A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 2: Kelim: Chapters Twelve Through Thirty (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 9781597529266, 1597529265

Citation preview

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY rmITED

BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE :\USHNAIC LA \X' OF PURITIES PART T\X'O

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LA\\! OF PURITIES PART TWO

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART TWO

KELIM CHAPTERS TWELVE THROUGH THIRTY Illustrated 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 2 Kelim: Chapters Twelve Through Thirty By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1974 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-926-6 ISBN: 1-59752-926-5 Publication date 10/17/2006 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1974

For IsadoreTwersky

CONTENTS PART II

KELIM. CHAPTERS TWELVE THROUGH THIRTY Preface

XI

XII. Kelim Chapter Twelve XIII. Kelim Chapter Thirteen XIV. Kelim Chapter Fourteen xv. Kelim Chapter Fifteen XVI. Kelim Chapter Sixteen XVII. Kelim Chapter Seventeen XVIII. Kelim Chapter Eighteen XIX. Kelim Chapter Nineteen xx. Kelim Chapter Twenty . XXL Kelim Chapter Twenty-One XXII. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Two XXIII. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Three XXIV. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Four XXV. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Five . XXVI. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Six XXVII. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Seven XXVIII. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Eight XXIX. Kelim Chapter Twenty-Nine XXX. Kelim Chapter Thirty

1 17 29 49 66 85

119 143 165 190 197 213 221 234 257 275 299 322 331

PART I Preface. . . . ....... . Abbreviations and Bibliography Transliterations . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . I. Kelim Chapter One . II. Kelim Chapter Two . III. Kelim Chapter Three. IV. Kelim Chapter Four . V. Kelim Chapter Five . VI. Kelim Chapter Six . . VII. Kelim Chapter Seven. VIII. Kelim Chapter Eight

XI XXI XXIV

1 15 45

77 101 112

157 170 183

VIII

CONTENTS

IX. Kelim Chapter Nine . X. Kelim Chapter Ten . XI. Kelim Chapter Eleven

216 239 262 PART III

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 Tra9-ition: 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 . . . . . . . . Answer(s) 2. Question 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 Prqblem 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 1. Eliezer . 2. Gamaliel. 3. ; Lieberman: KLBWS) of barbers and of physicians and of those who make glass, which are divided into two parts are clean.

24

KELIM CHAPTER THIRTEll'N

13:4-5

B. And [those} of smiths which were divided into two parts are unclean, bec,1;usehe to begin with stirs (I;IWTH) the coals with it, and now he [still} stirs the coals with it. C. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "Because to begin with he perforates (MNQB) the coals with it, and now he perforates the coals with it." Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:11 (Tos. Reng. p. 42, ls. 8-13) The difference in respect to the tongs of smiths has to do only with the reason the object remains unclean even after it is divided. But obviously the tongs listed in A serve no purpose when not united, and that is the point. 13:5 A. A needle whose eye (I:IRYRH) is removed, or its po.int (cQ$H), is clean. If one made it into a stretching pin (HTQYNH LMTWI:I. Alt., as in V: MTWN), it is unclean. B. [ A needle} of the pack-makers (SQYYN) whose eye was removed is [still} unclean, because he writes [ on wax} with it. [If} its point (cQ$H) was removed, it is clean. C. [ A needle} [ originally meant (RSS)} for stretching (SLMTWI;:I) (PB, V, P, K: MTWN) one way or the other [ with or without the eye or point} is unclean. D. A needle which has become rusty, if [the rust) prevents sewing, is clean. And if not, it is unclean. E. A hook ($NWR~) which one straightened out is clean. [If) one bent it [again), it has returned to its [ former susceptibility to J uncleanness. M. Kel. 13:5 (b. Shab. 52b) The principle here is not new. If a utensil has ceased to be useful, it is insusceptible to uncleanness. If one then has fashioned it for some other use, as in E, it either becomes susceptible again or returns to its former uncleanness. The point of C is that, with or without the point or the eye, the needle for stretching remains useful. D is a truism by now, and E is interesting only in underlining the fundamental rule of 11 :1. The construction is in simple declarative sentences. A. The sword and the knife which have rusted are clean. [If} one has polished them and sharpened (HSI:IYZN) them, they have returned to their original uncleanness. B. A tube [blow-pipe} (SPWPRT) of gold-smelters and of glassblowers,and of smiths and of those who make glass which was divided lengthwise is clean; [If} breadthwise, if it serves more or less its original function is unc1ean, and if not, it is clean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:10 (Tos. Reng. p. 42, ls. 3-7)

KELIM CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13:5-6

25

The rule of M. Kel. 13 :5D is applied in A, I suppose, because the objects are not useful when rusted. But restoring them to use restores their original uncleanness. The same principle is in M. 13:5E (Maimonides). B contains nothing new. 13:6 A. Wood that serves [as subsidiary to J the metal [Danby: "Wood that ser,ves as a part of a metal utensil"] 1s unclean. And the metal which serves the wood is clean. B. How so? C. A lock [ which isJ of wood and its dutch ( = tooth, I:IPYN) of metal, even one [ clutch J, is unclean. A lock [ which isJ of metal and its clutch of wood is clean. D. A ring which is of metal and its seal of coral is unclean. A ring which is of coral and its seal of metal is clean. E. The tooth in the plate of the lock or in the key is unclean by itself [ since it can be used independently]. M. Kel. 13:6 (b. Shab. 52b, 59b, 81a; y. Shab. 6: 3)

The principle before us is already familiar: the principal part of the utensil, which actually does the utensil's work, determines the susceptibility to uncleanness. If it is metal, then the entire utensil is subject to the uncleanness of the metal, and vice versa. The examples add nothing. The clutch of the lock is essential; the rest is subsidiary. The ring holds the seal, it therefore is primary. (Tos. differs here.) But the example in E stands apart; the tooth can be used independently. The rules continue to be expressed in simple declarative sentences. A. A nail-clipper (JNGYSTWR) is unclean. [If] it is divided into two, it is clean. B. A siphon (DYWPY) is unclean. [If] it is divided into two, it is clean. The nails and the attachments (SNYPYN) which are on it are connected for uncleanness and for siprinkling. C. The funnel (MfRYD) which w:as bro~en (NYPRD) or the pipe of which one removed is clean. [If] it was divided into two and there remained on it a handbreadth, it is unclean. D. The wards of a lock (I:IPY PWTI:JT) are clean. [If] one placed them in a lock (PWTI:JT), they are unclean. E. [But if :it is of a] revolving door (SBGL), and even if it is fixed on the door (s'PYL W HN BKLY), they are clean [b. Shab. 81a adds: "because whatever is joined to the soil is like the soil"]. Tos. Kd. B.M. 3:12 (Tos. Reng. p. 42, ls. 14-19)

26

KELIM

CHAPTER

THIIGIEN

13:6-7

The clipper in A will not serve once it is divided. The siphon in B will not continue to be useful even when split in half. The point of D-E is that when the wards are not in service, they are useless, so clean; when in a revolving door, they remain clean because of the reason stated in M. Kel. 11: l. t\.

