\'. From Scripture to Yavneh v. "First Cleanse the Inside" vi. Conclusion .

329 331 332 336 336 339 342 344 344 346 346 349 355 355 357 361 365 374 381

iii.

1. Eliezer . 2. Gamaliel. 3. 'Aqiva Ushans. . 1. Meir . 2. Judah. 3. Yose . 4. Sin1eon

XXXVII.

Index of Sources

385

General Index

406

PREFACE My former studies, primarily within historical disciplines, did not lead me to suppose that, in time to come, I should have to face the exegetical tasks undertaken in the present work. Three inquiries, just now completed, however, made it necessary to consider, as I had not thought necessary in the past, not merely the themes of the law but also its substance in detail. First, at the end of Eliezer ben H yrcanus I concluded that inquiries centered upon the traditions attributed to a particular individual left open the central methodological issue in the study of Talmudic literature for historical purposes: How are we to deal with sayings not assigned to an individual authority? It is clear that no general theory can take account of all such unassigned sayings in all sorts of compilations. Yet with Eliezer ben H yrcanus it seemed to me that such methodological progress as I might make in reference to named sayings had been attained. Many further studies of traditions centered on individuals to be sure will be required, and much data, many new facts, are awaiting discovery. But the way to carry out such inquiries is clear. So too are its limitations. Second, while Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees and Eliezer ben H yrcanus persuade me that the best sources for the study of early rabbinic Judaism are Mishnah-Tosefta, Modern Study of the Mishnah indicates that much work remains...""tobe done on these valuable historical documents. Indeed, inquiries into their literary and formulary traits and into the redaction of earlier units of tradition into the present framework cannot be said to have begun. Most of the questions one might answer in an "introduction to the Mishnah" either have not been asked or have been answered in a conceptually and methodologically primitive manner. Third, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, meant to serve as a prolegomenon to the present and subsequent studies, has left no doubt that further interpretation of that central theme in the early rabbinic tradition depends upon close attention to law. It is, of course, interesting to survey non-legal sayings and stories about purity. But since a disproportionately large part of Mishnah-Tosefta deals with purity, and since a strikingly large segment of sayings assigned to the masters of Yavneh also concerns purity, it becomes clear that a more ambitious inquiry into the purity laws is called for.

XII

PREFACE

And this accords with the conclusion reached in Rabbinic Traditions abo11t the Phcirisees, that if the themes of any legal materials in Mishnah-Tosefta go back to the Pharisees of the period before 70, they are those of the purity-rules. Purity laws, moreover, assuredly belong to the Pharisaic sect and express part of what was unique to that group. Having recognized that various elements in the law ultimately redacted as Mishnah-Tosefta derive from various sources in the Judaism of the period before 70-indeed, the substance and even the terminology of some civil laws, e.g., on land tenure and transfer, go back for millenia-1 chose the purity-laws as those most likely to permit a fairly circumscribed inquiry into the origins and early history of Talmudic Judaism. The historical purpose of this inquiry must not be obscured by its exegetical form. My interest is in the history of Talmudic Judaism, therefore in the history of the laws which preserve most of what we know about its first stages. If it were possible to continue to concentrate on the themes of the laws, as in my former inquiries, I should gladly leave to others the elucidation of the laws' substance and details. But, as I said, once we ask about sayings not assigned to individuals and seek to solve some of the fundamental methodological problems in making use of those sayings for historical purposes, then we cannot avoid attending to what is said, and not only to when a saying seems to have been known or attested, the modes of its formulation, and the patterns of its formal relationships to other sayings. Such studies of forms, formulary patterns, and the redaction of materials into substantial units of tradition are important in the present work, but only in the larger context of tbe exegesis of the law itself. The literary and historical study of Mishnah-Tosefta, the fundamental phase in the investigation of the growth of Talmudic and later rabbinic law and religion, furthermore, is simultaneously to be undertaken from two directions. From the first, we begin and work forward from the sayings attributed to the Tannaitic masters reviewed in historical sequence, beginning to end. From the second, we start with the end product and work backward from unnamed traditions in Mishnah itself, ,Yith cognate sayings in Tosefta, the Tannaitic Midrashim, and the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds. The former approach is undertaken in Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, in Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yolpanan ben Zakkai, and in Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The

PREFACE

xm

Tradition and the Man. It goes forward in dissertations on the masters of Yavneh and Usha. The latter approach begins here. Each approach has its advantages and limitations. Starting with the sayings attributed to the earliest generations of Tannaitic authorities, we are able progressively to describe the whole of a tradition attributed to a single man and to trace the outlines and growth of materials alleged by the sources to be very early. But we rely far too heavily upon the accuracy of dubious, or at least unJ:IDrather than :>J:IT,and J:IBRW instead of KLN. If we had a clay pot, H would be uninteresting, for the outer part will not convey uncleanness to the inner one. The outer part of one box is the inner of the other. But I would solve this problem. M. 25:5 has a problem parallel to M. 2:7H. A. A wooden spice-box ma1dein two parts [drawers} (MGWRWT MGWRWT) and not haviing a rimB. [if} one of them [the two compartments} is made unclean by Equid, ,it is unclean and its fellow dlean. And [if it was made unclean} by a creeiping thing, the entire [utensil} is unclean. C. [If} liquids fell on lits breadth (RI;IB)D. R. Yose says in the name of R. Yol;ianan b. Nurii, "They divide its thickness. That part which serves the unclean compartment is unclean, and that part which senves the clean compartment is clean." E. [ff} liquids fell on its outer rim, it is adjudged as [ a segment of} the outer part [ of the object}.

KELIM CHAPTER TWO 2:7-8

75

F. [If] it was [permanently] affixed (QBc) with a nail, it [the na,il] serves as a connector for [ rendering the object] unclean and for [ rendering it clean through] sprinkling. · G. [If] it was [temporar,ily] fastened (TQc), that [nail] serves as .a connector for [ rendering the object] unclean, but not as a connector for sprinkling. H. [If] one takes off and returns [the object to that to which it is suspended], it [the nail is a connector] neither for uncleanness nor for sprink1ing. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 2:7 (Tos. Reng. p. 9, ls. 5-13)

Tos. corresponds to M. Kel. 2:7H-J, which suggests M.G's inkstand is a needless gloss. Tos. B has M.'s liquid, but not the creeping thing, a Father of uncleanness by contrast to the liquid, which is an Off spring, in the first degree of uncleanness. The liquid has not affected both compartments, but only one. M. and Tos. agree on the rule. The wooden object receives uncleanness through its outer side, unlike the clay vessel. Then Y o]:ianan b. Nuri, now attested by Y ose, tells us about the intervening wall. Tos. F-H give us a neat progression of rules. M. deals with the matter of connectors elsewhere and rightly omits this issue. The point of F is that the nail definitively joins the box to the wall. But if it is merely fastened, not nailed (E), the connection is less firm. And if (H) the box is merely hung on a nail, the nail is not connected to the box at all. 2:8 A. A torch (LPYD) i'S,unclean. B. And the reservoir of a lamp is made unclean by means of its contained airspace. C. The comb of the water-coo!lerD. R. Eliezer declares clean. E. And sages declare unclean. M. Kel. 2:8

The LPYD clearly is different from the PNS, because it always has a receptacle. Its contained space--the reservoir-will serve as specified at the outset. Eliezer says the water-cooler's strainer is clean as to its air-space, because this is not regarded as an inner part (TWK) of the cooler. The strainer is not used regularly but only occasionally, so it is not an integral part of the inner space. The sages differ. The difference is not about the law but about the application to this moot item, which may or may not be regarded as integral to the clay utensil.

76

KELIM CHAPTER TWO 2 :8

A. As to the comb of a water-cooler-'--B. R. Eliezer says, "It does not contract uncleanness through its airspace.'' C. And sages say, "It conveys [ and contracts] uncleanness through its airspace." Tos. Kel. B.Q. 2:8 (Tos. Reng. p. 9, ls. 14-15)

Obviously the issue is the airspace. M. has ignored what did not require explanation. But if there is direct contact, the uncleanness will affect the whole cooler (GRA to Tos.), since the comb serves as a handle.

CHAPTER THREE

KELIM CHAPTER THREE Chapter Three focuses upon the ways by which a clay utensil ceases to be subject to uncleanness. It resumes the discussion introduced in 2 :2, although, as we shall see, it presents a number of distinctive theories on the question. 3: 1-2 hold that a clay utensil becomes clean when it has been perforated so that it will not carry out its original function. This theory is expressed in extremely terse language, simply by designating "measures" for perforations of various utensils. 3 :3-4B then tell us that once a clay utensil is broken, without regard to the size of the crack or perforation, it ceases to constitute ,lutensil and therefore becomes insusceptible to impurity. 3 :4C ignores both views and returns to the theory of 2 :2. Then, in 3: 5-8, the implications of the principle of 3 :3-4B are carefully spelled out. The main interest now moves to linings of plaster added to utensils. If the linings are required by the utensil, they are regarded as intrinsic and therefore will share in the uncleanness of the utensil. But if they are not necessary to the functioning of the utensil, then they are extrinsic and do not share in the utensil's contamination. This consideration then is applied to pitch used to repair holes in a utensil. What is needful is intrinsic, what is not is extrinsic. The named authorities are Ushan, except for 3 :8, a Yavnean dispute: between cAqiva and Eleazar b. cAzariah. Ushans pre:dominate in 3:1-2, the specification of measurements of perforations, and in 3 :5-7. The chapter as a whole seems to have reached its present state not much after the time of the major Ushan authorities. 3:1 A. The measure (scWR) [of the perforation or hole} in a clay utensil to render it clean (LYTHR) [incapable of receiving undleanness because of the presence of a breach} [Danby: "\'vhat is the measure of the bre:ich that suffices in an earthenware vessel to render it insusceptible to uncleanness" -"which it becomes so soon as it cannot fulfill tits proper rmrpose" ?}: B. That which is US'edfor foodsIts measure is with (B) olives. C:. That which is used for liquidsIts measure is with liquids (M: KMW~Y) MSQH).

78

KELIM CHAPTER

THREE

3: 1

D. That which is. used for this and for thatThey subject it to its more stringent [rule] (l:fMRW): E. with olives. M. Kel. 3:1 (Compare M. 8:2, 9:8)

If a clay utensil is unclean and is perforated, how large a perforation renders the vessel useless and therefore clean? The same question applies to a perforated clean vessel: How large a hole will render the vessel insusceptible to uncleanness? The vessel's size is not specified, and the hole is not relative to the size of the vessel. B specifies that a vessel made to hold food is to be perforated so that olives cannot be contained, one made for liquids, so that liquids cannot be retained. As to one made to hold either, the larger hole is specified; the stringency is that this larger hole alone will render the vessel insusceptible to uncleanness. The principle therefore is that once the vessel can no longer serve its original purpose, it is clean; no subsidiary purpose is taken into account, contrary to M. 19:9. The form is perfect, and all parts match. Only D's "with olives" seems excessive; merely knowing the more stringent rule applies is sufficient. The relationship between this measure and that given in 2 :2 as well as the rule, "Breaking them is purifying them," in 2:1, will be explored below, at 3 :4. GRA claims that the clay vessel under discussion is one which does not hold a quarter-log either in the bottom or in the sides of the broken vessel. "For if it is able to hold a quarterlog," we have already learned the varying measures of 2:2. So he reads 2 :2 into the present rule. In 2 :2 we are told that if the object is able to retain a quarter-log, and if it to begin with held from a log to a se'ah, it is still unclean. "And what is the difference," he continues, "between the uncleanness of the broken jar (GYSTR') and the uncleanness of the whole vessel (KL Y) ? If the broken jar is perforated so that it does not hold liquid, it is clean, but as to a whole vessel, it has to be able to admit water [ from the outside, by being placed in a pan of water J." Maimonides explains, "How large should the perforation of a clay vessel be so that it should not be subject to uncleanness, for no 'inside' should remain (TWK) ?" This comment now links the present rule not to 2 :2 but to 2 :3, "This is the general rule: Where among clay utensils there is no inside [ capable of becoming unclean] there is no outside ... " A more persuasive effort at harmonization comes from Sens, who states, " .. .if a clay vessel is clean for one moment, it never again is subject to uncleanness." So he introduces 3 :3-4. 2 :2 refers to sherds from a broken pot, but as

KELIM CHAPTER THREE

3: 1

79

to the vessel itself, even if it is perforated in its sides so that it will not hold a quarter-log, if the perforation is such that olives will drop through and the perforation is filled with pitch, the vessel remains subject to uncleanness-this in reference to 3 :3-4. Albea:, p. 509, similarly holds 2 :2A refers to the sherds of the smallest clay utensils. Clearly, therefore, the classical commentators recognized the evident confusion between (1.) 2:1, (2.) 2:2, (3.) 3:1-2, and (4.) 3:3-4. GRA deals with 3:1 and 2:2, Maimonides with 3:1 and 2:3, and Sens 3 :3-4 and 2 :2. Mishnah Al;aronah states that the measurements apply to a case in which the utensil is perforated on the bottom and cannot hold the specified measurements ( 2 :2) from the perforation and downward. If it is perforated on the side and below the hole, and the vessel can hold the amounts stated in 2 :2, it is still a utensil and susceptible to uncleanness. From the perforation and upward it is clean. He then explicitly reads the present pericope in the light of M. 4:1. This falls among the more far-fetched interpretations. M. does not hint that it is concerned to divide the utensil in parts, treating the part above the hole differently from that below the hole. Rosh gives the simplest account of 3: 1 : The perforated vessel is regarded as broken and useless, therefore clean. He ties 3: 1-2 to 2: 1. A. (11) That which is made for both [liquid and foodstuff], (2) for example the breadbasket-cover (KBKB), and (3) the cover of a stewpot CLPS), and (4) the jar (QDYRH)B. They judge it according to ,its most stringent [ ruJle] (MTYLYN ... LI;:IWMRW)[to wit]: C. To aidmit and give forth uncleanness [Wtith respect] to other things [ if there is a hole sufficient to J admit liquid. D. But it itself tis clean only [if the perforation is of sufficient size to] release olives alone. Tos. B.Q. 2:8B (Tos. Reng. p. 9, ls. 15-18)

The foregoing follows immediately upon Tos.'s version of the dispute between Eliezer and the sages concerning the comb of the water-cooler. "To admit" means that if a creeping thing is in the oven, what is in the utensil is unclean, and "to give forth" means the contrary (TR, III, p. 8). We have no hint that this is Meir's view, "with olives," as glossed into M. Kel. 3:lE. A3-4 + D cite M. 3:3D-E. As is often the case, Tos. has a somewhat more subtle view of the law than M. The distinction made by C-D seems to be this: a utensil, when whole, may protect what is inside it from the uncleanness of a

80

KELIM CHAPTER THREE

3: 1-2

creeping thing found alongside it within a larger container, such as an oven. C tells us the size of a perforation which will annul the power of the utensil to protect its own contents from the creeping thing in the oven, or which will protect the oven's contents from a creeping thing inside the utensil itself. That measure is a perforation sufficient to admit liquid. The result is therefore that if the utensil is so perforated that liquid can leak in, then it no longer can prevent the egress or ingress of uncleanness. But, it goes without saying, the utensil itself remains susceptible to uncleanness. D then explains the point at which the utensil is insusceptible, and that is, obviously, when it no longer serves its normal purpose in the normal way. The ability to contain olives is the criterion for normal use of a utensil of A, following M. 3 :1D-E, to which the present rule, without the glosses in A ("For example"), is a comment. What Tos. has done is to introduce the consideration of M. 2 :3P: when does a clay utensil constitute, or have, an 'inside'? The present item ceases to constitute a valid "inside" when it is perforated as indicated. The commentator responsible for Tos. has given us a highly sophisticated supplement to M., raising an issue inherent in M.'s rule but unstated by M.'s formulator. 3:2 A. (1) As to a jar (.E;IBYT),its measure [is]: (2) "with (B) dried figs," the words of R. Simeon. B. R. Judah says, "With nuts." C. R. Meir says, "With olives." D. As to a stewpan (LPS), and the cooking pot (QDRH)E. Their measure is with o1ives. F. As to the oil cruse (PK) and the ewer (TPY)Its [sic] measure is wii.thwater (M: KMW$Y 3 $MN). [Danby: "The measure is such that water will drain through.") G. The comb--its measure is with water. H. R. Simeon says, "[As to] the three of them [= D, F, G), [The measure is] with seeds." . ("Such that seeds will faU through the hole"). I. As to a lampJ. Its measure is with oil (M: KMW$YJ SMN). K. R. Eliezer says, "With a small perufah." L. A lamp whose nozzle is taken away ds dean, and [one] which is made of unbaked day whose nozzle is burned by the wick is clean. M. Kel. 3:2 (b. Nid. 49a, b. Shab. 95b)

Now that 3:1 has told us something made for both liquid and solid is measured with solid food (olives), that should suffice. But

KEL!M CHAPTER

THREE

3 :2

81

3 :2 tells us that olives are not the sole measure. In point of fact, 3: 1 's gloss now appears to accord only with Meir. Other Ushan authorities give their own measurements. The liquid-measure is rejected outright by Simeon, who holds that even the water-cooler, which is made to hold water, is going to be measured with seeds. The same view then is assigned to Eliezer, who says that the oil-lamp is measured not with oil, as we should have expected, but with a smali coin. So the rule of 3 :1 is rejected by the several authorities, excepting Meir, in 3 :2. The theory of purification remains the same, but the application of the theory obviously differs from 3: 1. We cannot claim that the simple rule of 3 :1 is prior to the more complicated decrees of 3 :2. The issue in the several cases is, What constitutes the ordinary usage of the named utensil? Simeon says the jar is usually used for figs, and so on Judah holds, GRA explains, that since (larger) nuts sometimes are put in, the more stringent, larger measure applies. And Meir's view is that there is a simple, standard measure. The jar (}:IBYT) is larger than the average clay utensil (KLY I;IRS). The lishans supply varying measurements--nuts, olives, figs. Items in F have not appeared in their present fornrnlation on the list of clay vessels susceptible to uncleanness (2 :3). The present ewer is not specified as having been made for grapes, and the cruse does not occur at all in 2 :3. The same applies to the water-cooler; the issue of its comb ( 2 :8) is not raised. In H Simeon refers to "all three" and gives them a common measure, but if the reference is to D, F, and G, then there are five items, in three stichs: if the reference is only to F and G, then he prefers seeds to oil, and this seems the better interpretation. The reference to "water" means tlwt if the vessel is placed in water, the perforation will admit the water; clsev,here this will be spelled out as "sufficient to admit (KNS) ... " The principle here is consistent with 3: 1: if the object no longer is used for its normal purpose, it is clean. The dispute is about what is the normal purpose. I-K pose no problems. I am not sure which Eliezer is before us; the same opinion (coins) will recur in the name of an Eliezer. L continues I-K. Here we hove a lamp whose nozzle, which holds the wick, has been removed; it is no longer subject to uncleanness. One made of unbaked clay (°DMH), without having been fired, is dean, even though the wick has fired the nozzle itself. Only when the entire lamp has been heated in an oven is it subject to the uncleanness affecting a vessel of clay (M. 4:4E). 6