A ring of metal and its seal of coral---

B. R. Nehemiah declares clean. For R. Nehemiah would s1y. "\\/ilh a ring one follows af!Tr lhc [ substance out of which the] seal [ is made). "With the yoke (C\\(/L) they follow after jts curved end (SML-

WNW). With the .rack (QWLB), after .its nails.; with the ladder, after its steps; with the crib (cRS0 ) after its chains." C R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Yose, "\Vith a ladder, after the posts; with a rack, after the steps; and with a funnel, after the dish (C.tRH)." Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:13 (Tos. Rcng. p 1i2, ls. J 9-22, p. 43, ls. 1-2)

Nehemiah differs from L\ :6D. He holds the seal is the cutting edge, the useful part of the ring, so if it is of coral, the ring is dean. The remainder of B follows from his principle. C then spells out further such items; but Y ose differs in respect to the primary parts of the rack and ladder. Nehemiah's difference from M. is in the traits of the ring, not in principle. A. The shoe-maker's last ("MWM) and the wrapping (I:IPWY) and the foil (TS) which are on teeth are clean. And tlut f wrapping] of wool which was divided, whether iengthwise or brc::,1dthwise,is uncle:rn. B. A gold tooth is susceptible lo uncleanness, and they ,prinl:lc:: on ii in its place and go forth with it on the Sabbath. Tus. Ke!. B.M. 3:16 (Tos. Rcng. p. 11."J, ls. 11-13)

See M. 13:6E, M. Shab. 6:5.

13:7 which were A. The Ashkclon grappling-irons (KDWMYN) broken, and the hook of which ("NQLY) remains- -lo, these are unclean. 13. The [ wooden J pitch-fock, the: winnowing-fork, :111,ltbe rakc, and so too (WKN) a haircornb, one of whose teeth and [the wooden tooth of] which one repaired [ = metal--lo, these are unclean [ = ::VL13:6AJ. C. And concerning ,111of them said R. Joshua, "A new thing did the scribes innovate, and I cannot answer [ their critics]." M. Kcl. 13:7 (M.T.Y. 4:6)

KELIM CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13:7-8

27

The point of A is that the hooks are primary, the wooden part secondary, so the whole is susceptible to uncleanness. The teeth of the items in B are of wood, but if one repaired a missing tooth with metal, the utensil becomes susceptible to the uncleanness of metal. The items are flat wooden objects, so should be insusceptible, but because of the metal hook or tooth, they become susceptible, for a single metal hook or tooth can perform the utensil's work. 12 :2 has already told us this rule; the hooks will make the entire object unclean. And M. 13:6A evidently is understood to concur. In C Joshua [b. I:IananiahJ states that he does not know why the scribes have made this decree. That is, why should these wooden objects be treated as metal because of a single metal prong? Maimonides interprets the saying to mean Joshua neither accepts the rule nor is able to reject it. Tos. has the same saying applied to parallel, but different items, a fairly common phenomenon. A. The furcated spear (Sl:tTWc) and the pronged pole (DWQRN) and the mattock (McDYR) and the pinchers (MLQYT) of launderers, one of whose teeth ,is removed and repaired with metal-~lo, these are unclean. B. Concerning all of them said R. Joshua, "A new thing did the scribes innovate, and I have no answer." Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:14 (Tos. Reng. p. 43, Is. 3-6)

These are wooden objects which have been given a single metal tooth, just as in M. 13:7B. Lieberman prefers for M. McDR, just as in Tos., rather than M~BR, as in Albeck, p. 64. What is curious is that Joshua's saying is applied to objects in Tos. different in detail from those listed in M. But in this case surely the point is the same. With Yo}:iananb. Zakkai's gloss (M. 17:16) it is not. 13:8 A. A comb for flax whose teeth have been removed and on which two remained is unclean. And [if} one [remained, it is} clean. (Maimonides, Kelim 11:3, "Any metal utensil that cannot do anything in the nature of its proper work ;is. not susceptible to uncleanness."} B. And all of them, one by one by themselves, are unclean [= M. 13:5}. C. And [ a comb} for wool, one of every two of whose teeth has been removed, is clean. [If} three remained on it in one place, it is unclean [ = M. 13:4}.

28

KELIM CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13:8

[If] the outermost was one of them [those three remaining teeth}, it is clean. D. [If] two were removed from it, and one made them into forceps, they are unclean. E. [If] one [remained] and one made it [for use in cleaning] a lamp or a stretching pin (MTWl;I), it is unclean. M. Kel. 13:8 (b. Yev. 43a) The point of A is that the two remaining teeth will serve the normal purpose of the utensil, but with only one, the utensil is useless. Then B says that the teeth themselves are susceptible to uncleanness; this we already knew from 13:5, for one may write with them. The difference in C is simply that this item will work if there are three teeth, but if one of the three is at the outside, it will not serve any purpose, since the outside one is wide and cannot be used for combing wool. The remaining item of E refers back to a tooth from a comb; the stretching-pin has already occurred in 13:5. The laws are stated, as before, in simple declarative sentences.

A. A comb for flax, every other one of whose teeth was removed, is clean. [If] one tooth is removed from it, it is clean. B. R. Simeon declares [the single tooth] unclean because oniemay write with it. C. And if one preipared it so as to write with it, all agree that it is unclean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:15 (Tos. Reng. p. 43, ls. 7-10) A corresponds to M. Kel. 13-8A. B is in accord with M. 13:SB. But M. A and B seem to contradict one another, or "clean" refers to the comb, without reference to the tooth, and then B-C ref er to the tooth alon_e.C will reconcile M. A to M. B, by holding that in the case of M. 13 :8A, the tooth was not prepared for writing, and in B it was prepared for writing. Tos. prefers to preserve the dispute between Simeon and the anonymous authority of A, while M. has ignored the obvious difference between its opening rules.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN A sign that we now come to the end of a major unit of law is the random, disorganized character of the present chapter, which deals with many subjects, but exhibits no single theme or principle. Not unlike the set of special problems at the end of clay utensils, Chapters Eight through Ten, with the concluding conundrum, 10:7-8, Chapter Fourteen brings together some miscellaneous items on metal objects. It does not proceed from one point to the next in logical progression, as we found in 11: 1ff. M. 14:1 asks what is the 'measure' of metal utensils? This brings us back to 3:1-2 and 2:2, with the assumption that the 'measure' is the perforation which will render the utensil useless for its primary function, therefore insusceptible to uncleanness. But then we have "sufficient to do so-and-so" with the object, so it is a matter of function for the first items (B-D), then of 'measure' (B) for the next (E-H). In other words, the theories of 2 :2 ( continued usefulness, even not for the primary function) and that of 3: 1-2 ( continued usefulness only for the primary function) are mixed together. The matter then is dropped. There follows a rule of cAqiva that metal objects which have not undergone certain processes of manufacture are nonetheless unclean, others clean, in the assumption that unformed metal utensils may be unclean. This rule has nothing to do with the foregoing; it belongs with Gamaliel's equivalent opinion. 14:2 tells us about the uncleanness of various sorts of nails, then about the uncleanness of a metal siphon attached to a door as a swivel, and when it ceases to be subject to uncleanness. 14:3-5 provide routine lists of objects which are unclean or clean. 14:4-5 give balanced opposites, a composite dealing with parts of a wagon. 14:6 discusses a basket cover made into a mirror. Judah holds it is clean, since it remains what it formerly was; the sages say it is unclean, since polishing represents a sufficient change in the former character of the cover. 14:7 presents a unique pericope, a theory of Eliezer, rejected by Joshua, that broken metal utensils may be made unclean or clean

30

KELIM CHAPTER

FOURTEEN

14:1

when broken into parts. Eliezer therefore will not agree with 11 :1 that a broken metal utensil is entirely insusceptible to uncleanness. The second part of the same pericope then has Eliezer's view that breaking a metal utensil will reduce the degree of uncleanness from which it formerly suffered; if it was unclean with corpse-uncleanness and broke, was sprinkled and then br_okeagain, and then recast into a new vessel, and again sprinkled, it is now clean. This means the object has not gone back to its former uncleanness, as the sages vis a vis Simeon b. Gamaliel maintain. But it also will not go back to the corpse-uncleanness that Simeon has decreed for it. Eliezer takes a much more lenient position with respect to metal utensils. Joshua's position is normative. As if to emphasize its disorganized character, the chapter concludes with rules about broken keys, mustard-strainers, and mill-funnels. With this episodic item, the consideration of metal utensils concludes. 14:1 much is their measure (KMH

A. Metal utensils-how HWJ scWRN)? [Danby: "If metal vessels have been broken because of their uncleanness, how large must they be so that they still remain susceptible to uncleanness or retain their old uncleanness?" J B. A bucket-sufficient to draw [water] with it. C. A kettle (QMQWN)-sufficient to warm in it. D. A pot-sufficient to receive selas. E. A cauldron (HLBS)-suff:icient to receive jugs (QYTWNWT). F. Jugs-sufficient to receive perufot. G. Wine-measures-with wine [if perforated so that it cannot hold wine]. H. And oil measures-with oil [ if perforated so that it cannot hold oil]. I. R. Eliezer says, "All of them with perufot." J. R. cAqiva says, "That which lacks trimming [ or: sealing] (lffYPH) is unclean. And that which lacks polishing (LTYSH) is c1ean." M. Kel. 14:1 Maimonides, Kelim 11 :1, gives, "How large a breach must be made in a metal utensil for it to become insusceptible to uncleanness or become clean after being unclean? All is in accordance with what manner of utensil it is. So long as a utensil is able to do anything in the nature of its proper work, it is still a utensil and is deemed to be a sound utensil.. . " A opens with the question, how much damage must a metal utensil

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:1

31

have sustained so as to be insusceptible to uncleanness? The use of scWR seems to follow the lines of the theory of 3:1-2, and of course will conform to the same formulary pattern, omitting verbs and stating matters as brief clauses. But the actual language of 3: 1-2 is X.gcwRW B+ the measure, while here (B-F) it is X-KDY L+ verb and predicate. The theory of A-H, therefore, is that there will be varying measures, according to the original use of the object, along the lines of the principle of 2 :2. In point of fact the only objects before us are cooking utensils, five in all, plus measuring utensils used in cooking, two more. Then in I, Eliezer says there is a single measure in respect to the items in G-H. If perufot will fall through the hole, the object is clean; otherwise it is unclean. The point is that if these metal utensils are broken, the size of the remnants must be so small that they cannot serve their former purpose. This view, of course, is already familiar from 13:2-5, where it is applied to building, writing, sewing, and other utensils. So in point of fact the last and the present chapter contain mere lists of different objects, all for the purpose of ascertaining when the remnants are subject to uncleanness and when not. cAqiva's saying in J is out of place. He is talking about unfinished metal utensils and defines when the manufacturing process of a metal utensil is regarded as complete. His point is that if the utensil is untrimmed or unsealed, it is done, therefore unclean, because, TYY explains, the householder may easily complete this phase of the work. But if it lacks polishing or sharpening, it is not yet susceptible to uncleanness, because sharpening requires the skill of a crafts man. This interpretation seems to me to derive from M. 26:1, which distinguishes between processes within the capability of private persons and those which only an expert can carry out. The former need not be completed for a utensil to be susceptible. The susceptibility of unfinished metal utensils is the view of Gamaliel, as against the sages, in 12:6. Now cAqiva's opinion, by implication the same as Gamaliel's, stands by itself and clarifies some details of the general principle that unfinished metal utensils are susceptible. But that principle occurs solely in Gamaliel's list and cAqiva's gloss. The first rules speak of the point after which the object is insusceptible, while cAqiva defines the point before which the same condition pertains. So A-I is wrongly joined to J. But, following Mishnah A/paronah, Albeck argues (p. 521) that cAqiva here differs