82

KELIM CHAPTER THREE 3:2

A-C are in dispute-form, with three instead of two disputants. E-F follow the same formula: object X-its measure [is] with (B) substance Y. The dispute of A-C could have been rendered according to the same model, had not the contradictory opinions been included. G-H then give us a variation; G is in the same formula. H then revises the former set (F-G). L accords with what seems to be the normal mode of formulating these laws, which is: 1. specification of the object, 2. addition of the qualification to generate the consequent rule, and 3. unclean or clean; or some other operative predicate, such as (B) + nuts, oil, coins, etc. Thus, for A: ( 1.) Jar ( 2.) its measure is (3.) (B) + figs, or nuts, or olives. And for I: (1.) lamp (2.) whose nozzle is taken away (3.) clean. Finally L: (1.) lamp made of unbaked clay (2.) whose nozzle is burned by the wick (3.) clean. We may expect for the present mode of formulation three elements to be included with each rule, the third of which is the simple predicate; the complexity will be introduced into the second element, and the first functions as a topic-sentence, even though it may consist only of a single word, or, alternatively, as in 3:1, a full statement of a problem. In all, these declarative statements of rules normally will not be formed along complicated syntactical lines. When, therefore, they lack clarity, as in 2 :2, and necessitate in the translation the inclusion of a great many explanatory words and comments, the excess concision of the rule's formulation is going to signal some sort of problem, either in the text itself, or in the formulation of too substantial and detailed a rule within the available formula, a simple formulaic structure, or in the assignment of traditions to the wrong authorities. What in general seems to lie at the foundation of the present example of a Mishnaic rule, therefore, is the simple declarative sentence, subject and predicate, with remarkably few qualifications and complications. 3 :3-4 show an alternative formulary pattern, and the differences in syntax will become important in source-criticism. A. Leather sacks for wineTheir measure [ of a hole to render them dlean} is liquids. B. And R. Simeon says, "(With) seeds." C. A lampIts measure :is liquids. And R. Simeon says, "(With) seeds.'' D. A spoiled jar (GS'fRH)Its measure is liquid [sing.]. E. The cruses of Galilee with which they b11ingoil to the bath, and the watercoolers, and tumblers that cannot stand [So Jastrow, p. 1567B for sYQWR; Epstein, Tan., p. 492: SQWDYN)-

KELIM CHAPTER THREE

3 :2

83

before they have been fired are clean. And after they have been fired are unclean. F. And [if] they have been foed and they are beautiful (N~YN), they are unclean. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 2:9 (Tos. Reng. p. 9, ls. 19-21, p. 10, ls. 1-3)

A should specify "wine," rather than any liquid, so HD p. 24, col. A. Tos. adds, in A, a new item, following the formulary pattern of M. But leather containers are not under discussion. M. 17:11 says the measure of wine sacks is with their large stopper, knowing nothing of Tos. A. In C Simeon has a saying in respect to M. Kel. 3 :2, which would suggest a dispute with Eliezer and an Ushan terminus for the whole. D corresponds to M. Kel. 2 :6A-B. M. Nid. 6 :2 introduces a distinction in the holes in clay utensils, between those that let liquid in and out and those that only let it out. b. Nid. 49a then has R. Asi's saying, "The minimum size of a hole to render a clay utensil [ unfit for the consecration of the water of purification] is one that will let a liquid in; and one that will let a liquid out was mentioned only in respect of a defective vessel." Mar Zutra b. R. Na}:iman explains that people do not say, "Bring a defective vessel for another defective vessel." That is, a defective vessel is not discarded because of a small hole; but when a larger hole occurs in it, the vessel will be discarded. In this same connection, we have a saying of Rava (b. Shab. 95b): There are five princip[es in the case of a clay utensil. (1) If ,it has a perforation sufficient [ onlyJ for a liquid to run out, it is clean in that it cannot be defiled when already a mutilated vessel, yet ,it is still a utensil in respect of sanctifying the water of lustration therein. (2) If it has a perforation sufficient for liquid to run in, it is 'clean' in respect of sanctifying the water of lustration therein, yet it is still a utensJl to render tits pllants fit [to become unclean]. (3) If it has a perforation as large as a small root, it is "clean' in respect of making its iPlants fit [ to become defiled J, yet it is still a utensil in that it can hold o1ives. ( 4) If ,it has a perforation large enough to allow O!livesto fall out, it is clean in that it cannot hold olives, yet it is still a utensil to contain pomegranates. ( 5) If it has a perforation large enough to allow pomegranates to fall through, it is clean in respect of all things. But if it is closed with an airtight lid, [it ranks as a utensil to protect its contents in the tent of a corpseJ unless the greater portion thereof is broken.

84

KELIM CHAPTER

THREE

3:2-3

Our tractate knows nothing of principles Nos. 2-3. The use of the utensil for sanctifying the water of lustration is never referred to. The closest we come is in M. 3:lC = Tos. D-where what is important to Rava and Assi, namely, whether the liquid goes both in and out, or only out, is not mentioned at all. 3:3 A. [As to] a jar (I:IBYT) which was perforated (NQBH) and which one repaired [made] with pitch, and which broke (NSBRH)B. if in the place of the pitch there is [ a sufficient receptacleto J hold .a quarter [log], it is unclean (TM)H), because the name of the vessel has not ceased [ to apply to] it. [Danby: "Since it has never ceased to· belong to the category of 'vessel'."] C. A potsherd (I:IRS) which was perforated and which one repaired with pitch and which was broken, even though it holds a quarter log, is clean (':fHWR), becausethe name of 'vessel' has ceased [to apply to] it. M. Kel. 3:3

Mishnah Al;aronah explains the principle of 3: 3-4: Sherds of clay utensils once purified never are again susceptible. If the sherd is perforated and stopped up, however, it still will be susceptible-even the stopped-up sherd-for when it was broken, the vessel was susceptible. The rule deals with a clean jar which was perforated and then repaired with pitch (Bertinoro says the hole is of an olive's size, as in 3 :1. Thus he links the two rules.) Since the jar has been fixed, it is subject to uncleanness. If the vessel may now hold a quarter-log -and this is stated without reference to its former capacity or to varying quantities of liquid in respect to varying sizes of jugs ( 2 :2)it is unclean. The principle behind the rule of A-B is that the vessel has never ceased to serve its purpose. But then 3 :3 follows a simpler criterion than 3:1-2. Now merely breaking the utensil marks the end of its usefulness, whatever the condition of the sherd. That is, a whole vessel which was perforated remains a vessel. Closing the hole serves to keep it subject to uncleanness, and its broken sherds likewise will be unclean if they hold a quarter-log-so Albeck (who now links this rule to 2:2!). By contrast, the sherd of C has fallen from the category of vessels and never again receives uncleanness; filling up the hole does not matter. But no attention in 3 :3A-B is paid to the sherds-thus ignoring 2:2. And 3:3C contradicts 2:2, while, as we

KELIM CHAPTER

THREE

3: 3

85

shall see, 3 :4C contradicts 3 :3A-B. Having reviewed earlier efforts at defining the underlying principle, let us now turn to the law itself. Clearly, this pericope intends to distinguish between a jar and a clay sherd-I;IBYT vs. I:JRS. The language otherwise is parallel: it is a jar which was perforated and broken vs. a sherd (!;IRS) which was perforated. In C which was broken does not recur (it is, after all, the definitive trait of the sherd [I;IRSJ !)-thus: I:JBYT sNQBH wcsJH BZPT WNsBRH !;IRS sNQB wcsJW BZPTThe sec;ond clause of B adds, if it holds a quarter-[log]. C then reflects this-even though it holds a quarter-a deliberate contrast to the rule of B. The difference between B and C is unavoidable: the sole issue is whether or not the object has ceased to belong to the "category of vessels." B and C therefore correspond to one another, and the difference between them can only be the properties of the whole jar and the sherd (I:JBYT and I:JRS). In the former case the jar was perforated but repaired with pitch, in the latter the sherd was perforated and repaired with pitch. The former holds a quarter-log, and the latter does too. Yet the former is unclean, the latter clean. What is the difference between the jar and the sherd? The latter is a fragment, the former, a whole jar. Since the fragment has fallen from the category of "vessel,' no repair will matter. Nor will its capacity as a receptacle. Since the jar remains in the category of 'vessel' even though perforated, the repair produces the specified effects. What this comes down to is, "If it is broken, it is clean," or "breaking it is purifying it." The inclusion of even if it holds a quarter-log explicitly rejects the view (2 :2) that the sherd's susceptibility is dependent upon the relation between its present and its former capacity. Once broken, no matter its capacity, the potsherd is going to remain clean. It would be difficult more explicitly to reject the principle of 2:2. TYY, GRA, and Bertinoro (following him, also, Slotki, p. 19) try to harmonize 3:3 and 2:2. Bertinoro says that the sherd which is pitched holds a quarter-log and sets without supports ( 4:1), and is unclean; and "we deal with a jar which [when whole] held from a log to a seJah." So he takes the reference to containing a quarter-log explicitly to mean that we now (3 :3B) refer to one of the jars first introduced in 2 :2. What are we told here? That even though the hole is filled up after the jar was broken, the vessel remains clean; the

86

KELIM CHAPTER

THREE

3 :3-4

distinction then is when the perforation was stopped up. But as to a sherd broken off from a jar, it has ceased to fit into the category of a vessel even though not perforated, and filling up the hole is not going to matter. What Bertinoro has done, therefore, is to combine 2: 12 :2, and then to read 3 :3 into both. There breaking is purifying-with can be no doubt that he saw the differences among the several rules and attempted to harmonize some, but not all, of them, for he ignores 3 :1-2 entirely. Indeed, apart from Maimonides, I cannot find a cornmentary which attempts to harmonize all three rules----2:2, 3:1-2, and 3 :3-4-and none recognizes their interesting differences. Maimonides relates 3 :3-4 to both 3 :1-2 and 2 :2. He explains the relationship as follows. Sherds of a clay vessel receive uncleanness if the sherd is able to hold a quarter-log (2:2). If a jar is perforated and the owner stopped up the hole with pitch, and afterward the jar was broken, but a sherd of the broken jar capable of holding a quarter-log and to set without support (= 4:1) remains, the sherd still is susceptible to uncleanness ( 3 :3), "and even if it was that sherd in which is the hole stopped up with pitch," because the jar as a whole was in the category of a vessel, even after the perforation and repair. This sherd is either from a clay vessel or a jar-they are one and the same~~and remains so even if perforated. But if a sherd was perforated c1fter the jar was broken and then the owner stopped it up, it is not subject to uncleanness, because the sherWMRYM) the matters to the contrary.

According to M. Ed., the present pericope therefore follows the corrected formulation of the law. I do not see a connection between Signah of 5 :4 and Menaf:iem'scoming from the same town. A. Why is the chimney piece of the oven of bakers unclean? Because on it one rests the roasting spit. B. R. Judah says, "Because one suspends a kettle on the spit and puts it [ the spit J on it [ the oven]." C. Rahban Simeon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Yol_ianan HaSandlar, "The [lowest height of aJ chimney piece of the oven [to be susceptible to uncleanness} is a handbreadrh. The [lowest height of the J chimney piece of the kettle of oliive-seethers is two handbreadths." D. And i,t renders unclean through airspace only in relationship to (KNGD) the chimney piece. E. And from when does it render unclean? From when one begins to seethe them [ = the olives. Alt.: with it]. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:5 (Tos. Reng. p. 15, ls. 3-9)

The primary consideration remains whether or not one has done an act of work with, and intrinsic to, the oven itself. A repeats the reason of M. Kel. 5 :5A. B adds a new consideration. Judah says the spit with which we are concerned is not only one for roasting, which itself would imply the primary use of the oven is not solely for baking, but also for boiling, still a third "primary" use. Y oJ-:ianan HaSandlar's reason of M. is not given, for all parties will agree on that point: obviously if the space is used for baking, no one will now hold it is not essential to the primary use of the oven.

134

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE 5 :5-6

C has Simeon give in Yol:_ianan'sname still another rule. M. has spoken of any chimney piece. Y ol:_ianannow says the piece must be at a certain height, namely a handbreadth, in order to be useful and therefore susceptible to uncleanness. Yo):ianan specifically refers to the issue of M. Kel. 5 :5C. No one has asked about that. D says the airspace is effective KNGD HMWSP, which, HD explains, means in the afore-specified heights. That is, the airspace produced by the chimney-pieces just now referred to is effective in receiving uncleanness only to the specified height, namely, the part of the chimney piece used for the purposes given: a handbreadth's height for the oven, and two for the kettle. Higher than these specified lengths, however, a creeping thing will produce uncleanness only through contact. The reason is that the higher part of the piece is a mere handle, not an essential part of the oven at all, and airspace does not apply to handles. Note also Lieberman, TR III, p. 253 to ls. 28/29. 5:6 A. [ As to] an oven which one filled with dirt up to its half[Danby: "If an oven was half filled up with ea11th"J B. from the [top of] the dirt and downward [what is buried in the dirt J is unclean [ onlyJ through contact [but it has no airspaceJ. From the [top of] the divt and upward is unclean [GRA: also] through [the available] airspace. C. [If] one placed it [the oven] over the mouth of the cistern, or over the mouth of the cellar, and placed there a stone [between the oven and the wall, to keep the oven in position and affix the oven to the ground (TYY) JD. R. Judah says, "If one heats from below and it [the oven] becomes hea:ted from above, it [the oven] is unclean." [The manufacture now is completedl E. And -sages say, "Since (HWJYL W) it was heated from any place [ directionJ, it is unclean." M. Kel. 5:6 (Compare M. 7:1, b. Shab. 125a)

The formulation follows the familiar pattern of simple declarative sentences. Before us is an oven which has been filled half way up with dirt. The bottom half no longer has air-space. That part is going to be made unclean only by contact. But if a dead creeping thing is in the dirt and does not touch the sides, the oven is not unclean. The top part remains as before. If a dead creeping thing is in the air-space, the whole oven is unclean on that account. Maimonides and Bertinoro,

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :6

135

however, say only the part above the earth-that is, which has airspace-is unclean. I am at a loss to understand why we have to be told that if there is no airspace, then uncleanness is not contracted through airspace. It would therefore seem logical to follow Maimonides and Bertinoro, who restrict the uncleanness contracted through the existing airspace to that area alone. Then we are told something we should not otherwise have known. That is, once the oven's lower part is filled up, it is not regarded as subject to uncleanness through the contained airspace remaining in the unfilled part of the oven. This is not obvious; we might have supposed that, since the bottom half has no airspace, it is cut off from the uncleanness produced by the airspace on top. But, since the bottom is joined to the top by the walls, the upper walls will convey uncleanness to the lower ones. C introduces a related, but more interesting problem. Here we have an oven set over the mouth of a cistern or some other open hole. Then a stone is set to-keep the oven in position. Judah says that if there is a fire in the cellar or cistern, and if the fire heats the oven itself, the oven is regarded as appropriately fired and susceptible to uncleanness. The oven is viewed as properly joined to the ground and susceptible to uncleanness in the normal way. But if it can be heated only from above-therefore, abnormally-Judah says the heating does not make it susceptible to uncleanness. The sages take the more strict position that, however the oven is heated, it is now susceptible to uncleanness. Judah's position is contrary to that of 5 :4, for Judah requires the heating to be done in a normal way, and 5 :4 specifically says that if the oven is heated from the outside, it is unclean. So 5 :4 conflicts with Judah. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:4 is clear, too, that Judah requires the heating to come at the end of manufacture. But while the principle at issue is the same, nothing else suggests a relationship between the two rules. 5 :4 simply lists abnormal modes of heating the oven and says they all serve to render it susceptible. 5 :6 gives a very specific example of one of those modes, without giving an indication that the case is related to the foregoing. Here is an example, therefore, of separate and distinct ways of formulating a single law and of pronouncing opinions on it. But the two pericopae follow a single mode of expression, namely, a simple sentence for A of 5 :4 and C of 5 :6. D and E 5 :6 then provide long and complicated predicates, while 5 :4 suffices with unclean. There is no important formulary difference between

136

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :6

the two, however, given the materials to be formulated. The sages' saying in E before us responds to D, not to C. Without D, sages should say simply unclean, and sages say should not appear at all. Judah, therefore, stands behind the formulation of the entire pericope in its present state. I am not sure why C has to tell us a stone has been set to keep the oven in place. Albeck adds, "But he did not attach it with plaster," so I suppose the importance of the stone is to indicate the oven is not normally set up, as ovens usually are, by being attached with plaster to the ground (now, over a hole); that is what makes it a special case. But the issue of attachment to the ground is not raised and discussed. All that matters is the direction from which the heating takes place. The relationship of the oven to the ground-permanent or temporary -is not brought into consideration. Albeck, however, carries this theme forward, holding that Judah says it [the oven} is unclean because it is regarded as attached to the ground and is similar to any other oven attached to the ground. But if the oven is not going to be heated above ground from the fire beneath, it is not regarded as attached to the ground-so Albeck. Then what difference does the stone make? Even if the oven were plastered to the ground, the same consideration would predominate. And the plaster is not important in settling the question according to Judah's theory. Then Albeck concludes, "And an oven which is uprooted is not regarded as an oven." It looks to me as though two issues have been combined in C, first: the way in which the oven is kept in position (by a stone vs. by plaster) ; and second: the direction of the heating ( from below or from some other direction). Judah says the oven has to be attached to the ground at its first heating, and the sages hold no plastering to the ground is required. But D and E are concerned only with the second matter and ignore the stone. Slotki interprets matters along the same lines as Albeck. The sages' rule is explained as follows: "The divergence of view between R. Judah and the Sages whether or not the oven to become susceptible to uncleanness must be attached to the ground depends on the interpretation of the Pentateuchal expression in Lev. 11 :35." So the primary consideration is whether or not the oven is attached by the stone. But as we have observed, Judah's saying is directed to the heat's coming from below. This will not be affected by the way in which the oven is affixed to the ground-whether only through a stone support or through plaster.