32

KELIJ\1 CHAPTER FOURT'EEN 14:1

from the sages of A-I and also speaks of a case in which a metal utensil has been broken, not before it has been finished. This also is the view of GRA, ad foe., who says that merely because the sherds have protruding edges-have not been trimmed-they can nonetheless be used and so are unclean. But if the object lacks sharpening, it cannot be used before it has been brought t.o a craftsman. This seems to me farfetched. cAqiva' s saying simply has been attached where it does not belong. Maimonides certainly understood cAquiva's saying as ref erring to unfinished (pre-susceptible), not broken (post-susceptible metal utensils (Kelim 8:2). This is also the view of Bertinoro, TYY and Rosh. A-H follow a single pattern, as we observed, a list entirely lacking in verbs; I conforms to the same pattern, though with the attribution. J is a simple declarative sentence. J is the only saying that contains itnclean/clean for the predicate; in the earlier elements we lack both sBR or its equivalents-that is, the broken parts of metal utensils, parallel to 2:2, and 1mclean/clean. A. Metal utensils, such as the chest, the ark, and the cupboard, which come in [ forty se0 ahs] measure, [ which in the case of a wooden chest are clean by reason ol such large size], are unclean. Their[= metal objects'] flat [forms], such as the table and the trny and the three-legged table (DLWPQY) of metal, are unclean. And thei,r measure [to be so damaged as to be insusceptible to uncleanness is less than J a handbreadth. B. "A metal utensil which lacks polishing ( lff PH) [ or HSPHsharpening] is unclean," the words of R. cAciiva. C. And sages say, "Tt is clean." D. (A gc1~eral ·principle did they state:) Metal utensils which are da11Tiaged,if they s)is unclean. [If] one studded it with nails (SMRW), it is unclean. B. R. Simeon says, "Until one will have made on it three rows [it is clean; thereafter it is unclean]." C. And all of them [ = nails] which one affixed for ornament are clean [ as metal which is subsidiary to wood J. D. [If] one put on its head [that of the club in A] a [metal] siphon, and so on a door, it [the siphon] is clean. E. [If] it was a utensil and one affixed (I;IBR) it to it, [Danby: "But if the tube had already served as some ul:ens:iland was fastened to it," meaning to the staff] it [the siphon] is [still] unclean. F. From what point does it become clean [if it was unclean (Rosh) J? G. The House of Shammai say, "After he will have damaged it (I:IBL) [so that it no longer can carry out its former function]." H. The House of Hillel say, "After he will have affixed it (J:IBR) [to the door, so that it is now attached to the ground and insusceptible, as in M. 11 :2]." M. Kel. 14:2 The present pericope concerns the two separate principles for determining the susceptibility of a metal object to uncleanness, first, whether the metal is primary or subsidiary to the wood ( = 13 :8), second, whether the metal utensil is an independent object or part of some other object. The first is in A-C, the second, D-H. Nor is the item under discussion in A new; it is simply a weapon of war, already covered in the general rule of 11 :8, "All weapons of war are susceptible to uncleanness [ = useful}." The point of A is that since the nail is the operative element of the dub, the entire object is unclean, since the wood is subsidiary to

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:2

35

the nail. A speaks of two sorts of nails, the one shaped like a metal knob in the shape of a chestnut (Slotki, p. 69), the other a normal nail. Simeon says that that is the case only if there are three rows of nails. Otherwise it is not a suitable utensil. And C tells us what we already know from 11:8: ornaments of utensils, including of weapons of war, are clean. D then joins A-C to E-H, introducing the siphon. The siphon will serve the door as a kind of door-jamb or swivel, preventing the door from being worn down by contact with the earth. I suppose that, affixed to the club, it is regarded as a mere ornament. 11 : 1 has already told us that what serves a door is clean. So the siphon will be clean for two different reasons. But E tells us, to the contrary, that if the siphon already had been an autonomous object, merely fixing it to the club will not change its former status, and it remains unclean. This is then contradicted by H! F-H explain when the siphon, having been fixed to the club, will become insusceptible. Its status must have been changed. Either (G) it has to cease to be useful any further because it has been damaged. Or (H) it has to be so tightly fixed to the club or the door that it no longer serves any purpose apart from the club or the door. Then, and only then, the rule of D will apply. It would therefore appear that D differs from E-H; D states the siphon is clean once attached, without qualification, and E-H take for granted the very opposite. The problem of H is that E has already told us the siphon is affixed. So E has it merely attached, H has it tightly fixed, or, as I suggested, E and H are in contradiction. A, C, and D are a single statement; B is a commonplace gloss. E then introduces F-H, but E itself is not clearly stated, depending upon D for the antecedent to its pronouns. So D cannot have been formulated without regard to the foregoing. But E could have read, "A siphon [which} was a utensil and one affixed it to a door/club -it is unclean," with the rest unchanged. My guess is that E-H originally stood as a single autonomous unit of tradition, revised only when included with A-D, with which E-H actually do differ. A. A club on the head of which one affixed a nail so as to be able to hold on to it in the place of the threshing (DYYS) is dean. B. And if in order that the ground not wear it away [the wood}, it is unclean. C. [If] one affixed a nail on its head so as to hit someone with it, it is unclean. [If] for ornamentation, it is clean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:3 (Tos. Reng. p. 44,

ls. 10-12)

36

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:2

C gives us the same rule as M. 14:2C. A uses the language of

M. 14:2A up to M.'s KMYN I:IYZNJ, but then tells us the nail serves another purpose. In A the nail does not carry out the utensil's primary function, but if the nail protects the club (B), it is unclean. D. R. Eleazar b. R. ~adoq says, "(1) One row is unclean, and two rows are clean." "(2) A whip on the head of which one set a nail so as to smite [ someoneJ with it is unclean; for ornament----cle:an." "(3) A comb [better: a band with which the saddle is fastened around the ass's belly] which has on it a goad (DWRBN)-lo this is susceptible to corps,e-uncleannes-s.." Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:4 (Tos. Reng. p. 44. ls. 13-15)

D differs from M. 14:2B. Even one row of nails is unclean on the staff. (2) conforms to the theory of C. For (3) see Lieberman, TR III, p. 46. The band is not going to be used for sitting, so is not susceptible to midras-uncleanness, but only to corpse-uncleanness .. A. A claw of a carpenter (I:IWLY~ SL NGR) with which one removes nails is unclean. B. A siphon which one placed under the door, even though [ the siphon isJ used with it [ the door J, is clean. C. [If] it was unclean and one affixed it under the door, it remains unclean, until the time that it will be purified. D. And when is its purification? E. "The House of Shammai say, 'When it will have been damaged.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'When it will have been affixed,"' the words of R. Meir. F. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'When it will have been damaged and affixed.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'When it w.ill have been damaged or when it will have been affixed."' G. R. Yose b. R. Judah says, "A crowbar (QNTWR) of a builder is clean, for it has been made only for use in connection with the ground." Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5 (Tos. Reng. p. 44, Is. 16-24) H. All utensils of the stone-cutter are susceptible to uncleanness, and the iron-tipped goads with them. I. R. Juidah says, "Except for th·e iron-tipped goads." J. The cubit-imeasureand the eraser of metal are unclean, and those which are plated are dean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:6 (Tos. Reng. p. 45, ls. 1-3)

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:2-3

37

A presents a rule unknown to M. B-F correspond to M. 14:2E-H. B solves the problem raised earlier. The siphon will lose its former uncleanness when properly affixed; the ambiguity of M. is clarified. It proves what we surmised in analyzing M.: E begins a separate pericope. Tos. provides a much clearer account of the matter, and I feel certain it is prior to M. The redactor of M. 14:2 has revised Tos. in order to link the present pericope with 14:2A-D and has given Meir's view of the Houses' dispute. Tos. B now makes clear that the siphon is clean when affixed to the door, for the reason given in 11 :1. But if it was unclean, it remains unclean. On this matter 14:2E was unclear. It says (D) the utensil is clean when affixed, then in E says it is unclean, and the contradiction, as I said, is the work of the redactor. The view of the Houses according to Judah is that both damaging and affixing have to take place in view of the Shammaites, one or the other in view of the Hillelites. Meir assigns one verb to one House, the other to the second. G gives us Yose b. R. Judah's view contrary to 14:3A. There the crowbar is unclean, and Yose's reason is rejected. M. has ignored the contrary opinion and not given us a reason for its ruling. M. 21 :2 has H-I's cRYYN and Judah's opinion. 14:3 A. A crowbar (QN:fR) of the builder and the pick of the carpenter,-lo, these are unclean [for they have names of their own}. B. The pins of tents and the pins of surveyers are unclean. C. The chain of the surveyers is unclean. That [ = chain} which is used for [tying up bundles of} wood is clean. D. The chain of a large bucket [is unclean up to} four handbreadths, and of the small [bucket} to ten. E. A jack (I:IMWR) of a blacksmith is unclean. F. A saw in the midst of the hole of which one put its teeth is undean. [If} one affixed it from above to below, it is clean. [Danby: "A s.aw in which the teeth are set in sockets is susceptible, but if they were put in upside down (if their direction is rev,crsed) it is not susceptible." Alternatively: "If a saw (hwd become unclean and) its teeth were put in a hole ( of a door with the teeth outermost to serve as a doorjamb ), it remains susceptible; but if the teeth were put in the reverse way, it is clean."} G. And all [metal} covers are clean [for they are not utensils unto themselves, M. 11:2}, except for that of the kettle. M. Kel. 14:3

Here is nothing more than a list of various items and their status

38

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:3

in respect to uncleanness. The crowbar and the pick are unclean because they are autonomous metal utensils, so too the pegs of the tent and those of surveyors. The chains used for binding up wood are clean; this we knew from 12 :1, which already has told us that a chain made for tying things up is clean, also one belonging to householders. TYY and MS say this chain serves the wood-not man, but a utensil; Rosh says it has no name to itself. An editor intending a completely new formulation of law presumably would have kept all the chains in one place, so 14:3C and probably D were independent units of tradition, kept together with the materials concerning builders, carpenters, and surveyors, rather than rules concerning objects belonging to tradesmen as against those belonging to householders. The point of D is that these are the lengths of chain which serve as a handle to the metal bucket and are subject to its uncleanness. But the rest of the chain is not regarded as a handle and is not subject to its uncleanness. The longer chain assigned to the smaller bucket takes account of the fact that you can use a longer chain with a lighter bucket. F has teeth placed inside of the saw, rather than at the surface. If the direction of the angle of the teeth is reversed, the saw will be clean. I have no idea what is meant here; Bunte, pp. 259-261, makes things clear. G is already familiar from 11 :2; the covers are not independent objects, so are clean; the one of the kettle can be used by itself. But 12:3 tells us the metal basket covers belonging to householders are, in Gamaliel's opinion, unclean, and, in that of the sages, clean. Gamaliel does not hold all covers are clean. But we do not know whether the sages of 12 :3 differ from Gamaliel because of the general rule of 14:3G or because of specific traits assigned to the basketcover in 12:3. In any case if a cover has a receptacle and is used by itself, it will be unclean. A. A chain of a famip is a connector on the comb. [HJ there is no comb, it is a connector on the ring. B. A chain of a large bucket [is unclean as part of the bucket for] four handbreadths, and [ a chainJ of a small bucket and of [ a bucket of the kind used by] the immigrants from Babylonia is [undean for] ten handbreadths. C. [HJ one attached to it [the chain] a rope or a cord (MsYI:IH), whether from above or from below, even a hundred 'amah-the entire thing is a connector. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:9 (Tos. Reng. p. 45, ls. 13-17)

KFLIM CHAPTER

l'OURTEEN

I ,1;',-5

39

Tos. B corresponds to M. 14:3D, adding another kind of bucket. Presumably the extension in C is serviceable, whatever its length. A A saw (MGWRH) the teeth of which one placed in the hole of the door, even though one makes use of it [ the saw], is clean. B. [If] it WilS unclean and one affixed it to the hole of the door, it is unclean until one will affix it with a mi'l. C. If one reversed it, whether upward or dmvmvard or s,ideways, it is clean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4: IO

Maimonides, Kelim 10:l 7B, gives, "If a saw's teeth are put in the hole of a door to serve as a jamb, though use is made of the saw, it is not susceptible to uncleanness: and if it is put in the hole of the door after it has become unclean, it continues to be unclean until it is fixed on with a nail. If it is turned about, whether upwards or downwards or sidewise, it is not susceptible to uncleanness." A. The cover of a box (QBYJ: Lieberman. p. 39: QWBS); Jastrow: Q\iv'BJY) and of a kettle, and the cover of a basket, and of an ink-well arc unclean. And all other covers are clean. R The rings which hold the ropes, lo, these arc clean, for they arc made only for ornamentation. C. Those made to weight the straps and those on which the straps are suspended are unclean. D, The iron which is under the ncx:k of the beast and which is on the neck of the beast is unclean. Tos. KeL B.M, 1:11 (Tos. Reng. p. 4'5, ls, 22-24, p, 46, Is 1-2)

A differs from M, Ke!. 14:3G. Evidently a range of opinions was formulated, without the establishment of :l firm criterion. B-D bring us to M. 14:1-5. B poses no problems; it is in accord with 14:6B, 14 :4 has the iron under the neck unclean, but makes no mention of the other parts listed in D.