KELJM CHAPTER

Fl\ E

5 :6

137

Maimonides says that the stone serves as the base of the oven. Then, if the heat penetrates, the oven is regarded as attached to the ground. The sages say that, however the oven is heated, it is unclean -even though it is not attached to the ground. That seems to me then to ignore the issue of stone/plaster entirely. My guess is that and j7laced there a stone is not integral to D and E but is added to bring matters into conformity ·with the discussion of b. Shab. 125a, as Maimonides himself indicates. That has caused the introduction of the two separate considerations. Without that clause matters are as originally suggested; b. Shab. 125a (following Sifra Shemini Pereq 10:7-8) states that Judah and the sages differ on the following: U7hether oven, or range of pots, it shall be torn down; they are unclean and shall be unclean tmlo you (Lev. 11 :35). R. Judah holds, "Where tearing down is wanting, it is unclean, and where tearing down is not wanting, it is not unclean." [So the oven must be attached to the soil ] The sages hold, shall be unclean unto you-in all cases ... "

A further important comment, in the same place, is Rav Judah's in Samuel's name: "They differ only in respect of the first firing, but at the second firing, even if it is suspended from a camel's neck, [it is) unclean." Sens makes matters depend upon the convergence of the sides of the oven to the sides of the pit. The stone now is a small one, and there is no space between the wall of the oven and the side of the pit. The side of the pit then does not contribute to containing or spreading the heat to the sides of the oven. If the sides of the pit are wider than those of the oven, the heat goes up along the outsides of the oven; then Judah says this is not going to be the sort of heating required to complete manufacture of the oven. A. [As to] an oven in which one put dirt up to its mid-pointB. "From the dirt and downward is unclean through contact. From the ditt and upward is unclean through airspace," the words of R. Meir. C. And sages say, "They do not divide clay utensils, but the entire [ ovct'] is unclean through contact and " D. (R. Yost': says R. Eliezer says, '"From tbc dirt and downward is unclean through contact, from the dirt and upward is unclean through airspace,' the words of R. Meir. And sages say, 'They do not divide [etc. as in CJ."') E. Said R. Judah, "Under what circumstances? When one put dirt

138

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE

5 :6

in it and afterward heated it. But if one heated it and afterward put in dirt, the entire oven is unclean through contact and air space." F. And agrees R. Judah with the sages concerning an oven v,hich one placed over the mouth of the well or over the mouth of the cellar, and under wbich one put a stone and which one plastered with mud from the sides, that it is unclean. G. And the sages say "In either case it is unclean." Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4 :6 (Tos. Reng. p. 15, ls. 10-21)

A repeats the problem of M. Kel. 5 :6A. M.'s B now is assigned to Meir. If D is a valid reading, then Meir's opinion is attested by Yose + Eliezer. If the concluding attribution is to be dropped, then Meir comes at the end of the chain beginning with Eliezer. In any event D repeats B's rule. (HD's distinction between B and D is not persuasive.) The opinion of the sages does not occur in M. The sages' view is that the clay utensil is not to be divided as to the capacity to receive uncleanness; the entire thing is unclean. If it is wholly filled with dirt, to be sure, it then ceases to constitute a utensil. Judah in E rejects that view. If the oven was heated first, and then the dirt is put in, the sages' view will stand. The oven is indivisible. But if to begin with the oven was divided by the dirt and then heated, it is divisible, for that is its original condition. F-G then proceed to a new problem, parallel to that given in M. Kel. 5 :6C-E. Now, however, we have a valuable addition. The oven has not only been propped up with a stone, it also has been plastered to the stone. So it is in permanent state, attached to its base. Now the heating indeed completes the manufacture. But Tos. does not have Judah specify that the heating comes from below. His "agreement" is that the oven is unclean-because it has been plastered! G's sages say whether plastered or not, it is unclean. So as we surmised, this is a separate dispute from M.'s. But the force of agrees is to say that if the stone is plastered, then the direction of the heat will not matter-so HD. This forcefully brings us back to Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:4, which introduces Judah's opinion on the oven heated before its work was completed, with reference to Gamaliel's decision. Gamaliel does not care which direction the heat comes from. Judah cites that decision-in a now we learn that if the oven different connection, to be sure-and is plastered over the hole, then the direction of the heat will not matter. This is a very circuitous route toward the explanation of Judah's opinion. No commentary takes this way. HD distinguishes

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE

5 :6-7

139

Tos. from M. Judah's opinion in M., based on the fact that the oven has not been attached to the ground with plaster; here it has been attached. Then he will agree with the sages of M. And the sages of Tos. simply repeat their opinion in M. 5:7 A. [ As to] an oven which was made unclean-how do they purify it? B. One divides it in three [ equal} parts and scrapes off the plastering so that i,t is on the ground (cD SYH 0 B0 R~) [Bunte: "bis er auf der Erde steht."] [down to the earth]. C. (V: "V) R. Meir says, "One does not need to scape off the plastering, and not down to the eart:h. "Burt: one cuts it down (MMC'fW) [to J within [ = less than; alternaitively: from the inside to] four handbreadths." [Danby: "But it need only be cut down so that on the inner side it is less than four handbreadths high." "Sometimes the oven was sunk below ground level and sometimes its bottom was above ground level."} D. R. Simeon says, "And one needs ,to move it [from its place]." E. [If] one divided it into two parts, one large, one small, the large one is unclean, and the small clean. F. [If] one divided it into three parts, one as large as the other two, the large is unclean, and the two small ones are dean. M. Kel. 5 :7 (b. Hul. 123b-124a; Midrash Haggadol to Lev., p. 239) A. It will be unclean. B. An oven, if whole, 1s unclean, and if divided into parts, is clean. C. On this basis have they said: D. An oven which has been made unclean-how do they purify it? One di vides it into three parts and scrapes off the plastering until it is on the earth. E. R. Meir says, "It is not necessary to scrape off the plaster, and not until it is on the earth. But one diminishes it to less than four handbread,t:hs." F. R. Simeon says, "It is necessary to move it." G. [If} one divided it into two, one large and one small, the large is unclean, and the small is dean. H. [If] one divided it into three, one as large as the [other] two, the large one is unclean, and the small ones are clean. I. [If} one divided i,t:into two and they are equal, they are unclean, because it is not possible [ exactly to divide into equal parts, and since we do not know which is the larger, both are assumed to be unclean = Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:8]. Sifra Shemini ·Pereq 10 :2-3 (Weiss p. 55B-C)

140

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE

5 :7

Now a new unit begins on the purification of an unclean oven. Once again we ignore Meir's formula of 5 :lA, which has already answered the question: To purify the oven you cut it down to less than four handbreadths in height. 5 :7A-B know nothing of that requirement. The authority behind B answers the question as follows: One cuts the oven into three parts, lengthwise, then scrapes off the plastering, "until it is on the earth." That this language is integral to the fundamental rule is then shown by C, which tells us Meir dealt with the same formula and rejected its second and third elements. Appropriately, Meir reverts to his view in 5:1. You reduce the oven to less than four handbreadths in height. Within should mean "less than". Or he may mean to specify doing so on the inside of the oven. Then Simeon says you have to uproot the oven from its place on the ground. Meir's treatment of the first clause of B no more requires an allusion to the division into three parts than it needs to mention scraping off the plaster. What is assigned to him, in fact, is simply a repetition of his view implicit in 5: 1; explicitly rejecting the second and third requirements of B is superfluous, but not necessarily a gloss. Explanations of B, "so that it (the plastering? the oven?) lies on the ground" are as follows: Rashi says the plastering must be entirely demolished so that it in no way supports the parts of the oven. Maimonides interprets "it" as each part of the oven. Sens says the crack must run from the top to the bottom of the oven, that is, it is to be a perpendicular crack (Cashdan, Hullin, p. 691, n. 8). GRA says the oven has to set on the earth without a plaster connection between itself and the ground. Albeck seems to say that the meaning of until it is on the earth is that the lengthwise division must go from the top to the very bottom. That is, Albeck evidently follows Sens. Following GRA, Slotki gives, "And the plastering must be scraped off so that the oven touches the ground." The plastering referred to, then, is that whie::hattaches the oven to the ground, and that seems to me the better explanation. "It" means the oven. Slotki further explains "within" as follows: it need only be reduced on the inside of the oven to a height of less than four handbreadths. The implication would be that the wall of the oven is so thick that one may reduce the inner side without affecting the outer side. Maimonides, Kelim 16:2, gives, "He should break it into three parts and scrape the plastering off the sherds until every sherd remains on the ground without any clay on it."

KHIM

CHAPTER

FIVE

5 :7

The rules of E and F are useful, but unnecessary clarifications. They pose no problems. The formulation of A-B is more complex than the antecedent pericopae, beginning as it does with a fully spelled out question, then the answer, a simple declarative sentence with verbs. Meir's statement here is formulated in accordance with the antecedent language; he therefore has (foninishes it, absent in his saying of 5 :1. The saying of Simeon then is to be joined to B and entirely depends on it; but the joining language is now Meir's ,$RYK, which otherwise does not need to be specified for emphasis. E and F revert to the simple declarative sentences we have become used to. Interestingly, 5 :1 avoids the language of breaking, preferring sYRYW, while 5 :7A takes for granted one has to break the oven, but now with I:fLQ, rather than I;ITK, which will be consistently used later on; and SBR serves no one. b. Hul. supplies an effort to harmonize Meir's opinion in 5 :1 with the sages of the present pericope: R. Jeremiah raised an objection: If an oven had become unclean, how can one make it clean again? One should clLvide it into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that it lies on the ground. R. Meir says, One need not scrape off the plastering nor [ see to it J that it lies on the ground, but one need only cut it clown to less than four handbreadths high inside. Lt follows that if one clid cut it down to less than four handbreadths high it would be clean; but why? Surely we should say that it stands firm !-Thereupon Rava said rto him, -xrhy not rather quote the view of the Rabbis, 'One should scrape off the plastering so that it lies on the ground' [ in support J? Rather, said Rava, This is the interpretation: If an oven had become unclean, how can one make it clean again? It is the unanimous opinion .that one should divide it into three parts ancl scrape off the plastering so that it lies on the ground. And if one desires that the [ new J oven should not be susceptible to uncleanness, what should one do? One should divide it into three parts and should scrape off tbe plastering so that it lies on the ground. R. Meir says, One need not scrape off the plastering nor [ see to i,tJ that it lies on the ground, but one need only cut it down to less than four handbreadths high inside. b. Hul. 123b-124a, trans. E. Cashdan, pp. 691-692 A. [ As to J an oven which one partitioned ( f~l~~) into two, one part of which was heaited and [,then] made unclean~B. That one is unclean, but its counterpart is clean. C. If both were heated and one of them was made uncleanD. R. Yose says in the name of R. Yol:ianan ben Nuri, "They divide its breadth [that of the partition]. That [part of the partition]

142

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5: 7

which serves the unclean part is unclean, and that which serves the clean part is clean." E. Under what circumstances? F. When one divided it .and afterward hearted iit. But if one heated it and afterward divided it, the whole is unclean through contact and airspace [ since to begin with it was undivided at the poinU:hat it entered the status of susceptibility to uncleanness]. G. If one of them became unclean through contact with a liquid, lo, its counterpart is clean. If by a creeping thing, the whole is unclean, and the thickness which is between them is entirely unclean. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:7 (Tos. Reng. p. 15, ls. 23-24, p. 16, ls. 1-6) H. An oven which one divided into two is unclean, because it is not possible to do it exactly. And if it is possible to do it exactly, it is clean. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4 :8 (Tos. Reng. p. 16, ls. 7-9)

Our present law has no exact counterpart in M., but is pertinent to M. 5 :7. We now have an oven which has been partitioned into two parts. Only one has been heated. That is subject to uncleanness, the unheated part naturally is not. What we learn in A-B is that it is possible to partition an oven in respect to uncleanness. C has both parts heated. The issue of D is the wall between the parts. Yose says part of the wall serving the unclean part is unclean, the other half is clean. C qualifies the foregoing rule: the division has to be integral to the oven. That means it is made before the oven is heated. But if the partition is made after the oven is heated, thus fully completed, the partition serves no purpose. G introduces a new qualification. The state of uncleanness of the source of uncleanness is important. A liquid, which is unclean in the first degree, will not affect the untouched part. But a creeping thing, which is a Father of uncleanness, will affect both parts. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:8 then raises the question of a division of a completed oven. The division into equal parts will produce the specified effect: both will be clean. Sens explains that both will be unclean because we do not know which of them is the larger, which the smaller. Not knowing which is subject to uncleanness, we declare both to be unclean. This is pertinent to M. Kel. 5:7E, also M. 12:6C. Sifra I has taken this element of Tos. and added it to M. As is frequently the case, Maimonides (Kelim 15:5) gives a good account of the whole matter, "If an oven has been divided into two and one of its divisions is heated and rendered unclean by a liquid, it alone becomes unclean... If it is rendered unclean by a creeping

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5:7-8

143

thing, or a similar uncleanness set forth in Scripture, the whole oven becomes unclean, and the thickness of the partition between the divisions becomes unclean. If both are heated and one of them is rendered unclean by liquid in its contained space, the thickness of the partition is divided: that half serving the need of the unclean division is deemed unclean, and that serving the need of the clean is deemed clean. This applies if the oven is divided and then heated; but if it is heated and then divided, and one of the divisions becomes unclean, even by a liquid, the whole oven becomes unclean." It would hardly be possible to put together the several rules and qualifications into a clearer statement. 5:8 A. [If] one divided it [the oven] [into} rings breadthwise [so that each is] less than four handbreadths [high], it is clean. B. [If] one [again set the rings up into an orven and} plastered it over with clay, it receives uncleanness after one will have heated it so as to bake sponge-cakes in it. C. [If] one removed the plastering from it[Danby: "If the plastering was built ( around the oven) at a distance"] and placed sand or pebbles between [the oven and the plaster], concerning such an [oven] have they said, "The menstruating woman and the clean woman bake in it, and it is clean [for the sand separates the plaster from the re-set oven]." M. Kel. 5:8

Now we have an application of Meir's rule of 5 :1 = 5 :7C. Obviously, according to that rule if the parts are less than four handbreadths' high, they will be clean. Then perhaps the new point comes with B: the pieces can be put together again with plaster and, once reheated to the normal degree (ignoring Judah in 5:1), the oven will be unclean. But this too is obvious, for we already know that, according to those who say, contrary to 3:3-4, that one can repair a broken clay utensil and restore it to susceptibility to uncleanness, the repair and remaking are certainly going to subject the oven once again to its former status. The important rule is C: if one replasters the sherds and inserts a lining of sand or pebbles between the plaster and the oven, the oven is regarded as permanently clean. But instead of stating "clean", the formulator gives a development of that simple ruling through the allusion to a clean and an unclean woman. The plastering does not join the rings.

144

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE

5 :8

The beginning is strange, for one not need to specify, according to 5 :1, that the rings are cut breadthwise. Even if they were lengthwise, 5 :1 would still regard the height of the sherds as probative. The beginning words, "[If] one divided it into rings according to its breadth" should go back to 5 :7, which has the oven divided lengthwise. Then we would have a rule somewhat along the lines of 5 :7A-B. It is Meir who says the operative criterion is the height of four handbreadths. 5. 7A-B know nothing about it. Indeed, without the opening clause, all that A tells us is what Meir has already stated. (I suppose one might hold these words to be redactional, joining "less than ... " to the antecedent laws; but that raises as many questions as it settles.) Another curious element is that 5 :8 is apparently repeated by 5 :10: "If one cut the oven up into rings and placed dirt between each ring -R. Eliezer declares the whole to be unclean; the sages say it is clean." Now 5:8 has given us the sages' opinion-and in the colorful language at that. So 5 :8 looks like a strange conglomeration of 5: 1/ 5 :7 = Meir, and 5 :10 = sages. 5 :8 is stated as if the others were unknown to its author. But Sens provides a persuasive distinction between 5 :8 and 5 :10. The former has the sand between the plaster and the oven, the latter between the rings (breadthwise). If that is the force of HRJ:IYQMMNW :)T HTPLH, then there is no close relationship. But the position of the sages on the latter point in principle still is no different from 5 :S's view. A. A cracked oven, the crack of which one put facing the corner [ of a room] and which one plastered with plaster on the sides [to the walls of the room]B. R. Naithan declares unclean, because the corner joins [the whole thing] together. C. And sages declare clean. D. The ledge of an o,ven which one placed in the corner [ of a room J so as to bake with it is clean. E. And if there is on it the larger part of an oven, [Maimonides, Kelim 16: 11: "But if it extends along the greater pam: of the oven"), it is unclean. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4 :9 F. A cracked oven, on each crack of which one spread plaster, and the place of the cracks [of which] remains apparent, is unclean. [That is, Onie has plastered the whole, but left part of the cracks unplasitered (GRA to Tos.).] G. [If) one put [in] dirt or pebbles, it is clean. H. [If] one put plaster on the crack, it is unclean.

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :8

145

I. [If one put] earthenw.are (I::IRS) on the crack, it is clean. [For earthenware will not close up the crack (GRA to Tos.)] J. [If] one plastered it with plaster on the top [ of the earthenware], or made a lining for it on the outside, it is unclean, because the lining makes the whole t!liing into one [oven]. [The earthenware now is integrated into the oven. J Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:10 K. [If] one put on it [ a crack in an oven] clay, lime, dirt, plaster, and gypsum, in any amount at all, and even at the craftsman's house, it is unclean. [If one put on it] fine clay, sulphur, wax, wine-lees, dough, or clods, or anything with which one does not make ovens, it is clean. L. The general rule is this: Whatever subsitance is not used for making ovens does not serve to join the crack together. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:11 (Tos. Reng. p. 16, ls. 10-21, p. 17, ls. 1-2)

The present rules are relevant to M. 5 :8, but introduce considerations absent in M. Here is an excellent example of Tos.'s "supplementing" M. with an important set of independent rules. The only point in common is the possibility of repairing cracks or divisions of an oven by means of day-plaster, which M. takes for granted, but not with sand or pebbles (M. 5 :SC, Tos. F). The issue of A-C is whether, by placing the cracked side of the oven against the corner of a room and then plastering the oven to the corner walls, we have adequately repaired the crack to restore the oven. Nathan holds that this is the case. The walls of the corner serve to unite the parts of the oven, since the whole has been plastered together. The sages differ for the obvious reason that, despite the plastering, the walls are not part of the oven. D follows from the opinion of the sages, though Nathan need not differ. The cornerwalls do not become part of the ledge of the oven. E states what also is obvious, and that is, if the ledge serves as an integral part · of the oven, it is unclean. The problem of F-K is to work out other rules as to filling up a crack in an oven. M. knows nothing of this matter, but it should. The main point is that one has to make use a substance normally employed in making an oven (L). Everything else is meant as an illustration. The point of F seems to be that, if one plasters the whole oven but leaves out some of the cracks, the plaster which has covered the bulk of the oven is assumed to connect the whole, even the missed cracks. Dirt or pebbles will not serve, but plaster will (G-H). 1-J then introduce the possibility of filling up the crack with small IO

146

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :8

earthenware utensils. By themselves, they will not serve (I), but if one places plaster on top of the earthenware, or lines the oven on the outside, thus keeping the earthenware within, then the oven is properly put back together. The sherd does not form an interposition, as would pebbles, between the plaster and the oven-corresponding to M. Kel. 5:8C. A. [ As to] an oven of rings, each of which is less than four handbreadths [in height], and among which was one which is four handbreadths in height, that one is unclean through contact and through airspace, and the remainder are unclean through contact [ as handles, since they are connected to an unclean oven-ring], but not unclean through airspace. B. An oven cut into rings, each of which is less than four handbreadths [in height], and there was among them one which v.casfour handbreadths in height-ithat one is unclean through contact and not unclean through airspace, and the remainder are clean. Tos. Kel. 4:13-14 (Tos. Reng. p. 17, ls. 8-14)

On the surface, what we have in A and B are two contradictory rules, both of them furthermore in conflict with M. 5 :8. M. omits reference to a ring of more than four handbreadths in height. Obviously, if all are less than that height, they are clean. The one more than that height just as obviously is unclean (B). But A does not see this at all. Something is awry. Lieberman, TR III, p. 16, proposes that Tos. follows a different arrangement of M., which will have 5:9 (below), then 5:8. Following this view, we first have an oven which came in pieces; those have been plastered (5:9D). Then Tos. 4:12 (below) has a dispute of Simeon, who holds that there is no need to heat the oven, since it already has been heated. Then comes our case. The oven was cut in rings, plastered over and heated. Tos. (A) now tells us that the large ring, the one more than four handbreadths high, is unclean in contact and airspace, the remainder are unclean only as handles ( as above), through contact, but to them uncleanness through airspace does not apply. B treats of a case in which the plaster has been set on an intervening layer of dirt or pebbles. The small rings are entirely clean. The large one is subject to uncleanness through contact, not through airspace. I take it Simeon will reject, and Meir accept, the distinction between airspace and contact. Simeon should regard both sorts of small rings (handles) as clean, in particular in reference to A.