14:4-5 A. The u11ck111[metal parts} of thc f woudcnf wagon: (1) the metal yoke. (2) and the cross-bar (QTRB), and (3) the wings [s1de-pieces} which told the straps, and (4) the iron which is under the neck of the cattle: (5) the pole-pin (S\V1'"1K'). and (6) the girth (MI:IGR), and (7) the trays, and (8) the dapper. (TMI:fWYWT, HfNBL). ancl (9) the hook, and (10) ihe nail which holds all of them together [ = the wheel .in place J (MI-:-[BR). M. Ke!. 14:4 (Re No. 8: Tos, Ke!. B.M. 1:14) B, The dean [parts] of the wagon:

40

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:4-5

(1) the plated yoke [wood plated with metal], (2) the side-pieces which are made [only} for ornamentation, ( 3) [ ornamental J tubes which give out noise, ( 4) the lead by the side of the necks of the cattle, ( 5) the rim of the wheel [ which serves the utensil, but not man (TYY)}, (6) the plates, (7) the mountings (~PWYYM), and (8) the rest of the [ornamental] nails are clean. C. The metal shoes of the cattle are unclean, and those of cork (scM) are clean. D. The sword~from what point does it receive uncleanness? Once one will have polished it (SWP). And a knife? Once one will have whetted it (SI:IZ). M. Kel. 14:5 (C: b. Shab. 59b; D: b. B.M. 84a)

14:4 and 14:5 (A and B) contain items pertinent to the wagon, the first group unclean, the second, clean. C follows the form of 12: 1 (etc.), X is unclean, Y is clean. The difference between the items of A and those of B seems to be the question of ornament. Those in A serve the primary function of the wagon; those in B are ornamental. Bl is already familiar from 11:3: wood plated with metal is subject to the rules governing wood. The nails of BS are familiar from 14:2. D is entirely separate and out of place. It follows the theory that unfinished metal objects are unclean, then specifying when the objects' manufacture is complete. This is in accord with cAqiva's theory in 14:1 and Gamaliel's in 13:8, but now is without an authority behind it. The completion of the manufacture of a metal object marks its susceptibility. Presumably, we could list numerous items and specify the point at which they are finished and susceptible to uncleanness, but this is the only such item in the entire section on metal objects; the chapters on clay utensils (e.g. 5:1, 2) do not present many more examples. There seems, therefore, to have been no tendency to give a large number of details in respect to when particular objects were regarded as completed, since the principle is a minority view. But listing susceptible and insusceptible objects goes on and on. 1\. A halter [which is plated] ('PRWMBYJ) is clean. [If] one made a chain on it, it is unclean. B. A chain which one made :into a halter is unclean because it is like a bridle (KL YNS). C. Three things are unclean in connection with the horse: the reins (HsYLYN), the bit (PGR), and the bridle (KLYNWS). D. The bridle of the horse is unclean by itself. The cords (MSYI:IWT) and the thongs, (R~WcWT TPWRWT) [when} sewn are a connector, and [when] knotted (QSWRWT), are not a connector. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:7 (Tos. Reng. p. 45, ls. 4-8)

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:4-6

41

M. 14:5 knows nothing of the halter. A is in accord with the sages of M. 11 :5-only the scorpion bit of the halter is unclean. The chain is not for ornament; the halter is. C formulates its own list, all items unknown to M., but it is a good formulation. Then D raises the issue of parts as connectors for conveying uncleanness. 14:6 A. A ba,slretcover of metal on which one made a mirrorB. R. Judah declares clean. C. And sages declare unclean [ = M. 30:2A's sages]. D. A [metal] mirror which was broken, if it does not reflect the larger part of the face, is clean. M. Kel. 14:6 The basket-cover before us is regarded by Gamaliel ( 12 :6) as unclean when belonging to a householder; the sages regard it as clean. This basket-cover, however, is made as a mirror, therefore serves a separate purpose, having been polished for such use. Judah thinks that the polishing makes no difference; the cover still is not an independent utensil. The sages differ. D is important only to the sages and carries forward the articulation of their viewpoint. It could have been phrased, "And the sages agree concerning a mirror which was broken ... " Mishnah Al;aronah points out the principle is the same as in 12 :5: Has the originally clean status been changed? Judah says more of a change is required than merely polishing. The cover still can be used as before. The same problem occurs in reference to a glass tray made into a mirror, M. 30:2, Tos. Kel. B.B. 7:7B. There is no difference in principle. We may now ask, what is the primary function of the basket cover made into a mirror? It seems obvious that the cover to begin with is meant as exactly that. So if it serves some subsidiary purpose, according to Meir it will still be unclean, but the sages of 19:9 will regard it now as clean. If so, Judah will be in accord with those sages, and Meir will be in accord with the sages of 14:6C and 30:2A. However, perhaps, as Mishnah Af?aronah proposes, the polishing of the metal basket cover has constituted a sufficient alteration of its original condition so as to make it a substantially new utensil (this is the view of TYT, for example), and therefore the issue important in M. 19:9 should not be introduced at all. But I do not know what has become of M. 25:9, to which no commentator makes reference. The probable answer is that all the commentaries understand M. 25:9 as referring