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :8

147

Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says, "He who wishes to make for himself an oven in [ the state of] cleanness brings a cracked oven (TNWR SL SDQYN) and brings a new oven [which has not been heated] and dresses it from the outside and puts dirt or pebbles between them, and even though he has made a lining for the outer one, it is clean." Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:15 (Tos. Reng. p. 17, Is. 15-19)

Essentially we have the same rule as in 5 :SC. The 'new oven' is large; the cracked one is smaller and is placed within the new one; then the two are separated by a layer of pebbles, as in M. The new oven has not been heated; heating the inner one will not affect the outer one. The inner one is clean because it is cracked to begin with. The whole thus remains insusceptible (Lieberman, TR III, p. 17). A large jar which one smoothed and rounded off, and which one has used as an oven, and for which one has made a plaster lining on the outside, even though it is able to contain [ something] on its sides in accord with the presc6bed measure, is clean. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4 :16 (Tos. Reng. p. 17, ls. 19-21)

Maimonides Kelim 16:8 gives the reason: "An earthenware vessel that has been rendered clean can never become unclean, unless it is made into an oven and coated with plaster both inside and outside." So the present rule continues Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:15. The important point is the presence of the inner lining. A. When does [delete: an oven} it [the large jar of 4:16] receive uncleanness ? B. When it will have been heated sufficiently to bake sponge cakes in it. C. And R. Simeon declares [it} unclean forthwith. D. Rahban Simeon ben Gamaliel says in the name of R. Shila, "Wihen its manufacture will be completed." E. [If) one plastered it in purity, and it became unclean, from what time is its purification ? F. R. l:falafitaof Kefar l:fanania said, "I asked Simeon b. l:fananiah, who asked the son of R. l:fananiah ben Teradion, and he said, 'When one will have moved it from its place.' "And his daughter says, 'When he will have removed (PST) its garment (I:ILQW) [ = the plaster].'" And when these things were reported before R. Judah b. Bava, he said, "Better did his daughter rule than did his son." Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:17 (Tos. Reng. p. 18, Is. 1-9)

Lieberman, TR III, p. 17, assigns the question of A, and the several answers to the large jar (PYTWS) of Tos. 4:16. The requirement

148

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE

5 :8-9

is to remove the layer of plaster, as in M. Kel. 5:7. But, as stated, Lieberman says our M. 5 :7 should follow M. 5 :8 according to Tos.'s order. 5:9 A. [As to] an oven which came in pieces from ,the craftsman's house, [and] for which he [the owner} made hoops, and on which he placed them [the hoops], and which is (WHW 0 ) clean [not yet made unclean, though susceptible. Or: it is not yet susceptible until the hoops are put on and plastered}B. [If] ii(K: I;IKYNYY).

150

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE

5:10-11

D. [ As to J the cauldrons of the Arabs, which one digs in the earth and plasters with clayE. if the plaster [after heaiting] can stand by itself [ outside the hole], it is unclean. And if not, it is clean. F. And this is the oven of the son of Dina:>i. M. Kel. 5:10 (b. Ber. 19a, b. B.M. 59a; M. Ed. 7:7, Tos. Ed. 2:1; y. M.Q. 3:1)

We now complete (A-C) the problem of the divided oven. This one has been cut up breadthwise into rings, and dirt was placed between each. Presumably these rings are of less than four handbreadths in height in accord with 5 :8. Eliezer says it is clean just as in 5:8 and 5:1. The dirt divides the segments from one another. The sages say it is unclean because the plaster unites the whole. These are the two possible positions. The issue then is the effect of the plaster. 5 :8, as we saw, is in accord with the sages' position here: placing the plaster unites the parts. C, like F, looks like a gloss of the completed dispute. D and E introduce a new matter entirely, an oven consisting of a hole in the ground which has been plastered. The operative principle is not pertinent to what has gone before. If the plaster is independent of the hole, it is unclean, and if not, it is clean. What unites A-B to D-E, therefore, is C + F! On C, see Eliezer, I, pp. 422-427. 5:11 A. An oven made of stone or metal is clean [ so far as the laws governing clay utensils are concerned] (M: MSWM KLY :>BN). And it [the metal one] is unclean on account of a vessel made of metal. [Danby: "Yet this last is susceptible by virtue of being a vessel of metal." Note: "I,t is not susceptible through its airspace like an earthenware vessel; and it can be made clean by immersion."] B. [If] it was perforated, damaged, or cracked, [and] one made for it a plaster [lining] or a patch [rim] of clay (MWSP SLTYT) [to fill up the holes or cracks], it is unclean [ as a clay U1tensil,for it now relies on the clay patch for its functioning]. C. How much must the perforation be? Sufficient for flame to exude through it. D. [Bunte omits:] And so with respect to a stove: E. A stove made of stone or of metal is clean (M: MSM KLY 0 BN). F. And it is susceptible to uncleanness on account of being a vessel of metal (MTKWT).

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :11

151

G. [If} it is perforated, damaged, or cracked, [and} one made for it clay props, it is unclean [ as a clay utensil]. H. [If} he plastered it with clay, whether on the inside or on the outside, it remains clean. I. R. Judah says, " [ If the plastering isJ on the inside, it is unclean, and [if it isJ on the outsi:de, it is clean." M. Kel. 5: 11 (b. Pes. 36a; Midrash Haggadol, p. 241; M. Shab. 8:4) A. It will be overturned-they are unclean (Lev. 11 :35). B. Thait which can be overturned is susceptible to uncleanness, and that which cannot be overturned is not susceptible to uncleanness, except for an mren of stone and of metal, and for the stmre of stone and of metal. C. On this basis have they srtaited: D. An oven of stone or of metal is clean, and unclean because of [ constituting] utensils of metal. E. If it was perforated, damaged, split [ and] one made for it a plaster lining or a patch of clay, irt is unclean. F. And how much must there be in the perforation? G. Sufficient for the flame to exude through it. H. And so with the stove : I. A stove of stone and of metal is clean, and unclean because of [ constituting} utensils of metals. J. If it was perforated, damaged, or split [and if] one made for it [clayJ props, it is unclean. K. If one plastered it with plaster, whether inside or outside, it is clean. L. R. Judah says, "On the inside, it is unclean, on the outside, it is clean." Sifra Shemini Pereq 10:7-8 (Weiss, p. 55C)

Maimonides' statement of the law ( K elim 15 :6) provides a helpful introduction to the present Mishnah: "An oven or pot-range made of stone is never susceptible to uncleanness. One made of metal is not susceptible to uncleanness by virtue of being an oven or range for pots (Lev. 11 :35); for it is said, 'It shall be broken in pieces'-thus it must be something which can be broken in pieces. An oven or pot range of metal is susceptible to uncleanness only by virtue of being a metal vessel. Thus, it is not susceptible to uncleanness from its contained space nor when it is joined to the ground, as is an (earthenware) oven or range for pots; but if uncleanness touches it, even on its outer sides, it contracts uncleanness as do other metal vessels; and if it is rendered unclean by a corpse, it becomes a Father of uncleanness [ unlike clay utensils] ... and it can be restored to cleanness by immersion [unlike clay utensils]. If a metal o'Venhas a hole in it, or if it is damaged or split, and it is stopped up with clay or mended by plastering or patched up

152

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE 5: 11

with clay, it becomessusceptibleto uncleannessas an earthenwareoven. And how big must the hole be? So large thait the flame will come through... " The important point is that since the clay lining is necessary for the functioning of the metal stove or oven, the stove or oven enters the category of a clay utensil. This rule applies to all metal utensils, not merely to ovens. Then in M. H-I comes the primary issue, which must apply to both items (A, E). Now to our Mishnah: A begins with a complete sentence: an oven of stone or metal is clean. But this is forthwith contradicted: the latter is unclean because it is made of metal and therefore subject to the laws governing metal objects. That seems to me an absolutely necessary gloss, but one which contradicts what must have been the completed rule. It would have been preferable simply to begin with an oven of stone. The rest of the pericope centers on the metal one; stone in any event is not subject to uncleanness. The first clause, therefore, has been thoroughly and completely glossed, and it must come in its present form before the gloss, which has been necessitated by the "ambiguity" of stating a metal vessel is clean, when in fact it is subject to its own rules of uncleanness. Albeck explains that "clean" means "clean from the law governing the oven," for only an oven is made of clay and is subject to uncleanness through its airspace when it is attached to the ground. But this seems to me to read into the language what the language itself rejects, for A speaks of an oven of stone or metal! The qualification in respect to metal ovens is this: they will receive uncleanness from their outer side when not attached to the ground, like any metal vessel; but if attached to the ground they are not subject to uncleanness from the outer side. But 10:1 leaves no doubt about the cleanness of the stone oven. Albeck then explains that B applies to both a metal and a stone oven. QS, Rosh, and TYY differ: a stone oven is never susceptible. Maimonides so states in his opening sentence. A stone oven when whole is not subject to uncleanness. So why should it be subject to rules about repair? Albeck argues, Because of the clay-addition, just as with the perforation or damage pertaining to a metal one. If the stone or metal oven is plastered, it is subject to uncleanness like a clay oven. The hole is then defined-the definition should have come first-in terms of letting in fire. A hole this big makes the oven useless.

KELIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :11

153

D-F repeat the same law, now with reference to the stove. Otherwise there is no change from the foregoing. G then substitutes props for the stuffed-up hole. Covering the stove with clay leaves it clean, for it is not made into a clay stove by this means alone. Judah says if the clay is on the inside, it subjects the stove to the law of a clay stove, otherwise it does not. Judah is consistent with Yose in 3:7. Tos. assigns H-1 to both the oven and the stove. The props (G) serve to hold a cooking pot on top of the stove, so GRA. Then the stove serves its purpose as before. Maimonides observes ( along the lines of M. 3 :7) that plastering a stove on the inside will serve no good purpose, for the stove is used for boiling; and if it is made of metal, the stove withstands the flame; the plastering is not integral to it. But the oven of metal or of stone which has been plastered has been served by the plaster, because one bakes in the oven, and the plaster helps keep in the heat. So Maimonides holds the law cannot follow Judah in respect to the stove, to which his saying is attached. The main point, Sens says, is that when the oven is plastered, it enters the category of a clay oven. He observes that when the sages in I say it is "clean", they mean that it is clean as a clay vessel, but still subject to the uncleanness pertaining to a metal one, just as we have interpreted matters. A. An oven of metal for which one made a lining, and for which one ma:de a chimney-piece (MWSP), and which one divided into two, and one part of which was made unclean through the airspaceit is unclean and its fellow is clean. [The division is effective to save the other part.] B. If a creeping thing touched it [the metal oven] on the inside, it renders unclean through contact and through airspace, and its fellow renders unclean through contaot, but does not render unclean through airspace. And its [ the second part's] lining is clean. [The lining of clay makes the inner part subject to the law of a clay oven.] C. [If] a creeping ithing touched it from its outer part, the whole thing [is unclean in the first remove and so] renders unclean through contact at one [further] remove and renders [Heave-offering] unfit at one f still furither] remove. D. [If] about an olive's bulk of a corpse touched it on the outer part, the whole thing renders unclean through contact at two (removes] and renders [Heave-offering] unfit at a one [further] remove, because it has been made inito a Father of uncleanness. And it renders his [man's] body unclean.

154

KELIM CHAPTER

FIVE

5 :11

E. "And its airspace renders unclean foods and liquids and hands," the words of Rahbi. F. R. Ishmael the son of R. Yose says in the name of his father, "It does not render unclean foods and liquids and hands, for a clay utensil does not [become or] render unclean from its outer side." Tos. Kel. B.Q. 4:18 (Tos. Reng. p. 18, ls. 10-20)

Clearly, the principle of Tos. and that of M. 5 :11 are one and the same, namely, a metal oven is susceptible to uncleanness because it is a metal utensil. But the contained airspace will not be susceptible to uncleanness, and if a corpse touches the outer part of a metal utensil, the utensil becomes a Father of uncleanness. The present passage forms an introduction, therefore, for the following Tos. M. is considerably less lucid. The rule of A is this: When the oven is divided, the clay lining is also divided ( we assume in sufficient size so as to remain susceptible to uncleanness). So the part made unclean through airspace of course will be unclean. The other part, though connected, now is unaffected by the airspace of the former, having been divided. The rule of B then contains no surprises. Since the oven's parts are in contact with one another, there is a connection to convey uncleanness of the creeping thing which has touched the one part on the inside. The lining is regarded autonomous. The outer part touched by a creeping thing is affected as is any metal utensil-it becomes unclean. Since the other half is connected, it too is unclean. The creeping thing makes the metal oven unclean in the first degree. But the corpse makes it a Father of uncleanness, like itself. The issue of E-F is the status of the airspace. Since we have judged the metal utensil to behave like a clay one because of its clay lining, how do we deal with the matter of the airspace? Obviously, the airspace of a clay utensil will not have the same impact as contact with the surface of the metal one-it will not become a Father of uncleanness! Rabbi Ishmael's position (F) is that, since we are now concerned with the aspect of the whole as a clay utensil, we must apply the rule of a clay utensil, and that is, uncleanness will not be conveyed from the outer side at all. So the airspace of the utensil dealt with in D has no affect on foods, liquids, and hands, for the uncleanness has touched the outer part. Rabbi's position seems to me considerably less consistent. He ignores the fact that the uncleanness has touched the metal oven from the outer side. He simply a third to be plastered or otherwise affixed in place; but it is not in accord with E, which requires only two. GRA, however, explains that we have two stones, not three, and then G-H accord with both parties. The rabbis accept two stones, but both have to be affixed with clay. Judah requires three and certainly will not accept two to begin with. The abbreviated language of G is the problem. "One with... one without. .. " does not leave room for three stones. Bertinoro has three stones in G, and if his explanation is followed, G is understood as opposed to Judah. But this seems to me curious, for the issue raised by Judah is whether or not there is a third stone; leaning the stone against the wall is not the same as plastering it to the ground. If the force of G is to tell us that three stones, one plastered and one not, are clean, what of the third? And what have we gained? Judah obviously will agree that it is clean. He has already said so. The sages of E have spoken of two stones and said that, when joined with clay to the earth, they are unclean. If G-H refer back to the sages, they have already told us that rule. If G-H allude to F, how would Judah have 6een surprised by the ruling? That fact seems to me to justify GRA's interpretation of the language, which tells us something we should not have known about the opinions of both E and F. Maimonides (Kelim 5:14) interprets G thus: "If a man makes two stones into a pot range and joins them to the ground with clay, this is susceptible... If he joins only one with clay and does not join the other, it is not susceptible... " As I said, the language of the chapter is exceptionally difficult to interpret, for many of the pronouns lack antecedents, and even verb tenses change from present to past. Even the meaning of "clean" and "unclean" requires further clarification, for the issue of 5 :11 is not "clean" in general but clean in respect to the uncleanness of a clay oven, but unclean in respect to the uncleanness of a metal one. We observe, also, the statement of a case, then an if clause beginning a new sentence, or the statement of a larger problem, then a specification of only a small aspect of that larger problem for further discussion. In these instances the opening statement is not a completed sentence and cannot be completed by rephrasing elements that follow.

KELIM CHAPTER

SIX

6: 1

161

In all, this is syntactically among the most difficult materials we have examined, and that fact obscures the logic and relative simplicity of the laws under discussion. An illustration of the ambiguity of the language before us is in A. Where does the joining take place? "And he joined them together with clay" may mean the three props are joined at the top to form a tripod or are joined to the earth at the bottom. Sens alerts us to this ambiguity and provides alternative explanations in accord with each meaning. The first is that the three are joined together with plaster at the top, so that a tripod is formed for holding a cooking pot, and a fire then may be made below. This is the view of TYT. Or the three are joined to the earth to form both a stove and a contaminable airspace within the props. TYB and GRA say the joining is on the ground. Then, as to the nails nailed into the ground, even though the tops are plastered, they are clean. GRA says we require joining at the bottom, and this is not effected. Sens furthermore raises the problem of the antecedent of clean in C-D: "Since they are made for a cooking pot instead of a stove, the feminine form is used." One may further explain that they are entirely clean-not simply "clean" from the uncleanness of a clay vesselfor they are not subject to the law of a utensil at all, since each one is separate from the others, and they are not joined together. If, on the other hand, we explain "clean" to mean "clean from the uncleanness of a clay utensil," we have to explain the language "even though he made in their head ... " as follows: "He fixed the top of each so that the cooking pot may set on it." Mishnah Al;aronah observes that the tripod in A should be three fingerbreadths in height, as in M. 7:4. The tripod of C-D is unclean as a metal utensil. A. Three [metal] nails, three [wooden] pegs, [or] three clay props, whioh one placed in the ground and joined with clay so as to set the cooking pot on themB. it is unclean (TM,H). C. And R. Judah declares clean until he will join them to one another wiit:hclay. D. And agrees R. Judah that ,if one set them on the stone and joined them to it, that it is unclean, because the stone joins them together. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 5:1 (Tos. Reng. p. 19, ls. 16-20)

M. speaks only of three clay props and explicitly says a tripod constructed of three nails is clean. So Tos. A-B differ from M. C-D in II

162

KELIM CHAPTER

SIX

6: 1-2

this important respect. Judah says the three items have to be joined among themselves, not merely attached to the ground. This clarifies matters of M. A-with which Judah evidently will disagree-but it does not help us with M. B. Nor is Judah's opinion in M. F further elucidated. The joining by the stone of Tos. D makes no appearance in M., which knows nothing about setting the three pegs or props on a single stone. The main point of Judah in Tos. is that the props, pegs, or nails must be joined into a single construction, not merely set near one another. I see no point in M. to which this opinion is relevant, or by which it is even reflected, except possibly M. 6:2, the stove of the butchers. HD observes that M. 6:lA implies we refer specifically to clay props, which are of the same material as the clay joining material; these then are regarded as a stove. But pegs or nails of iron are excluded. Then, he says, Tos. tells us the same rule applies to pegs or nails. What of M. 6:lC? He says these nails have not been affixed with clay; the heads are not attached to one another either. That is one way of harmonizing M. and Tos. A. Three stones whioh one joined to one another but [which] one did not aittach to the earth, [or] attached to the earth but did not attach to one another are unclean. B. And R. Judah declares clean until one wiH join them to one another and also join them to the earth. C. And how much is their joining? D. With any amount of day. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 5 :2 (Tos. Reng. p. 20, ls. 1-4)

The position of A is that the joining of the stones to form a tripod may be either to one another ( at the top) or to the earth ( at the bottom). On this matter, M.' s silence surely is not accidental, but deliberately intended to leave ambiguous what Tos. A says may be done either way. So M. intentionally rejects Judah's opinion, which accounts for M.'s obscure language. Judah says they must be connected both to one another and to the earth; C-D apply to both. 6:2 A. A sitone [fixed to the ground with clay] on which one was setting [ithe cooking pot], as well as on the oven[" A stone on which a cooking pot is so set that it rests both on the stone and on an oven"], B. on it and on the double-stove, C. on it and on the single stove, [M adds: c1YH wc1 HKPWI:I], D. -it [the cooking stool] is unclean.