42

KEUM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:6

to an object which is not in the process of manufacture, but to one which is completed and then is to be used for some other purpose than the original one for which it was made. The context, as I shall suggest, certainly supports this interpretation of M. 25:9. Yet we cannot take for granted that M. 25 :9 is limited to an existing utensil. The commentaries, however, introduce as an illustration a ring used for a beast, which is insusceptible, and then used for a man, which usage makes the ring susceptible. The basket-cover here is to be polished before it is susceptible, and M. 25 :9 should, as explained, not require polishing before the cover is susceptible. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4: 17 then contradicts the present case. Accordingly, M. 2 5 :9 should indeed conflict with the present rule, if the commentaries' restricted interpretation of that rule is valid. A. A nail with which one affixes the wheel so that it [the wheel] will not fall out is unclean. B. And Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel declares clean in this instance (BZH). C. R. Judah agrees with the sages in respect to the metal cover of a basket which one made into a mirror, that it is unclean. D. [If] it is broken and ceases to be useful for its purposeR. Judah says it is clean. E. And sages say, "One way or the other it is unclean." Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:12 F. A mirror which was broken, if it serves more or less for its original function, is unclean, and if not, is clean. G. [If :it] became dirty (NTs'fSH), if it shows most of the face, it is unclean, and if not, it is clean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4: 13 (Tos. Reng. p. 46, ls. 3-10)

A pertains to M. 14:Al0-the nail that holds the harness-pieces together is unclean. The nail before us is unclean for the same reason. Or Tos. refers specifically to 14:4A10. M. tells us the sages and Judah differ on a metal basket cover which has been polished for use as a mirror. Judah says it is unclean, so M. 14:6B. Now Tos. says they agree that it is unclean. In that case, a tradition on a dispute had to be before Tos. Since the normal course is for Tos. to supply a disagreement on a finer point than is present in M., it may be that the sages and Judah disagree on a basket cover of metal which has been broken but which may yet be used for a mirror. On this they will differ, but they agree that if the cover can be used as a mirror, it is unclean. Tos. D, which might be useful to M.'s formulation of the dispute, then has the disagreement on the

KELIM CHAPTER

FOURTEEN

14:6-7

43

basket cover which is broken and is no longer serviceable as a mirror. So Tos. cannot have supposed M.'s formulation of the dispute was other than that which we now have. We therefore have to conclude we have two separate views of the dispute, one in M., which is rejected in Tos. C, and a second, in Tos. D, of which M. knows nothing. M. Kel. 14.6D gives the same rule as Tos. F, but in a different formulation. Tos. has preferred its consistent reference to "serving the original function"; M. precisely defines that function. Then G tells us a rule M. does not provide, but it uses the language of M. 14:6D. 14:7 A. "Metal utensils [both} are made unclean and are cleansed [while] broken," the wol'ds of R. Eliezer. B. R. Joshua says, "They are not made clean except when whole." (C. How so?) D. "[If] one sprinkled on them [ after they had become unclean through coriPse-uncleanness,and] they broke on that very day, [ and then] one recast them and went and sprinkled on them a second time on that same day-lo, these are clean," the words of R. Eliezer. E. R. Joshua says, "Sprinkling is [,done] no less than [ = solely] on the third and seventh days [ after the uncleanness has been contracted]." M. Kel. 14:7

The passage before us presents a considerable problem, for it is difficult to see the connection between A-B and D-E. The issue of A-B is whether a metal utensil can be made clean when in pieces. The issue of D-E is whether one has to sprinkle on the third and seventh days in the case of a utensil which was made unclean, sprinkled, then was broken, then was made into a new vessel and sprinkled again. Removing C, "how so," will allow us to treat the two as separate and unrelated laws, in accord with the emendation of GRA. Albeck explains A-B as follows: if vessels are broken and overshadowed by a corpse and so made unclean, it is possible to purify them and sprinkle the heifer-water on them while they still are broken. Joshua holds one has to repair the qtensils; if they are still broken, they cannot be purified. But does not Joshua agree that breaking itself purifies them? If he does, then I do not follow Albeck. D-E follow the outline just given: a vessel was made unclean with corpseuncleanness. One has to sprinkle it on the third and seventh days thereafter to effect purification. The vessel was sprinkled on the third

44

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:7

day, as required. Then it was broken. The owner, however, forthwith recast the parts into a new vesst;l, which, we know, is subject to the original uncleanness ( except in Simeon b. Gamaliel's view, 11 :1). He then sprinkles the new vessel. Eliezer says the new vessel is now clean, having been sprinkled twice, without awaiting the seventh day. Joshua holds one has to sprinkle the new vessel on the third and then on the seventh day. Eliezer's view is that breaking serves like the passing of days; this opinion is rejected. GRA explains A to mean that if the broken vessels are made unclean and then repaired while unclean, just as they return to their original uncleanness when they are whole, so they may be purified when unclean. The dispute of A then is about the affect of sprinkling upon broken utensils. The view of Joshua in B is that the uncleanness or cleanness applies only to whole metal utens:ls. Broken ones are clean. GRA's explanation seems to me far better than Albeck's, for GRA assumes Joshua agrees with 11 :lA, and I do not see how we can suppose otherwise. Bertinoro observes that Eliezer is in the position of Simeon b. Gamaliel in 11 :1, who holds the utensil, when broken, does not revert to its original uncleanness, except in the case of corpse-uncleanness. One recalls that Simeon in 11 :1 holds the metal utensil, when broken and made over into a new utensil, will be clean, except if it was originally unclean with corpse-uncleanness. Only then will the metal utensil be regarded as unclean in its former status. Here Eliezer says it is possible to purify a broken metal utensil; one may sprinkle the sherds even while they are broken. Joshua says they are to be cleaned only when they are whole--that is, after they have been put together into a new utensil. Now the curious side is Eliezer's position. If the metal utensil is broken, it should be clean and require no purification. So does he agree with Simeon? Or is this object subject to corpse-uncleanness? The second part of the present dispute has the metal utensil broken, then the sherds put back together. Are they clean in their original degree of uncleanness, having been broken and put back together? Of course they are, because one sprinkles them on the same day. So they are unclean with corpse-uncleanness-as Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains. But they are not in the same degree of uncleanness as before. After breaking them, one does not have to wait four days between sprinklings; breaking them serves to purify them, as much