KELIM CHAPTER

SIX 6: 2

163

E. On it [ = a stone fixed wiith day J and on the stone [ not fixed to the ground with clay], on it and on the rock, on it and on the wall, ["If the cooking pot rested on this stone and also on another stone, or on a rock or on a wall"] F. -it is clean. G. And this was the stove of the Nazirim who were in Jerusalem: that which [ is set] against a rock [ so it cannot become unclean). H. The stove of the butchers!. When he [ the butcher] puts stone beside stone, ["If stones were set side by side for a butcher's stove"] [ each being fixed to the ground with clay but separate from the other]J. [if] one of them was made unclean, all of them have not been made unclean [ since they are isolated from one another). [M lacks not.] M. Kel. 6:2 A. It will be overturned. They are unclean. B. That which can be overturned can be unclean, and that which cannot be overturned cannot be unclean. C. From here they said, D. A stone on which [the pot) was setting and on the oven, on it and on the stove, on it and on the single stove, is unclean, E. because it can be overturned. F. On it and on the sitone, on it and on the rock, on it and on the wall, it is clean, G. because it cannot be CJ1Verturned. H. [On a wall and) on the projection (ZYZ)-they see: if the wall is taken away and it stands by itself, iit is unclean, and if not, it is clean [as part of W) a ring [ unclean with corpseunclcanness J which were found (NM~ 0 W) [embedded] in the ground (BNf:ISTW) of the oven, B. [and] they are seen [in the oven] but ("BL) do not projectC. if one bakes the dough, and it [ the dough} touches them [the needle or ring], D. [ the oven is J unclean. [For the place of the needle is shown to be put of the inside of the oven; but if the dough does not touch the place, the oven is clean]. E. Concerning what sort of dough did they speak? Concerning mcdium dough. F. [If} they [ a needle or ring, but now clean ones !J where found in the [outer] plasiter of the oven with a tightly fitting cover [in the tent of a corpse], G. if [K + M + V +P + C omit ,M) in an unclean [oven], they are unclean, H. and if [K + M omits ,MJ in a clean [oven], they are clean. [For the cover protects only a clean clay utensil. If the oven does not save itself, it does not save what is attached to it. But 9:2 will pose a problem. J I. If they were found in the stopper of the jar [ which is tightlysealed and in the tent of a corpse JJ. [if found] at its sides [of the stopper), they are unclean. [For the sides are superfluous to the jar). K. [If they were found] opposite its mouth, they are clean. L. [If] they appear in its midst (BTWKH), but not to [ = in] its airspace (PWYRH), [Danby: "If they were visible from within but do not project into the airspace of the jar"}, they are clean [ since they are part of the stopper}. M. [If] they sink (SWQcYN BTWKH) into it N. and under them (TI:ITYHM) is [plaster J about as much as the garlic-peel, [Danby: "If they sank into ( the air-space of the jar) but beneath .them was still (clay) thin as garlic peel (between them and the air-space)"] 0. [they are J clean [as part of the stopper), M. Kel. 9:1

KELIM CHAPTER

NINE

9: 1

219

The complexity of the first pericope before us is on two accounts. First of all, as I have already stressed, the formulation is not in complete sentences, but in a series of phrases which in a few words set a context or define a problem, but which all together do not add up to an entire, .integral sentence. Second, the antecedents of many pronouns are not entirely clear, e.g., 9:1 D's "unclean" refers to A's "oven." Still more serious, third, the entire definition of the situation changes at 9:lF, and this comes solely by implication. A-E refer to an unclean needle or ring. The issue is whether they impart uncleanness. But F and following take for granted the needle or ring is clean. Now the issue is whether it becomes unclean. Yet the phrasing of F itself does not suggest a change in the situation established in A, for F depends upon A for the antecedent of its "they."

Ovens. The lower oven has its 'bottom' or floor (NI;IST) [M. 9:lA} at the middle; the bread is placed on it. At the bottom as an aperture for removing the ashes [M. 8:7A}. Source: Brand, p. 557.

As if things were not sufficiently complicated, G and H tell us the oven with a tightly-fitting cover may be "clean" or "unclean" respectively. This can only mean the oven in F may or may not have

220

KELIM CHAPTER

NINE

9: 1

a "tightly fitting cover." If the cover is tightly attached, then G is no longer possible. If not, then H is irrelevant. As we shall further observe, the explanation of L-N is not to be taken for granted. That the pericope is not a composite of antecedent materials seems to me probable, if not subject to proof, because of the phrasing of F and following, which entirely depend upon A. Since a skillful redactor will obscure the distinctive marks of antecedent materials, this is not a decisive consideration. A further problem arises in 9:3C, which repeats the main point of the rule before us. 9:3C furthermore uses the singular, THWR, instead of the plural, THWRYM to refer to MI:JT ,w TBcT; this would seem to be in accord with a different grammatical rule; and 9:3Cff. then constitute a complete and smooth sentence. I should tend to suppose, therefore, that 9:1 and 9:3 represent formulations of the same rule by different authorities or in different sources, the second of which chose to supply complete sentences as well as reasons for rulings ("Because ... "), just as in 3:3-4. To turn to the law: The problem of A-E is a metal ring or needle found in the ground beneath the oven. It is taken for granted, as noted, that the ring is unclean in such degree as to cause uncleanness to a clay utensil, that is, as a Father of uncleanness. The problem is now raised by B, How do the ring and needle affect the airspace of the oven? Obviously, if they had fallen into the oven, as soon as they entered the airspace, they would have rendered the oven unclean. So they were there before the oven was plastered into place. But now, while they are visible, they do not project into the oven's airspace. How is the matter decided? The function of the oven determines the matter. If dough, which cleaves to the sides of the oven, touches the needle or ring, then the needle or ring so affects the use of the oven as to enter the airspace and make the oven unclean. Otherwise the oven is clean. The 'medium dough' is not so thick that it does not cleave at all to the side of the oven, nor so thin as to flow throughout the bottom of the oven. The gloss of E does not provide a hint as to the terminus of the pericope. F changes the condition of the needle or ring from unclean to clean. The clean ring or needle is found in the plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting cover. But G then contradicts this clause about the cover, because it refers to an unclean oven; that is one without a tightly fitting cover! The point is that the needle or ring in the plaster is regarded as part of the oven and therefore subject to its

KELIM CHAPTER

NINE

9: 1

221

uncleanness, if the oven is unclean, or preserved from uncleanness, if it is clean. I am not clear as to why G and H require "if in an unclean one," when "if there was a tightly fitting cover" would make the same point, and F then would not contradict what immediately follows. I introduces still a third situation, also depending on the needle or ring of A. Now it is found in the stopper of a jar, which is coneshaped, with the narrow end pointed down into the jar's mouth. The part of the stopper not opposite the mouth of the jar contains the ring or needle in J; since this plaster is not integral to the stopper, it is deemed non-existent. The needle or ring is not protected by the tightly fitting cover and is exposed to the uncleanness of the corpse under the roof (taken for granted by F, but not conceived in A, and never explicitly referred to!). If opposite the mouth with the cover tightly fitting, the ring or needle is clean. L has the needle or ring visible from within the jar but not projecting into the airspace of the jar; it is completely sunk into the stopper, just as before. It remains clean. If the ring or needle does project into the airspace of the jar, but there is some plaster, however thin, between it and the airspace of the jar, it remains clean, being part of the stopper. These last points depend upon the rule of F-H, that the ring or needle embedded in the plaster of a clay object is subject to the condition of the object covered by the clay. In F we ref er to the plaster which joins the oven to the ground, in I-N, we refer to the stopper of a jar, but the rule is the same for both. As noted, I see no compelling basis to argue the pericope is not unitary, and therefore find highly peculiar the introduction of the clean ring instead of the unclean one and the supposition, from F onward, that the oven or jar is in the tent of a corpse. Indeed, the issue of M-N depends on still a further unstated rule, that a metal object is not protected by a tightly-fitting cover (as will be seen in 10:1), and therefore if the object is not covered by the plaster, it will be within the tightly-sealed jar and thus will be unclean, despite its protection by the jar. All of this is to be inf erred from the rules, I suppose, but none of the important details is actually spelled out, beginning with the corpse. Albeck, whose interpretation is inserted in square brackets into my translation, explains G and H somewhat differently from the foregoing. He says G refers to an unclean oven; then the ring or

222

KELIM CHAPTER NINE

9: 1

needle will be unclean because a tightly-fitting cover will serve only a clean clay utensil, not an unclean one (oven). Since the oven itself is not going to be saved from uncleanness by the cover, whatever is attached to it also will not be saved. But if the oven is clean, then, even though a clay utensil will not afford protection to a metal object in it, what is in the plaster is saved just as are the oven and its plaster. But this does not materially change the point made earlier, that in the plaster of the oven the needle or ring is regarded as part of the oven. Now it is time to introduce a curious problem. M. 10:1 states explicitly that tightly stoppered clay utensils afford protection only to food, liquid, and other clay utensils. That obviously excludes metal objects, which therefore will not enjoy the protection of the tightly fitted cover when in the clay utensil. The principle is that clay utensils do not afford protection for what can be purified in a ritual pool. This rule is unequivocal. Yet M. 9:1 takes for granted, particularly in F, that if a metal needle or ring is found in the outer plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting cover, the cover will protect it. I implies that we have a tightly fitting stopper of a jar, in the tent of a corpse. Here too the metal objects are protected. So 10:1 states explicitly what 9: 1 seems to ignore. Albeck (p. 46), following Rosh and TYT, solves this problem: "Even though a clay utensil does not afford protection for metal objects which are in it, that which is lying in the plaster is afforded protection just as are the oven and the plaster themselves. Likewise with the stopper, the metal ring or needle are regarded as a part of the stopper." This is the view of Mishnah Al;aronah: "Thus we learn that if they are swallowed up in the plaster, they are an~ulled by the plaster and afforded protection ... " But MA further points out that 9:6 seems to differ, for it explicitly states that the ring swallowed up by a clay brick is unclean when in the tent of a corpse. There, he says, however, there is no question of a tightly fitting cover, but "swallowing up" by the clay brick. Here the oven is protected by the tightly fitting cover. Then the stopper likewise is tightly sealed. While that distinction may stand, the one between 9:1 and 10:1 (not to mention 9:2, as we shall presently note) is not compelling. It seems probable that two rules existed, one of which is that the tightly fitting cover does afford protection to whatever is in the utensil, even metal objects (9:1), and the contrary, which is that given explicitly in 10:1.

KELIM CHAPTER NINE

9: 1-2

223

A. A needle or a ring which were found (NM$'W) in the stopper of the jar at the side of the jar[= M. 9:11-J), B. if they were unclean, they have not made the jar unclean. C. And if they were clean, the jar does not afford them protection in the tent of the corpse. D. [If] they were found above the lip of the jar opposite the inside of the jar, whether ,the plaster flows under them or does not flow under them, E. if they were unclean, they have not made the jar unclean. F. And if they were clean, the jar affords them protection in the tent of the corpse. G. [If] they were found below the lips opposite the inside of the jar [ = inside the jar], when the plaster flows under them, if they were unclean, they have not made the jar unclean [for they are not in its airspace], but if they were clean, the jar does afford them proteotion in the tent of the corpse. H. [If} the plaster does not flow under them, if they were unclean, they have made the jar unclean [for they certainly are in its airspace], and if they were clean, the jar does not afford them proteotion in the tent of a corpse. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 7 :1 (Tos. Reng. p. 26, ls. 19-24, p. 27, ls. 1-6)

A-C repeat the rule of M. 9:lI-J. The ring and needle are not afforded protection if at the side of the stopper, nor do they affect the jar. D then is equivalent to M. 9:lK: if found opposite the mouth, they are afforded protection, therefore are clean as in M. Tos. D has them above the lip of the jar opposite the inside of the jar; they are now regarded as integral to the stopper, whether covered by plaster or not. If they are unclean, they do not affect the jar, and if they are clean, they enjoy the protection from corpse-uncleanness afforded by the jar. The same outcome derives from the situation of G: they are below the lips opposite the inside of the jar; this time the presence of plaster is decisive. The point of H is that the tightly-sealed jar does not afford protection to rinsable utensils (metal); since they are not part of the jar-the plaster is not under them-they render the jar unclean and are not protected, as in M. 10: 1. 9:2 A. A jar which is filled with clean liquids, and a siphon is in it, covered with a tightly-affixed cover, and placed in the tent of the corpse-B. The House of Shammai say, "The jar and the liquids are clean, and the siphon is unclean."

224

KELIM CHAPTER NINE 9 :2

C. And the House of Hillel say, "Also the siphon is clean." D. The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the words of the House of Shammai. M. Kel. 9:2

M. 9:2 contradicts M. 9:1, for the simplest explanation of the law before us derives from the rule that a metal object is not afforded protection by a tightly-fitting cover, as in M. 10:1. Since the siphon is of metal, it will not be protected by the cover. The House of Hillel differ (C), then are made to revert to the Shammaite pos•tion, presumably because M. 10:1, which is presented as anonymous law, is in accord with the Shammaite view. So by the theory of "reversion," also the Hillelites are behind the law of 10:1. The rule is in standard Houses-dispute form, strikingly different from the formulations thus far examined. Among the variations on that form, the one before us has the Hillelites' saying depend not upon the protasis, but upon that of the House of Shammai. It is easily restored, so that A + B or A + C constitute a complete, if apocopated, sentence, in which all the parts fit together without difficulty. M. Ed. 1:14 (Phar. II, pp. 329f.) has a dispute on M. Oh. 5:3 in which the House of Hillel hold the tightly-sealed vessel can protect anything, the Shammaites say it protects only food, liquid, and other earthenware vessels. Tos. Ah. 5 :11-12 then has a debate on the same matter. I should be inclined to suppose stories and debates accounting for, or alleging, the reversion of the Hillelites will be later than the original ruling in their name. The pertinent debate is as follows: A. A vessel of earthenware can, according to the opinion of Beth Hillel, proteot everything [in it from impurity]. B. But Beth Shammai say, "It protects only eatables and liquids and [other} vessels of earthenware." C. Beth Hillel said to them, "Why?" D. Beth Shammai said to them, "Because it is [ itself} impure with respect to an 'am ha)aref, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity]." E. Beth Hillel said to them, "And did you not pronounce pure the eatables and liquids inside it?" F. Beth Shammai sai,d to them, "When we pronounced pure the eatables and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure, you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him." G. Then Beth Hillel turned and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. M. Ed. 1:14 (Trans. M. H. Segal pp. 7-8)

KELIM CHAPTER NINE

9:2

225

The point of F is that the /;aver will not use the cam haJare/ s clay utensils, which can never be purified by immersion. But in declaring the contents of the vessel clean, the Hillelites risk that the /;aver will use the cam ha,are/s utensils after mere rinsing, without treating them as unclean with corpse-uncleanness, as is required. To put matters differently, the rule of M. 9:1, that the tightlysealed clay utensil affords protection for metal as well as for food, liquid, and clay utensils, indeed conflicts with the rule of M. 10: 1, that it does not. Then the Houses are made to serve as the sources for the conflicting rules. M. 9: 1 is in accord with the House of Hillel, M. 9:6 and M. 10:1 are in accord with the House of Shammai. The "reversion" of the Hillelites is what causes the problem-but that itself is caused by the self-evident conflict in the several laws. We can either conclude that the Mishnah contains conflicting laws, or settle matters in favor of one side, and then harmonize the conflicting laws by showing the distinctions between them. This latter way is taken by all the commentaries, because of the prevailing presupposition that the Mishnah is a generally unitary collection of harmonious rules. But the first way also is open. If we take it, then we have to posit, as already suggested, that M. 9:6 and 10:1 are Shammaite rules which have been preserved alongside Hillelite ones and which indeed conflict with the Hillelite ones. From the viewpoint of the history of the law itself, however, we have not gained very much, for we still do not know which is the earlier law, which the later one. All we know is that they differ from each other. Yet one solution is possible. M. 10:1 is a general, anonymous rule. We have no hint that it is the opinion of a single party. The same is so for 9:1. Perhaps, faced with these self-evident conflicts, the redactors chose to represent the opinions as associated with the two Houses, then to claim one House came over to the opinion of the other. In other words, 9:2 is intended to account for the conflict between 9:1 and 10:1-and both rules are equally "old" and equally representative of some antecedent authority. We shall see other instances of the effort of Yavnean, and especially, Ushan, authorities to explain conflicting rules they evidently received from earlier timesthat is, from the period before 70. Maimonides states that our siphon is made of clay, not metal, and "matters are clear." The siphon is unclean because part of it extends outward from the tightly-sealed cover. Then why should the Hillelites rule as they do? Maimonides provides no hint as to the basis of their opinion about a clay siphon. IS

226

KELIM CHAPTER

NINE

9:3

9:3 A. [ As to the case of] the insect which is found below (LMTH) the ground (NI:f STW) of the oven~ B. [the oven is] dean. C. For I say, "It fell while alive and now has died." D. A needle or ring which were found below the ground (LMTH MNI:f STW) of the ovenE. [ the oven is J clean. F. For I say, "They were there before the oven came." G. [If] they [the ring or needle} were found in the wood-:ishes, H. [the oven is] unclean. For it has nothing (S"YN LW) on which to hang [their I. presence]. [Danby: "For there is naught whereon to rely (in deeming it clean)."] M. Kel. 9:3

The principle of the rule of 9:1 is repeated here, with only minor variations. Now we have an insect below the ground of the oven, rather than within it. The oven is not regarded as unclean, for we can explain that the insect was not dead when it fell through the airspace. We do not claim it was dead all the time, for the insect may be still moist and so one may not invariably claim it has died long before the oven was set into place ( G RA). The antecedent of "clean" in B can only be "oven." D then introduces the ring and needle of 9: 1A. Instead of being found in the ground of the oven, they are found below the ground of the oven. But that seems a minor difference, for if we can explain away their presence within the ground (9:1), we surely can account for it below the ground (9:3). That the rule is identical is beyond doubt, since 9:1 can be interpreted only according to the theory that the ring or needle was there before the oven was set into place. If the ring or needle fell down into the oven after it was in place, the oven would be made unclean through the contamination of its airspace. This is decisive proof that 9:3 and 9:lA give the same rule, based upon the same reason, and repeat one another. G then introduces the opposite possibility: the ring or needle is found in the wood-ashes. We can no longer claim the ring or needle was present before the oven was set into place, for they would then lie below the wood-ashes, not in them. Since 9:1 and 9:3 repeat the same rule, we have to ask how they differ. 9:3 knows no complications. If a needle or ring is found in or below the ground of the oven, the oven is regarded as clean. 9:1

KELIM CHAPTER NINE

9 :3

227

asks whether the needle or ring projects and introduces the baking of dough, a much more complicated view of the circumstance. So a needle or a ring which is found in or below the ground of the oven does not invariably leave the oven clean; sometimes it is clean, sometimes not. That seems a complication of a much simpler rule, and I should imagine the more complex view would come after a simple and uncomplicated formulation, as in the refinements by Ushans of Yavnean versions of Houses-disputes ("The Houses did not dispute upon that gross point of law, but on a much finer one.") This is not a decisive considetation. 9:1, furthermore, is interested in a quite separate matter, that is, the needle or ring within the plaster of the oven, or within the plaster stopper of a jar, issues of no consequence to 9:3. Indeed, the issue of 9:lA is curiously irrelevant to 9:lF-N, for, as we observed, 9:lA regards the needle or ring as clean, 9:lF sees it as unclean. The reason 9:lA is relevant to 9:lF is B-the needle or ring is seen but does not project; that is, it is in the plaster joining the oven to the ground and is perceptible, and this then is parallel to F, it is in the plaster of the oven, and I, it is in the stopper ( +N, under its plaster). In all, 9:3 looks to be the simpler formulation of the principle, which, in 9:1, is spelled out in complex situations. But that cannot be thought conclusively to demonstrate 9:3 comes before and generates 9:1. Much more interesting: 9:3 is neutral so far as the effects of the tightly-stopped-up cover in preventing uncleanness from affecting metal objects. D does not require the inclusion of that issue, while it is central in 9:1. So 9:3 may accord with 10:1, but 9:1 cannot accord with 10:1. It may be that this is how matters will have been formulated by the authority behind, or in agreement with, 10:1 and the House of Shammai, while 9:1 is, as we observed, certainly in accord with the House of Hillel "before their reversion." Perhaps two antecedent bodies of materials have been combined, and these materials will have dealt with a common set of issues-that is, materials deriving from the Houses before their traditions were revised and made into a single corpus of bifurcated laws, laid out in accord with a common agendum and then decided by the respective opinions. A. An insect which was found in the ashes of the oven below the bottom of the oven is clean, because there is something on which to blame it. B. [As ,to] a needle or a ring which were found in the ashes of the oven below the bottom of the oven,

228

KELIM CHAPTER NINE

9:3-4

C. (the oven is] unclean, because there is nothing on which to blame it. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 7 :2A (Tos. Reng. p. 27, ls. 7-11)

M. 9:3C completes A, "for I say... " Now the insect is excluded from M. 9:3G-an important clarification of a point which M. 9:3A left open. Then Tos. ignores M. 9:3D-F, and gives M. 9:3G. The "below ... oven," italicized, of B is impossible, for it combines M. 9:3D with M. 9:3G. 9:4 A. [ As to the case of] a sponge which absorbed unclean liquids and was dried on the outside and (then] fell into the airspace of the ovenB. [the oven is] unclean [even though it has not been heated], C. for liquid eventually exudes [ and therefore is regarded as if it has already exuded]. D. And so a piece of turnip or reed-grass. E. But R. Simeon declares clean in [ the case of] these two. M. Kel. 9:4

The formulary pattern of 9:3 continues, but not with a negative, rather than an affirmative, ruling: why is the item going to be unclean? In A, the sponge is assumed not to be entirely dry, therefore the unclean liquid will eventually affect the oven. The little gloss of D adds to a sponge other things which absorb liquid. Simeon then says these can be completely dried, though a sponge cannot. A. A wick which is full of unclean liquids ( on the inside] and dried up on the outside [surface] and fell into the airspace of the ovenB. when it [the oven] is heated, [the oven is] unclean. C. When not heated, it [the oven] is clean. D. But a sponge in either case [whether or not itand the jar. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 7:9 (Tos. Reng. p. 28, ls. 22-3, p. 29, ls. 1-4) P. R. Yose b. R. Judah says, "It does not afford protection for what is in the jar until it will have been plastered [together] with the lip [of the jar]." Tos. Kel. B.Q. 7:l0B (Tos. Reng. p. 29, ls. 7-8)

The issue of M. 10:5 now is shown to be part of a larger dispute about the principle of where the tightly stopped-up cover must be located. Judah says it cannot be inside, but only at the top; the sages hold the opposite view. Now we see that M. Kel. 10:6A-B follow the opinion of the sages of Tos. Kel. B.Q. 7:8D-F, and M. Kel. 10:5A+C-D correspond to Tos. Kel. B.Q. 7:8G. So Mishnah here preserves one example of the dispute, ignores Tos.'s more generalized formulation of the principle, then gives still another instance only from the viewpoint of the sages. It is difficult to suppose M. has not included Judah's opinion pertinent to M. 10:6; it seems more likely that the redactor regarded a single instance of Judah's view as sufficient. Then in M. we do not have an essay on Judah's opinion. HD explains K: The utensils are in the plaster which runs down over them. Judah says there can be no tightly stopped-up cover on the inside of the basket, so the vessels inside the stopper are not afforded protection. Alternatively, the basket is not regarded as a utensil at all, so it cannot afford protection, even when sealed. N's it refers to the basket of K. One has to supply Judah's opinion that there is no protection. Lieberman calls attention to Maimonides, Corpse Uncleanness 22:2, "If an earthenware vessel is half filled with mud, this does not annul its properties, and if other vessels are sunk into the mud, the earthenware vessel still affords them protection against uncleanness." According to Maimonides, then, K speaks of a clay, not a wooden, vessel. See Lieberman, TR III, 27. Lieberman further explains N-O: the basket is wider than the jar, and the mouth of the jar enters into the basket. Therefore the basket does not form a tightly stopped-up cover for the jar, which rests not on the mouth but on the sides of the basket; but the jar is made

256

KELIM CHAPTER TIN

10:5-6

into a tightly stopped up cover for the basket, for it covers up its mouth (TR III, pp. 27-28). In P, Yose differs with N and says the jar is unclean; since its sides are within the basket, until the jar is plastered with the basket so that the lips of the basket are on top of and joined with the lips of the jar, it will not afford protection (Lieberman TR III, p. 28). 10:6 A. [In the case of] a jar which was perforated, and which the wine-lees, have stopped up--B. they have protected :it. C. [If] one stopped it up with the wineshoot, D. [,it affords protection only] after (cD S) one will have plastered [tit] from the sides. E. [If] they were two, F. [they afford protection only] after (CD S) one will have plastered [ them both J from the sides and between one wineshoot and its fellow. G. [ As to J a board which is placed over the mouth of the ovenH. if one plastered [it on to the oven] from the sides, I. it has afforded protection. J. [If] they were two [boards], [they afford protection only] (CD S) after one will have plastered [both] from the sides, and between one board and its fellow. K. [If] one made [for] them pegs or joints, [Danby: "If they were fastened together with pegs or jo:nts"J, L. one does not have to plaster [them] from the middle. M. Kel. 10:6 (b. B.Q. 105a; M. Ed. 4:6)

Even though, in A, the tightly stopped-up cover is within, not on top of, the jar, it affords protection; therefore the sages of 10:5 are behind the present ruling. A-B have little to do with what will follow, which concerns the issues of 10 :4, fully stopping up the holes within the protective substances, as well as between the protection and the pot. C however depends upon A for J:IBYT. The principle governing the remaining rules is then repeated; D says the wineshoot has to be plastered at the sides, and F requires in the case of two that plastering be placed between the shoots as well. G speaks of a flat board, which is not susceptible to uncleanness. It has to be plastered at the sides. In the case of two boards which are not joined, plaster is placed at the side and in the middle; but if the boards are joined, plaster is not required in the middle. All of this is very obvious, repeating 10:4's and 10:5's rules. The formulary pattern is a mixture of both clauses which set the

KELIM CHAPTER TEN

10 :6-7

257

context and completed sentences. A-B follow the former pattern, E-L the latter. en S requires the secondary interpolation of the operative verb, afford protection. 10:7 A. [As to} an old [afoeady fired} oven [which is} in the mvdst of the new [ unfired, insusceptibleone), and a colander [is) over the mouth of the old [so K, P, PB, M, V C; N: new]B. [Lif}one removed the old and the colander falls, C. the whole is unclean. D. And if not, the whole is clean. E. A new [ ovenJ in the midst of the old one, and a colander is over the mouth of the oldF. ~f there is not between [K lacks BYN] the new one and the colander [ a space of] one handbreadth, all which is in the new [oven] is dean [ since it is protected by the colanderJ. M. Kel. 10:7

A should end with new, not old, for if the colander is not over the mouth of the outer oven, in this case the new one, then the reference of C to "the whole" is absurd. We can only be speaking about the inner oven, subject to the protection of the colander. Therefore the MSS tradition of K, P, etc., has to be rejected. E confirms this, for it now has the old oven on the outside, the new one on the inside, and the colander rightly is now set over the mouth of the old. The case of A involves an old oven set inside a new one. The new has not yet been heated and is not subject to uncleanness. The colander is placed over the mouth of the outer, new and clean oven. It forms a tent over both the ovens. The whole set is in the tent of a corpse; the colander has not been tightly sealed over the new oven. But since it forms a tent itself, it may afford protection. (Rosh says the colander has to be tightly sealed on to the new oven to afford protection. But, he admits, then what difference the handbreadth makes in F is unclear. He nonetheless rejects Sens's explanation, followed here.) Then we have to determine on which oven the colander is resting. We shall know that it is resting on the old because it falls when the old is removed. Then the whole will be unclean. Why? Because the new oven is not yet a vessel and cannot afford protection as a tent over what is in its midst. After all, its mouth is open and not covered by the colander. The old oven is a utensil. But it cannot afford protection because its cover is not tightly stopped up by the colander. A utensil affords protection only when tightly stopped up. 17

258

KELIM CHAPTER

TEN

10:7-8

If, on the other hand, the colander were to rest on the new oven, then the whole set will be clean, for the new oven is covered by the colander and affords protection even for the old one which is inside it. The reason is that the new oven now forms a tent, even though it is not covered with a tightly-stopped up cover, and a tent affords protection in a tent of a corpse. E-F turn matters around. We have the new oven inside the old one, and the colander covers the mouth of the old. We do not ask on which oven the colander is resting (B). The issue now is, Is the colander a tent over the new oven? The answer depends on how much space is between the new oven and the colander. We therefore assume that the colander rests on the old oven, that is, the outer one. Now if the space between the colander and the new, inside, oven is no more than a handbreadth, everything in the new oven is clean. Why? Because we regard the colander as if it were placed over the mouth of the new oven, which then affords protection as a tent, just as before. The old, outer oven is, to be sure, unclean, for it has no tightly-affixed cover (TYY). The two problems are not exactly parallel, because of the failure of D-E to reproduce B. The cases differ. In the first, the colander is dependent on the inner oven to make the whole dean; the outer is clean by definition. In the second, the colander depends on the inner oven only because of the limited space between the colander and the inner oven, not because it actually rests on it. So E-F give us a new rule, which could have applied to A-D: the colander does not have actually to rest upon the inner oven after all, but merely has to be sufficiently close so that a negligible space separates it from the inner oven to which it is to afford protection. 10:8 A. Saucepans [ of clay}B. this one [is} in the midst of thisC. and their lips [are} equai [ in height JD. the insect is in the uipper one or in the bottom one-E. that one [in which the insect is found, bottom or top} 1s unclean, and all [the rest} of them are clean. [Maimonides, Kelim 13:10: "For the creeping thing did not enter the contained space of the uppermost, and the rim of the lowest does not exceed the others in height so as to convey the uncleanness to all foodstuff or to Liquid in its midst."} F. [If} they were [so damaged that} liquids could penetrate (BKWNS MSQH):

KELIM CHAPTER TEN 10:8

259

G. H. I.

[if} the insect is in the top oneal:1[the rest] of them are unclean. In the bottom oneJ. it is unclean, and all [the restJ of them are clean. K. [If] the insect is. in the top one, and the bottom one exceeds [ the others in height JL. it and the bottom one are unclean. M. [If it is] in the top one, and the bottom one exceeds [the others in height JN. each one in which there is moist liquid is unclean. [Maimonides: "For the liquid contracts uncleanness from the contained space of the lowest which overtops the others ... "]

M. Kel. 10:8: Bertinoro explains that the primary principle before us concerns the effects of the 'inside' of the utensil. Whatever is within, or inside, the utensil is unclean, but not what is inside the inside of the utensil. The insect in the upper saucepan of A-E is inside the inside of the group. If it is in the lowest saucepan, the same applies. The complication comes with the change in the status of the saucepans in F. Now they are still subject to uncleanness-the perforation is not sufficiently large to render them clean-but, having a perforation, they no longer are going to function as ordinary saucepans in affording protection as do those in A-E. They fall into an in-between status, subject to uncleanness but not capable of affording protection from uncleanness. Being perforated, they will convey uncleanness to one another. Then the last group of rules, K-N, returns us to a whole, unperforated set of saucepans; the issue now is a variation of the inside vs. the inside-the-inside set. M and K set up the same situation but for different purposes. While matters are phrased as though we are given new laws, in fact not a single principle before us is unfamiliar. What we have is a problem to be solved, rather than a law to be expounded. This is a classic example of a pericope formed through uncompleted phrases, each providing an element in the statement of the problem, but all of them together not completing a single sentence. In fact we do not have a single smooth sentence in the entire pericope. But that does not mean matters are unclear; on the contrary, the situation is stated with precision, the problem with clarity. Now to review the laws: the point of the first problem, A-D, is that the rims are equal, so one does not exceed the rest and form a large, encompassing airspace. If the insect is in the top or bottom

260

KELIM CHAPTER TEN

10 :8

saucepan in the pyramid, only that one is unclean. The rest are clean. A vessel does not contract uncleanness through the airspace of another vessel. Whatever is in the saucepans is clean, for the insides of the vessels do not convey uncleanness (Slotki, p. 55, n. 12). F-J then have a new pyramid, this time interconnected, for the pans are damaged, and liquids can move from one to the next. G has the insect in the top pan. All are unclean. But if, as in I, it is in the bottom pan, all are clean except that one. Why is this so? Because the saucepan of G still is a valid vessel; the hole does not allow olives to drop through. But in relation to the other saucepans, it is not a vessel to afford protection and prevent the uncleanness from spreading, because the small hole deprives the saucepan of the status of the vessel (= "midst of a midst"). It cannot prevent the spread of the uncleanness; it no longer forms an inside-of-an-inside. The reason for I-J is the same as before; the airspace will not convey uncleanness to the airspace of an earthen vessel. K-N deal with a new situation, returning to A. The height of the several, now unbroken, saucepans is unequal. The bottom one has the highest sides. L then says both the uppermost and the lowermost saucepans are unclean. The uppermost one has the insect in it. The lowest one projects above it, so it forms a vessel containing the uppermost pan, therefore is subject to the uncleanness in the uppermost pan. That is, the uppermost is inside the bottom one. But the intervening saucepans are clean because a vessel does not contract uncleanness from the airspace of an earthen vessel. Then M repeats the exact condition of K. The intervening ones are assumed to be sound, not perforated. Any pan with liquid is unclean, for the liquid does contract uncleanness from the lowest saucepan. Albeck stresses (p. 519) that the issues of K-N do not concern the contact of liquids with an unclean utensil but uncleanness deriving from the "inside" and cleanness effected by the "inside of the inside" of the specified utensils. The legal principles before us have already been stated; in 8:4 we have ( 1) "For a clay utensil [ = airspace here} does not make a [clay} utensil unclean." 8 :4 also explains M-N; ( 2) the liquid does become unclean from the airspace. 4 :4 has told us ( 3) that a clay utensil with three lips, of which the outermost is highest, will be unclean if uncleanness is in the outermost one or inward from it. 8:2 has said (4) a vessel perforated to admit liquid will not afford protection. 3 :2 has laid down ( 5) that the size of a perforation to

KELIM CHAPTER

TEN

10:8

261

render a saucepan clean is an olive's bulk. So what we learn in F is chat they are not clean, which we knew, but they also are not regarded as utensils in respect to other utensils, which is to be readily surmised. The utensils inside are not "inside an inner part" and are therefore not afforded protection. This little conundrum is a fitting conclusion to our study of clay utensils, summarizing as it does so many fundamental rules.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN The chapter before us not only introduces a new set of materials, metals and the principles governing them, but presents them in a quite different mode from the foregoing. The new formulation consists primarily in lists of objects and declarations as to their cleanness or uncleanness. These objects in general will be exceptions to, or at least anomalies in, the generalizations with which the chapter opens. The form is as simple as the content: lists of objects, followed by the "clean" or "unclean." The highly Talmudic legal conundrums set in the antecedent two chapters are remote in spirit and in formulary pattern from the present laws, which require no tight reasoning and little close analysis. We have to go back to 2:1 for a similar situation, and indeed when we do, we find an exactly parallel law, followed by 2 :3-8, "the clean objects among clay utensils, the unclean objects among clay utensils" and various specific items with the assignment of their status. Thus 2 :2 seems inserted because of its formal appropriateness: 2:1: KLY J:IRS; 2:2: HDQYN sBKLY J:IRS; 2:3: HTHWRYN sBKLY J:IRS... 2:7: HTM"YN sBKLY J:IRS... The opening of a large unit of Mishnaic law in Kelim may be expected to deal with major generalizations followed by the specification of rulings on anomalies, and only much later, when the basic rules have been established, do we face the rather complex situations created in the application of several of these rules to a given problem. For clay utensils, the more difficult rules begin at 5:11-6:4, then come in full force from 8:1 through the end of 10:8-the point at which the rules of clay utensils are brought into relationship with the laws of the tent of the corpse. That little tractate therefore produces complexity by combining two sets of separate, but closely related, principles. 11:1 A. Metal utensils: B. [Both} their flat [part}s [Or: when they are flat} (PSWTYHN) and their receptacles [ or: when they are formed as receptacles} (MQBLYHN) are unclean. C. [If} they have been broken, they have been purified (NSBRW THRW).

KELIM

CHAPTER

ELIVEN

11 : 1

263

D. [If] one went and made (I:IZR wcsH) of them [new} vessels [out of the sherds of the oLd, unclean ones which have been broken], they have returned (I:IZRW) to their former uncleanness. E. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "[They have returned} not to every uncleanness, brut [ only J to the uncleanness of the soul ('fWlvPT HNPS). [which is deceased, that is, to the severe corpseunc:le:inness. Lesser uncleanness docs not recur.}" IvL Kel. 11: 1 (b. Shab. 15a: Sir re Zutt:i Ma~tot, p. 330; b. A. Z. 52a; M. Bes. 2:9; b. Hul I 2$a)

The chapter begins with the formulaic pattern of 2 :1: Subject, then reference to objects made of that material when flat, then when formed into a receptacle, and finally, the rule on purification. The issue of the status of new vessels made of the remnants of old ones is introduced at the end, a complete and comprehensive account. Ideally, this is all that is needed. Metal vessels, then, are subject to uncleanness both when flat and when made into receptacles, unlike wooden, leather, bone, and glass ones (2:1), of which only the receptacles are dechred subject to uncleanness. However large, metal utensils are s11sceptible, unlike wooden and other ones (15:1). The issue of E is clear: if metal vessels are made unclean, then broken, they are purified. But what if one then makes new utensils of the broken, formerly unclean old ones? The new ones are unclean as were the old, unlike the rule for clay utensils. Simeon b. Gamaliel differs. His saying occurs not as a dispute but as a gloss: only corpseuncleanness will continue to contaminate the vessel, but any other uncleanness vanishes when the Yessel is broken. Mislmah Alparonah contributes an important clarification to C. He asks, why should a flat metal object be purified when broken? Its sherd still is a flat utensil. He says if the objects to begin with were made as fLi.t utensils, they indeed are regarded as utensils; a flat utensil is subject to uncleanness if it is in the form of some useful utensil. It must have a particular purpose, a "name unto itself" as in 11 :2. So the sherd is excluded, since it was not to begin with made m its present condition. The formulation of the pericope is tight. A's introductory clause serves the whole. Each of the follm.ving sentences produces either a clear-cut rhyme or a rhythm, composed of exactly corresponding numbers of syllables, e.g., 13. Peshutehen

~ahorin U mcqabbelehen tcme)in

264

KELIM CHAPTER

C.

ELEVEN

11 :1

Nishbaru Taharu

D introduces each of its clauses with I;IZR. Simeon's gloss takes D for granted and then revises it. The origin of the decree of uncleanness for metal utensils 1s variously traced to biblical times and to Simeon b. Sheta]:i, as in b. Shab. 16b: 'Simeon b. Shetal;i instituted a woman's marriage settlement and imposed undea.nne&s upon metal utensils.' But [the uncleanness of] metal utensils tis BibEcal, for it is written, howbeit the gold, and the silver [ ... etc]? (Num. 31:22)-This [Rabbinical law] was necessary only in respect of former uncleanness. For Rav Judah said tin Rav's name: It once happened that Queen Shalsion made a banquet for her son, and atl her utensils were defiled. Thereupon slre broke them and gave them to the goldsmith, who melted them down and manufactured new utensils of them. But the Sages declared, They revert to their previous uncleanness. What is the reason ?-They were concerned there to prov.ide a fence against the water of separahion. A. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says, "Not to all uncleanness, [ does :it return J, but to the uncleanness of the soul { = corpsew1deannessJ.'' B. R. Simeon says, "Even a metal utensil which was unclean for the self same day (tevul yom) returns to the status of uncleanness for the selfsame day." C. He who makes utensils from the anchor (CQL) which is used to weigh down the ship, or from the large utensil which one made to escape the taxes (LGNWB BW ,T HMKS)D. R. Meir declares unclean. E. And sages declare dean. F. R. Yose says, "He who makes utensils from the scraps (Q?Y$WT)-they are unclean." G. R. Yo};lananb. Nuri says, "He who makes utensils from filings (HGRWDWT)-they are unclean." Tos. Kel. B.M. 1: 1 (Tos. Reng. p. 32, ls. 1-10)

A-B present as a dispute between Simeon b. Gamaliel and Simeon what M. 11 :1D-E know as a dispute between Simeon b. Gamaliel and the anonymous authority of D. A before us gives Simeon's opinion exactly as in M. 11 :lE. But here Simeon's saying, B, is constructed as a response to A. Since Simeon b. Gamaliel says the reversion to uncleanness comes only in the case of the most severe uncleanness, Simeon in B says the reversion is even to the least severe form, in which the object is clean, but still must await sunset for the completion of the process of purification. That is in substance the meaning of

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN 11 : 1-2

265

M. Kel. 11 :lD, but 11 :1D is formulated in the context of its own pericope and bears no formulary relationship to Simeon's saying before us. So we have no reason to posit Simeon as the authority behind M. 11 :1D; we know for certain only that he concurs in that rule. The issue of C corresponds to M. 11 :3A. The anchor is simply a large piece of heavy iron; the "large utensil" comes from pig-iron or from iron ore. The issue, Lieberman explains (TR III, p. 31) is not whether these items come from old, possibly unclean utensils. They do not. Therefore the sages declare these items clean. Meir says they may come from old metal utensils, therefore will be susceptible to uncleanness. Lieberman observes that the issue is parallel to the one debated by the Houses in 11 :3F-H. F and G likewise correspond to M. 11 :3. F has Yose hold utensils from scraps are unclean; in M. 11 :3C YoI:ianan b. Nuri declares them clean. Tos. G's Yol:ianan b. Nuri says utensils made from metal filings are unclean. M. 11 :3Al0 says they are clean, this as anonymous law. So M. and Tos. simply have opposed traditions on the same subject. 11:2 A. Every utensil of metal which has a name of its own [ and is not merely part of another utensil} is unclean, B. except for 1. the door, 2. and for the bolt, 3. and for the lock, 4. and the hinge-socket, 5. and the hinge, 6. and the clapper, 7. aOJdthe threshold groove (~YNWR), C. which are made [to be joined] to the ground [and are insusceptible even before they are ultimately joined to the ground]. M. Kel. 11:2 (M. Hag. 3:8, re metal plating)

Qualifying 11 :1 in an important way, 11 :2 now continues to set forth the basic rules governing the uncleanness of metal vessels. Mishnah A/paronah points out that a metal utensil shaped like a receptacle will be subject to uncleanness even if it does not have a name of its own, that is, even if it is part of some other object. The items in B, however, are all flat. The exceptions among flat metal utensils are items which will be attached to the ground, and what is attached to the ground is insusceptible to uncleanness just as the earth itself is insusceptible. What is destined to come about is regarded

266

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11:2-3

as already having happened, so far as cleanness is concerned (as above, "for liquids ultimately exude"). These items are excluded for that reason; it would have been better to say, "except what is made [to be joined] to the ground," and a far longer list would have been possible. In Tos. we have more such items, to which, however, C is irrelevant. Our list is limited to flat metal parts of the house, as specified by C. Maimonides Kelim 9:1 gives the rule as follows: "All metal utensils which have a name in their own right are susceptible to uncleanness, except a door [ etc.J, for since [1 J these are made to be joined to the ground or [ 2 J to serve the need of the wooden part, they are not susceptible to uncleanness, even before they are fixed in their place. "And any metal utensil which has a second name appended to it is not susceptible to uncleanness in itself, because it is but part of some other utensil. Thus, the scorpion bit of a bridle is susceptible to uncleanness but the cheekpieces on either side of the beast's jaws are clean and are not in themselves susceptible to uncleanness, since they have not a name in their own right; but while they are joined together, the whole is susceptible to uncleanness." 11:3 A. He who makes utensils from ( 1) the iron ore, or from ( 2) the [smelted] pig-iron, or from (3) the [iron] hoop of a wheel, or from (4) sheet-metal, or from (5) plating, or from (6) the bases of [other] utensils, or from (7) rims of [other] utensils, or from (8) the hand1es of [other] utensils, or from (9) the chippings (S}:ILT) or from (10) the filings (GRDT)B. [the objects made from these metals] a.re clean. C. R. Yol;tanan b. Nuri says, "Also from the shattered [iron] (Q~$T)." D. [He who makes utensils] from ( 1) sherds of utensils [ = 11 :'1], from (2) refuse (GRW'fYM), or from (3) nails known to have been made from other utensilsE. [the objects maide from these metals] are unclean. F. From nails [ not known to have been made from other utensils JG. The House of Shammai declare unclean. H. And the House of Hillel declare clean. M. Kel. 11:3

The principle before us is that these are clean because they are unformed metals (M. 14:5) or metal utensils without a name of their own; work on these items is incomplete, therefore they are

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN

11 :3

267

insusceptible (so Maimonides and TYY; but Albeck, p. 519, rejects this view). The formulation of A is awkward, for it uses the active verb, "he who makes," but then the predicate, B, refers not to the subject, "he," but to the objects of "from." A-B therefore do not make up a complete sentence, though the meaning is clear. What these items have in common, Albeck explains, is that there is no reason to suppose they come from unclean utensils, for they are not items which are distinct or have "names of their own." Accordihgly, 11 :3 continues the logical progression begun in 11: 1. First we are told the general rule, then how the rule applies to metal utensils, finally, how the rule will not apply to items not conforming to the generalization of 11 :2. The point is that items made from the materials in A have never been subject to uncleanness, or come from metal parts which never have been separate and distinct utensils on their own but only from part of other utensils (hoops, bases, rims). Y ol].ananin C glosses the antecedent list. D further clarifies matters, but its clarification is redundant. We already know that what comes from pieces of unclean utensils is subject to uncleanness, for they revert to their former uncleanness. D therefore repeats 11 :lC. In that case, 11 :3A likewise should be regarded as a separate and independent formulation of the general and smooth rule in 11 :1-the rule of 11 :1 forming a complete sentence, that of 11 :3 being made up of autonomous clauses. This surmise is supported by F-H. Here we have a dispute between the Houses about objects made from nails. We are not told what kind of nails-whether or not they are those made from other utensils-and so have to understand the dispute to concern any sort of nails. F-H readily produce a simple sentence: Objects made from nails are unclean/clean. D will then come afterward and make distinctions concerning the issue settled by F-H. In a different formulation, we should have after F-H, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning nails known to have been made from other utensils, that they are unclean [ that is, in accord with the opinion of the House of Shammai in the present dispute.} Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning nails not known to have been made from other utensils, for the House of Shammai declare unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean." Tos. gives us another such formulation, with its own, much better logic. In fact every commentator rightly interprets F as concerning nails not known to have been made from other utensils. But it would

268

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN

11 :3

seem more likely that the original dispute pertained to all nails, and D's formulation of matters either comes after the Houses' dispute or was developed without knowledge of it. Then, when D3 and F-H were redacted in a single pericope, it became obvious to commentators that the dispute introduced by F concerned only that sort of nail not excluded at the outset by D3. The original dispute of the Houses then will have had to concern whether a nail is regarded as a utensil unto itself, and the House of Shammai will have regarded it as originally an autonomous utensil, the House of Hillel will have seen it as simply a piece of unformed metal, without a particular designation. Only after the House of Hillel will have gone over to the theory of the House of Shammai was it possible to dispute about a particular kind of nail. Then the House of Hillel will have held that nails never part of a utensil still constitute an object never designated under "its own name"-so their principle remains the same, only is applied to a more limited category. The House of Shammai remain firm in their principle, and D3 follows their theory. Tos. Kel. B.M. 1 :8C-D involves the problem of nails along these same lines. I see no pattern thus far in the number of items included in a list, whether seven, or ten, or eleven (C), or three. Since there is no pattern, it stands to reason that these items are listed because they are the only ones present in the original lists behind the pericope. Maimonides, Kelim 8:2, summarizes the law as follows: "And these are deemed to be unfinished metal utensils: any that still need to be polished, decorated, or incised, or painted, or hammered out, or that lack a handle or a rim; none of these is susceptible to uncleanness until it has been completed and put in order so that it lacks no process at all ... "Therefore if a man makes utensils out of raw iron or smelted metal or the hoop of a wheel or sheet metal or metal plating, or out of the bottoms of vessels or the rims of vessels or the handles of vessels, or from metal chips or filings, none of these is susceptible to uncleanness, since the things made are but unfinished metal objects. But if a man makes a utensil from the broken pieces of other metal utensils or from utensils which have worn away through length of time, or from nails which are known to be made from other utensils, these are susceptible to uncleanness, since they are not unfinished utensils ... " The present rule takes for granted that the rims, handles, and bases

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN

11 :3

269

of metal utensils are not regarded as utensils unto themselves ("The name utensil does not apply to them"). M. 2 5 :6 says that the bases, rims, ears, and handles of utensils which can contain something, on which liquids fell, may be dried off and then are regarded as dean and are insusceptible. Similarly, a utensil whose outer parts have been made unclean by liquids will have a clean inside, a clean rim, a clean ear, and clean handles. But if the inside is made unclean, the whole of course is unclean. So these parts of the utensil are subject to the uncleanness of the utensil as a whole. Albeck therefore wonders (p. 519), why do we not ask whether the listed parts have come from an unclean utensil. Will they then not be unclean because of the uncleanness of the utensil from which they come? Or, to put it otherwise, 11 :3 seems to conflict with 25 :6 on its view of the rims, handles, ears, and bases and to recognize them as distinct elements, as against the view of 2 5 :6 that they are not contaminable parts of the utensil at all. Albeck's solution is that these parts do not return to their former uncleanness, once broken off. But that seems facile indeed. Mishnah Alparonah has a not much better solution: These particular rims, handles, and so on were not to begin with attached to a utensil, so will not ever have been subject to the uncleanness taken for granted in 25 :6. Or they were attached to metal utensils which were not subject to uncleanness ( the same thing). A. SaJid R. Eleazar b. R. Yose [or: b. R. Sadoq], "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning nails which are known to have been made from vessels, that they are unclean. B. "Or concerning nails which are known not to have been made from utensils, they they are clean. C. "Concerning what did they dispute? D. "Concerning the ordinary [nails] (HSTM), for E. "The House of ShammaJideclare unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean." Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:2 (Tos. Reng. p. 32, ls. 11-15)

Eleazar's version places the Houses' dispute in the middle of three possibilities. Nails known to have been made from utensils already subject to uncleanness certainly are subject to uncleanness. Nails known not to have been made from such utensils certainly are clean. What about nails concerning the origin of which we are not sure? That now is the Houses' problem. The Shammaites assign them to the more stringent, the Hillelites to the more lenient, category. M. 11 :3D3 has given us nails known to have been made from utensils,

270

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN 11 :3-4

leaving those known not to have been made from utensils-on which there now can be no dispute--as well as those about which we have no knowledge. The rest follows. Eleazar presumably provides us with a late Ushan attestation for the Houses' dispute. 11:4 A. [ As to J unclean iron [ = known to come from an old, unclean metal utensil] which one smelted (BLL) with clean iron[Danby: "If iron from an unclean article was smelted together with dean iron"] B. if the greater part [was] from the unclean [iron], it [the article made from the combined metalsJ is unclean. C. And ,if the greater part [ wasJ from the clean, it iis clean. D. Half and half.--,it is unclean. E. And so [a utensil marde} from cement (I:ILMJ) and from cattle-dung. [If the latter is the greater part, since it is not susceptible to uncleanness, the whole article is insusceptible.J F. A door-bolt (QLSTR)) is unclean. G. And [ one which isJ plated [ wood plated with metal] iis clean. H. The clutch (PYN) and the cross4piece (PRNH) are unclean. I. And the door-bolt (QLSTR))J. R. Jashua says, "One draws ,it off this door and [ dragging, but not car:rying, it] suspends it on another on the Sabbath." [But it is not a valid vessel and may not be carried, and it is not susceptible to uncleanness.J K. R. Tarfon says, "Lo iit is like all utensils [M omits:} and may be can,ied [ in the normal way} iin the courtyard [ and it is susceptible to uncleannes'S}." M. Kel. 11:4 (I-K: b. Shab. 124a, y. Shab. 17:1)

For the presumptive uncleanness of HLM) in E, see Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:4B.

The logical next question is, What about utensils made from mixtures of clean and unclean metals? The obvious answer will be, what is made mostly from unclean metal will be unclean, what is made mostly of clean metal will be clean, and what is made from about half of each is assumed to fall into the former category, for it is not possible to be exact about the matter. The formulation is not in phrases, but in syntactically closely related clauses which form a complete and smooth sentence. E adds a valuable gloss, combinations of unclean with clean substances follow the rule of B-D. F introduces a door-bolt, and this carries in its wake I-J, which are not relevant to the present tractate. Yet we can show a relationship.

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :4

271

F tells us the door-bolt is unclean. It therefore is regarded as a utensil unto itself, following the rule of 11 :2A: it has its own name. But since it is part of the door, it might be regarded otherwise, therefore as clean. It is not a utensil in its own right. The theory of F, therefore, is that while other parts of a door will be clean, because they are destined to be attached to the ground, the door-bolt is not in that category. I-K present a debate on the same issue, only this time with reference not to cleanness but to the Sabbath. Tarfon holds the doorbolt is like all ordinary utensils, therefore he stands behind the theory of F, that it is a normal, autonomous utensil. Joshua says it cannot be carried because it is not a valid, autonomous vessel. He will not agree with F. This surmise may not be correct (Sens offers an alternative), but it is certain that the issue of F and I-K is not merely the presence of an allusion to the same item, but probably also the definition of the determinative traits of the door-bolt. It goes without saying that I-K follow the dispute-form, which otherwise has not come to our attention in the present section of our tractate. The rest of the pericope, however-that is, the part concerning Kelim-is given not as a dispute but as a collection of simple declarative sentences or lists leading to such sentences. The further important point in our present chapter is that a wooden object plates with metal is regarded as subject to the rules governing wooden, not metal, objects. This comes solely in G; it has not been hinted at before, but now will recur with some regularity, though never in the form of a generalization (note M. Hag. 3:8). The object is not subject to uncleanness unless it itself is directly utilized; here the object is covered, so is not utilized except through the intermediary of the plating. It will therefore not be subject to the uncleanness pertaining to metals. Maimonides says it is entirely insusceptible, a view rejected by Rosh, Rabad, and MS, but accepted by TYB. Tos. gives us the same rule in casuistic form. A. He who makes utensils from the filings (GRW'PWT), whether from the Land [ of Israel J or from foreign land-they are undlean. B. R. Judah says, "He who makes utensils from the filings from foreign territory-they are clean." C. Gean utensils which one glazed (>NK) w,ith an unclean glaze are clean. [the He who makes utensils from the unclean glaze eNK)utensilsJ are unclean. D. A spade which one made from the unclean [utensil], [with] (and) its adze [made] from the clean [utensil] is clean.

272

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN 11 :4

[If} one made it from the clean [utensil} and its adze from the unclean, it is unclean. E. Everything follows after [the part of the object which actually} does the work (cWsH MUKH). F. [If} one made :it from the clean [utensH}, even though it is covered (MI:ISWMYTW) [with metal} from the unclean, it is clean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:3 (To,. Reng. p. 32, ls. 1-19, p. 33, ls. 1-5)

The point of C is that if the primary work is through the glaze, the vessel is unclean, thus illustrating E. The rest is clear as given: the primary criterion is the make-up of the part of the tool which does the work. F poses a problem, for the metal covering also is the cutting edge, which does the work (Lieberman, TR III, p. 33). A. A ladle [for drawing wine} (QYTWN) which one made from the unclean [utensil}, and its bottom from the clean, is clean. [If} one malde it from the clean and its bottom from the unclean, it is unclean. Everything follows after the receptacle (HMQBL). B. "A hiv,e (KWWRT; Better: KYWRT-laver) which one made from the cement (I:ILM0 ), and its bottom from the dung, iis clean. [If} he made ,it from the dung anid its bottom from the cement (I:ILM0 ), it is unclean. Everything follows after the bottom," the words of R. Nathan. C. Rabbi says, "Only if its bottom is a receptacle." Tos. Kel. B.M. 1 :4 (Tos. Reng. p. 33, ls. 6-11) 1

The foregoing rule, that we use as our criterion the part of the object which carries out the primary function of the object as a whole, now is carried forward. It is the bottom which holds the wine. Then Rabbi's qualification underlines the principle: only if the bottom is going to serve to contain the fluid will the bottom be the decisive criterion. M. Kel. 11 :4A-E depend upon the simple and formal matter of the quantity of the clean as against the unclean substance, without regard to the use of the one or the other in the object itself. In this matter Tos. represents a considerably more sophisticated version of the law, the Mishnah a gross and undifferentiated conception. This relationship is fairly characteristic of the present section. A. [As to} the cement (I:ILM0 ) and the dung which one put together and with which one made utensilsif the greater part is from the unclean [I:ILM 0 } it is unclean.

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :4

273

If the greater part iis from the clean [ dung}, it ,is clean. B. Half anJdha:lfC. R. Eleazar [ben Shammuca, so Lieberman, TR III, p. 34] says, "They burn the Heave-offering on their account, but they are not liable on their account for uncleanness of the Sanctuary and its holy things." D. Saiid R. Yose, "R. Yol)anan b. Nuri came to R. I;Ialafta. He said to him, 'What do you say concerning the metal spinner's coH (PYQH) ?' "He said to him, 'Unclean.' "He saiidto him, 'So I say thus, but cAqiivadeclares it clean.'" Tos. Kel. B.M. 1: 5 (Tos. Renig. p. 33, ls. 12-18)

Now we have the ba~round of M. 11:4E. In C, however, Eleazar takes an inconsistent position. The object is sufficiently unclean to render Heave-offering unfit, but not so unclean as to affect the sanctuary. That is, he now wishes to introduce degrees of uncleanness, about which M. knows nothing. M. declares the half-and-half mixture unclean ( in the supposition that one can never be sure he has exactly half of each substance, therefore we assume there is slightly more of the unclean) . Eleazar's conception is mostly alien to the present discussion of uncleanness, which in general pays little attention to the various degrees in which, and purposes for which, an object can be unclean. The issue of D is whether the spinner's coil is an object unto itself, or with whether it forms merely part of another object. 11 :6A gives us the matter in cAqiva' s formulation. It must be regarded as a very well attested opinion. The only problem is that M. is very sure cAqiva declares the object unclean, while Tos. is equally certain that he regards it as clean. Against the view that the coil is unclean is the opinion of l:falafta and Yol).anan b. Nuri. Various theories about how M. has come to represent cAqiva's view differently from Tos. may be proposed, but it seems best to conclude simply that there are two separate traditions of cAqiva's opinion on the matter. A. A door-bolt (QLWSTRJ)B. R. Tarfon declares unclean. C. And sages declare clean. D. And Beruria says, "One may remove it from this door and hang it on another on the Sabbath." E. When these things were reported before R. JUJdah [Alt.: Joshua], he said, "Beautifully (YPH) did Beruria rule." Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:6 (Tos. Reng. p. 33, ls. 19-20, p. 34, ls. 1-2) 18

274

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN 11 :4-6

A-C correspond to M. 11 :4F. Tarfon's opinion there occurs anonymously. Joshua in M. Kel. 11 :4J says exactly what Beruria says in D, and Tos. knows nothing about the attribution to Tarfon-a very strange state of affairs. 11:5 A. The scorpion-bit of the bridle is :unclean. And [that] of the cheeks is clean. B. R. Eliezer declares unclean in the case of the cheeks [as well]. C. And sages say, "Unclean as only the scorpion-bit." D. And when they [the cheek-piece and the scorpion-bit] are connected, the whole is unclean. M. Kel. 11:5

A summarizes and gives as a general rule the results of the dispute of B-C. Yet B-C have not been formulated as a normal dispute; rather, they are certainly stated with knowledge of the presence of A, for the subject of the dispute of B-C is not given. It is the scorpionbit. As an independent dispute, we should have: The scorpion-bit of the cheeks: R. E1iezerdeclares unclean.

And sages declare clean. And they agree that the scorpion-bit of the bridle is unclean. The changes made to reach the formulation before us are considerable -C gives the same opinion as A!-but have no affect upon the law. The concluding rule, D, then "compromises" matters in Eliezer's favor. Now the sages concede the cheek-bit may be unclean. Eliezer has conceded nothing, for he has already ruled that the item is always unclean. Bertinoro explains the point of the sages. The cheek-piece serves no purpose, therefore it is a mere ornament, not subject to uncleanness. But then it should never be unclean. Rather, when joined to the cheek-piece, it is necessary to the functioning of the cheek-piece. 11:6 A. A spindle-knob of metalB. R. cAqiva declares unclean. C. And sages declare clean. D. And [if it is] plated [metal on wood, atis} clean. E. (1) The spindle, (2) distaff, (3) rod, ( 4) double-flute (SYMPWNYH), and (5) pipe of metal are unclean. F. And plated [ ones, metal on wood} are clea:n. G. A double-flute, H. if it has a receptacle for the wings [ = bags of the bag-pipe},

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :6

275

in any case (BYN KK WBYN KK) [ whether plated metal on wood or all metal], I. is unclean [ since the wood forms a receptacle and in any case is unclean]. M. Kel. 11:6 (b. Shab. 58b, 63b)

The issue of A-C is whether a spindle-knob has its own name (cAqiva) or is merely part of the flat piece of metal (sages). D affects only cAqiva's position, for obvious reasons. Then the pericope is cAqivan, in its attention to the details of ~Aqiva's interpretation of the law. Maimonides, Kelim 10:13, says it is clean because it only serves the need of the wooden part, that is, it is subsidiary to the wood. E's items are added because of the first one; and F now is necessary, because, as observed, it is not given as a general rule, e.g., in 11 :1 or 2. The point of G-I is that the receptacle of the double-flute ( = bag) is not plated, even though the rest is, therefore the whole is subject to uncleanness. Perhaps this is regarded as the operative element. Apart from the opening dispute, the laws are given as simple declarative sentences and pose no syntactical difficulties. A. A pfated double-flute (SYMPWNYJ) is clean. B. [If] one made on it a receptacle for wings, it is unclean. And uncl.ean is only that part which ser:ves of necessity [ = that is, necessary to the functioning of the utensil]. C. A plated recorder is clean. D. [If] one made on it a receptacle for cups, it is unclean. And unclean is only that part which serves of necessity. E. Its cups are unclean but are not connected to it. F. [If] it:s mouthpiece was of metal, the utensil is connected to the mouthpiece. Tos,. Kel. B.M. 1:7 (Tos. Reng. p. 34, ls. 3-8)

A and C tell us as separate items what M. 11 :6E-F states in the form of a list. That is, the plated objects are clean. Then M. Kel. 11:6H is refined by Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:7B (and, by implication, D). M. says if the double-flute has a receptacle, whether plated or not, it is unclean. Tos. says the same, but adds that we distinguish between the part of the metal-plated double-flute which is essential for the performance of its task and the rest of the double-flute. Only the former part is unclean, a distinction known to Tos. B and D, but utterly unfamiliar to M. M. also knows nothing about the cups. M. Kel. 11 :7B tells us that if a flat horn has a metal mouthpiece, the horn is unclean, presumably because the operative part of the 18•

276

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN

11 :6-7

utensil· ,is'metal. So Tos. is remarkably consistent in its rulings, and M. 'seems to know little of the reason behind those of its rulings which are consistent with Tos. Stating that the utensil is a connected to (I;IBWR L) the mouthpiece is to say that the whole shares the traits of the mouthpiece and is therefore subject to uncleanness. 11:7 A. A curved horn is unclean. And a Hat [one] is clean. B. If its[= the flat horn's] mouthpiece (M~WPYT) is of metal, it is unclean. C. Its wide [metal end] (QB)D. R. Tarfon declares unclean. E. And sages declare clean. F. And when they are joined, the whole is unclean [ = M. 12:2, Tos. Kel. B.M. l:7FJ. G. [M lacks G-H.] Similarly: H. The branches of a candlestick are clean. The cup an'd the base are unclean. And when they are connected, the whole is unclean. M. Kel. 11:7

We momentarily turn our attention (A-B) to a utensil made of bone, the horn. 2: 1 ( = M. 15 :1) has already told us that a flat bone utensil is clean, while a bone utensil in the form of a receptacle is unclean. So A tells us what we know. But the pericope is important for the problem of metal because of B-F. The mouthpiece, even though of a flat horn, is subject to uncleanness, because it is of metal; it is regarded as an object which has its own name. It is the operative element and a 'connector' as above. Then comes the dispute of C-E. If the wide end is made of metal, Tarf on holds it is unclean. The position of the sages is that it is not an autonomous item. F brings the sages over to the position of the Tarfon. H formulates the parallel problem from the viewpoint of the sages. Presumably Tarfon might find a reason to declare the branches unclean. Alternatively, in this case he would agree the objects are not separate; but then the concluding rule is pointless. Therefore the stronger likelihood is that Tarfon would disagree in the case of H. A. A trumpet made of parts (H~W~RT SL PRQYM), lo, this [ whole thing, when joined together] is unclean. B. [If] it is taken aipart, the upper part is unclean, and the lower part is clean. C. The na11 (MSMYR) with which one removes the wick and the tongs with which one crushes (MMcYK) the wick are unclean. The

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :7-8

277

nail with which one raises up and pushes down the branch (QNl:l) for the base is unclean. D. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel declares clean. E. If one made ,it with tin or with lead (QYSTRWN), 1t ts a connector for uncleanness and for sprinkling. If one nailed it on, it is a connector for uncleanness but not for sprinkling. If one takes it and puts it back, it is a connector neither for uncleanness nor for sprinkling. Tos. Kd. B.M. 1:8A (Tos. Rcng. p. 34, ls. 9-16)

The issue of A-B is parallel to M. Kel. 11 :7A-F. But now we start with F: when the whole is joined together, it is unclean. Then, when we take it apart, the upper part is unclean, the lower is clean, presumably because it is the upper part that is the primary, operative element in the entire trumpet. The point of C is that these nails constitute utensils by themselves. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds these nails are not used as implements by themselves, so they are clean, forming part of the candelbrum. 11:8 A. A helmet (QSD)) [is] unclean. And cheek-pieces are cleaH [without a narne of their own]. If they have CM YS BHM) J receptacle for water, they [ are] unclean. B. All weapons of war [are] unclean: 1. the javelin, 2. the spear-head. 3. the greaves, the breastplate-4. a111d are unclean. C. All [metal] ornaments of women [P, M, K: of (the) woman} :trc unclean [ even though, as ornaments, they serve no useful purpose J: 1. the golden city [ tiara J, 2. necklace, 3. [ ear J rings (NZM) and [finger J rings ('fBcWT): a. and a ring ('fBCT), whether it has a seal, or whether it does not have a seal; b. and rings of the nose (NZMY 0 P). D. [ As to] a necklace whose metal beads [are} on a thread of flax or of wool: E. [ if] the thread is broken. the beads are unclean, for each one is a utensil (KLY) u1Jio ilsclf. F. [As to the case in which] the thread is of met::d, and the beads are of precious stones or pearls or (W) or glas:;: G. [if} the beads are broken, and the thread by itself remains. it is unclean.

278

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :8

H. The remnants of a necklace [ remain unclean if they are sufficient to J encompass the neck of a little girl. I. R. Eliezer says, "Even one ring (TBcT; better: I:ILYH) is unclean, for so they hang it on the neck." M. Kel. 11:8 (A: b. Shab. 62a; C2: b. Shab. 59a)

A distinguishes the helmet and the cheek-pieces. The former is a utensil unto itself, the latter are mere ornaments, as with the cheekpieces of the horse's bridle. But if the cheek-pieces have a receptacle for water, they of course form utensils and are subject to uncleanness. A is a complete declarative sentence. B gives us a list of four weapons of war, beginning "all". Then the second unclean is superfluous, though it completes the sentence begun with the javelin. The same structure is followed in C, without concluding "unclean." Albeck (p. 520) thinks Bl-4 + are unclean come from a "different source," which has generated the rule of B. C is a somewhat complicated construction. It starts as does B, then gives us a list. But then C3 introduces still a new subordinate clause, which now will define the laws pertinent to metal rings. C3 uses two different words for rings, NZMYM, TBcWT. Then C3a begins with and, which does not belong, since C3a intends to give a further clarification for the second item in the antecedent clause, TBcWT. Or WTBcT of C3a is entirely superfluous, leaving whether ... or whether ... But then C3b carries further the definition of the items listed in C3, now NZM, adding NZMY H'P, nose-rings. Something is awry here, for, unless NZMYM refers to ear-rings, the inclusion of NZM should exclude the need of specifying NZMY H'P, or vice versa. Perhaps matters are originally as I have presented them, with C3 requiring the sub-definitions of a and b. Alternatively, the list of C should be simply 1, 2, 3a, and 3b; but 3b should then be in the singular, as are 1, 2, and 3a. It is not an important problem. The main point is that while ornaments of animals and soldiers are clean, those of women are unclean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:13A agrees on those of animals and lists some more. D introduces a new problem, an ornament made up of separate "vessels" or utensils. The main problem is the status of the beads. They were unclean before; they remain unclean, for the reason given in E. D-E are formulated not as a list or as a complete sentence, but as a group of closely-related clauses which phrase the problem, but which themselves do not constitute a whole sentence. F continues this mode of formulation. Now the thread itself is of metal. The

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :8

279

issue is the thread. G says if the beads are broken, the thread still is unclean as a separate utensil, usable without reference to its former function. This does not constitute "breaking" that will purify. H speaks of remnants of a necklace, but not, evidently, one like D; this is virtually certain, for D has I:ILYWT and H, sYRY QTV. Eliezer refers back to TBcT, which does not occur in H. But we cannot here be dealing with the sort of TBcT mentioned in C3a; the context requires a "ring" which serves as a bead. Eliezer's saying has not made use of the substantives of the law which is he is represented as glossing-a strange state of affairs. The point of H is that the remaining beads are unclean if together they will serve their former purpose. Eliezer says even a single bead is susceptible to uncleanness, for it alone on a string will serve as a kind of necklace. The principle of H is rejected by Eliezer, who regards even a single bead as a utensil unto itself, and the issue between Eliezer and H is how one determines what is a usable metal utensil. Albeck says, "Eliezer calls a I:JLYH a TBcT," which is not very helpful. A. Utensils which are not made for work but made for ornamentthese are hooki'ets anid nose-rings and finger-rings and rings for the nose. B. When [&ripture] said, 'A thing' [Any thing which will endure the fire you will pass through fire and it will be clean (Num. 31:23)], it extended the rule to utensils which depend upon their names and which serve with other names ... Sifre Zutta Mattot to 31:23 (Horovitz, p. 330, ls. 6-9)

Sifre Zutt;a provides an exegetical basis for the rules before us, accounting in A for the inclusion of useless ornaments (Rosh) such as rings. A. The scarabee (RI;IWS) which was breached, and the sting of which was removed, is clean. B. [If] hooks ("WNQVWT) remained on it from either side, it is unclean. C. A necklace (QTV), the beads of which are of red coral eYLMWG) and suspended on hooks of metal-lo, these are clean, for they are made only for reenforcement. D. If it is broken, each one of them is clean by itself. E. R. Eliezer says, "A booklet of the nose is clean by itself." Tos. Kel. B.M. 1 :9 (Tos. Reng. p. 34, ls. 17-20, p. 35, ls. 1-2)

The RI:JWS of A is evidently a weapon of war; without its sting or pointed tip it is no longer useful for that purpose, but with hooks

280

KELJM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :~l

it continues to serve. C is pertinent to M. 11 :SE. These hooks or beads are not essential to the necklace and are not utensils by themselves. Eliezer' s saying in E corresponds to M. 11 :9D; all that changes is the specification of the kind of booklet, following Lieberman, TR III, p. 36, who reads NZM in place of KYS or NYS. M. has until now referred to ear- and finger-rings, but not to nose-rings. Accordingly, the pericope before us contains items omitted from the corresponding Mishnah. But Sens sees a conflict between E and M.'s clean hooklet (:;;NWlP). A. (1) All sculptured images (PR$WPWT) are unclean, and (2) the thin image is clean. B. [If] its lock is of metal, lo, this is susceptible to corpse-uncleanness.

Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:10 (Tos. Reng. p. 35, Is. 3-4) Lieberman TR III, p. 36, suggests before us (A 1) is some sort of face-mask, which is unclean as a weapon of war. The thin one (2) will not afford protection in battle, but is merely an ornament, so is clean. The uncleanness then is material, not merely that imputed to objects connected with idolatry. The point of B is that the item it subject to corpse-, but not pressure-uncleanness (MDRS), since it is not going to be stepped on. A. All seals are clean. B. Unclean is only the metal seal with which they actually seal, alone eYNW Ti\P ... )LJ ... BLBD). C. A metal amulet, lo, this is unclc:an with corpse-uncleanness. [If} the lower part broke, it is unclean. And [if} the upper [broke], it is clean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:11 D. The leather with which one binds the amulet is unclean. [If] one ,spread it out, it is clean. It may be mrude unclean and then made clean even ten times a day. E. Bowls (SPLYN) on which one writes the amulet are clean. F. [If] one took a chi,p from it and made [it into] a ball for an ornament, it is unclean. G. A sc1sh (JBNT, so Lieberman, TR LU, p. alt.: JPTT, potstand] which contains metal, lo, this is susceptible to corpse-uncleannessTos. Kel. B.M. J: 12 (Tos. Reng. p. 35,

ls. 5-11) M. knows nothing of the items before us. A is contradicted by B. Maimonides gives it as '·No seals are susceptible, save only the metal seal which is used for sealing" (Kelim 8:9). C is regarded as any

KELIM CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11 :8

281

other ornament, therefore unclean. Because of C, D, which deals with leather and not metal, is included. In E I have followed Lieberman. For PWSLYN he prefers SPLYN and notes that the practice of writing magical bowls is very ancient. I should guess Maimonides read something that meant "leather" because in Kelim 7:11 he gives the rule in D, then follows with "But the leather on which the amulet is written is not susceptible to uncleanness... " But F seems to me to require Lieberman's interpretation, for if you take a chip from the metal bowl, it becomes a vessel unto itself. The patch of leather has to be of requisite size to be susceptible. As to G, Lieberman prefers avne/-sash-that is, something which might be sat upon or walked on. In this case the sash is for ornamentation and will not be tread upon because of the metal which is in it, and therefore it is subject to corpse-uncleanness like other women's ornaments, but not to midras-uncleanness. Once again, we find Tos. telling us about different sorts of uncleanness (midras, corpse), a matter M. will ignore for many chapters. A. All ornaments of a beast, such as the chains and the nose-rings a1JJdthe hooklets and the rings, are clean. Unclean is only the clapper which makes a sound for the man to hear. B. One who makes bells for the mortar and for a cradle and for mantels for scrolls or for children's mantels-lo, they are clean. If one made for them a clapper, they are unclean. If their clapper is removed, they are clean. C. The bell of the door is clean, [and} of the beast is unclean. D. The bell of a door which one made for a beast is unclean, and of a beast which one maide for a door, even if one affixed it to the ground and even if one nailed it with a nail, is unclean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:13 (Tos. Reng. p. 35, Is. 12-13; b. Shab. 58b)

The rule is parallel in form and intent to 11 :SB and C. B extends the rule of A. The point of C-D is that the latter is not for human use, so is not susceptible to uncleanness. A. The presumption concerning bells which are found anywhere is that they are unclean, except for those found in cities, lx:cause most of them [in cities} are for doors [ so are clean}. B. [If} one said to a craftsman, "Mak)e for me two bells, one for the door and one for the cow," "Make for me two reed mats, one for ·lying and one for tents," "Make for me two sheets, one for a ta;pestry [ for pictures] aoo one for tents," lo, these [both} are unclean until the time that he will distinguish

282

KELIM CHAPTER ELEVEN 11 :8-9

between them [ = designate them for one or another purpose J. And R. Simeon declares them clean until one will [actually] distinguish between them [ a more 1enient position on the intermediate stage]. C. But the cra:ftsman who makes and sets forth bells for a cow and bells, for doors, and mats for lying and mats for tents, and sheets for tapestries and sheets for tents, if most of them are of the unclean variety, they are unclean until one will set them as,ide for a clean [purpose], and if most of them are of the clean [ variety J, they are clean until one will set them aside for the unclean [purpose]. Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:14 (Tos. Reng. p. 35, ls. 20-25, p. 36, ls. 1-4)

The points introduced in Tos. B.M. 1 :13 are now developed, with no surprises. Bells made for doors are clean, and the point of A is clear. The dispute of B poses no difficulty. C ignores Simeon's position and proceeds in accord with the anonymous view of B. Maimonides, Kelim 8:14-15, presents the rule as given here. 11:9 A. [ As to J an ear ring (NZM) which is made like a pot-shape on the bottom, and like a lentil on the top, and broke [ = the two sections fell apart]B. [the part shaped] like a pot is unclean because of [its forming] a utensil [with] a receiptacle. C. And [the part shaped] like a lentil is unclean by itself. D. The hooklet ($NR,) is dean, [for it is not a separate utensil]. E. That which is made like a kind of grapecluster and is broken [a[]d no longer serves as an ornament] is clean. [Danby: "If the pieces (of a pendant) made in the shape of a grapecluster fali apart, it is not susceptible to uncleanness."] M. Kel. 11:9

The important rules come in Band C. The antecedent rule (11:8) will have alerted us to the probability that a broken ornament will yield unclean parts. The problem here is why the parts are unclean. B tells us the pot-shaped part is unclean because it still is a receptacle, not because it still is a woman's ornament. With C, the part is still useful as an ornament. Then E tells us this is so because of the peculiar shape of the item; but other sorts of ear-rings, when broken, are made insusceptible to uncleanness. The parts are worth nothing and do not serve as an ornament. So the whole set of materials goes back to 11 :8C, and the problem investigated thereafter is what parts of an ornament may by themselves continue to serve as ornaments. The rules are given as complete sentences.