KELIM CHAPTER

FOURTEEN

14:7

45

as the passage of days serves to contribute to the purification. Or, to put it differently, they are not really wholly subject to the former corpse-uncleanness in its full virulence. So no one agrees with Simeon ben Gamaliel. Eliezer will not agree with Simeon that the broken metal utensil returns to the fully virulent corpse-uncleanness from which it originally suffered. He will hold it is a diminished degree of uncleanness. But no party assumes, in 14:7, that other modes of uncleanness will remain affective; in fact we do not know anyone's opinion on that subject. The rule of 11 :1 certainly is more stringent than Eliezer's view, just as Simeon's position is more stringent than Eliezer's. So Eliezer b. Hyrcanus may have proposed a different rule, which is that, in general, breaking is purifying, but with respect to metal utensils made unclean by the highly virulent corpse-uncleanness, we do require the restored vessel to go through a modified rite of purification. But the original degree of corpse-uncleanness will have been removed. A. R. Eliezer says, " [ As to] a metal utensil which was made unclean, and then broke, and which one forged [into a new utens.il]one sprinkles on it on the same day and •repeats [the sprinkling] on it on the fourth. "And that which was made unclean and on which one sprinkled and which then brake, and which one forged [into a new utensil]one repeats [the sprinkling] on it that very day." B. R. Joshua says, "Sprinkling may take place only on the third and seventh days." C. R. Nathan says, "R. Eliezer says, 'A metal utens·il which was made unclean and which broke and then was, reforged [into a new obj'ect], and on which one sprinkled, and which broke, and which · one reforged-let [the owner] sprinkle on it on that very day.' D. "R. Joshua says, 'Sprinkling is only on the third and seventh days.'" Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:14 (Tos. Reng. p. 46, ls. 11-17) Tos.'s theory pertains wholly to M. 14:7C-D. The issue of 14:7 A-B is not introduced at all. Perhaps 14:7 A-B is meant to summarize the net result of the dispute in C-D, but I think the view of GRA, that M. presents two separate disputes, is confirmed in Tos. Before us are two versions of 14:7D-E. Both versions agree on Joshua's saying, which is pretty much identical to M. Kel. 14:7E. M. follows Nathan's version of Eliezer's saying, rather than that of the anonymous authority behind Tos. A. The principle so far as I can see is no different. Then Nathan's version has been revised by the redactor of M. He has dropped "metal utensil which was made un-

46

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:7-8

clean." This is taken for granted in M. because of Eliezer's opening saying, the reference to "metal utensils made unclean." Then Nathan's "broke" recurs in M., which adds "on that very day." The rest is the same, but M. adds the obvious, "Lo, these are clean," which Tos. C rightly takes for granted. 14:8 A. A knee-shaped key which was broken at its knee tis clean. B. R. Judah declares unclean, because one opens with it from the inS:ide[part of the key]. [Danby: "One may still oipen the door with the inner portion."} C. And a gamma-shaped [key} which was broken at its shorter arm ("gamma") is clean. [Danby: "Apparently the latter type of key needed to be thrust in deeper than the former."} D. [If} there were on it teeth and gaps (I:IPYM, NQBYM), it is unclean. [If} the teeth were removed, it is unclean berause of the gaps. [If} the gaps were blocked up, it is unclean because of the teeth. [If} the teeth were removed and the gaps filled up, or merged into one another (PR~W ZH LTWK ZH), it is clean. E. A [metal} mustard-strainer in which the three holes in the bottom merged into one another is clean. F. And the metal mill-funnel [in the same condition} is unclean. M. Kel. 14:8 (A-B: y. Shab. 8:6)

The reason of A is that the lock no longer serves its original purpose. Judah says it does, so it remains unclean, because one can open a lock with part of the remainder. C is important only within Judah's theory of B. Certainly the authority behind A would regard the key as clean in any event. D returns us to the formulary pattern of 13 :2. I am not clear as to the antecedent of the "it" in D. We have already heard that all parties agree the broken gamma-shaped key of C is clean. Evidently, as presently formulated, D refers to C and says that if the key of C has neither teeth nor gaps, the key is clean as stated, but if it does, then these will modify the foregoing rule. Perhaps the teeth and gaps (D) are pertinent to any key; we are told that any sort of lock is going to be subject to the considerations of D. But this still contradicts not only A-C, but also 11 :2, which states that appurtenances of the door are clean, because they are regarded as affixed to the ground. Bertinoro (so too Slotki) says "it" refers to the part that remained in C. But then, as observed, C has told us it is clean, so why should D say "it" may be unclean?

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:8

47

The mustard strainer is a separate rule, and the reason it is attached is the use of PR$ in D. Otherwise it has no place here. The point is that the mustard strainer is no longer useful for its normal purpose and so is clean, but the other item continues to be useful.

B

C

A. A tray (TBP).

B. A sieve (KBRH). C. A strainer. Source: Brand, p. 607.

A. A jointed lock (RKWBH) which was broken in the midst of its joint (RKWBTW)B. R. Meir declares unclean. C. And R. Judah declares clean. D. And Rabban Simeon b. Gama:liel says, "Matbers are reserved." Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:15 (Tos. Reng. p. 46, ls. 18-20)

M.'s MPTI:f SL JRKBH in Tos. loses the ". M. gives as an anonymous rule Meir's view according to Simeon (D), and so too with Judah. A. A mustard strainer which was divided len,gthwise is clean, and breadthwise, if it serves more or less its original function, is unclean, and if not, it is clean. B. Said R. meazar b. R. $adoq, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not diffet concerning a mustard strainer in which the three holes in the bottom merged into one another, that it is clean. C. "Concerning what did they differ?

48

KELIM CHAPTER FOURTEEN

14:8

"Concerning two [holes which merged into one another], for"The House of Shammai declare unclean. "And the House of Hillel declare clean." Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:16 (Tos. Reng. p. 46, ls. 21-23, p. 47, ls. 1-3)

A introduces an issue absent in M. 14:8E. Presumably the holes are in a single line. If the strainer is split lengthwise, all the holes are broken, and the strainer is useless. But if it is split breadthwise, you still have some useful holes. Eleazar says the Houses concur on. M. 14:8E, though this does not prove 14:8E comes from the Houses. But Eleazar will have had before him as a disputed matter the case of 14:8E, and then M. gives the House of Hillel's view only. The issue of Tos. C is whether this sort of strainer serves its usual function. A ladle for drawing wine (QYTWN), the mouth of which one is planning to close (TPJ::I) and to ma!ke like a duct (~YNWR), j5 clean until one will [ actuallyJ close ('f PJ::I) the mouth. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4: 17 (Tos. Reng. p. 47, ls. 4-5)

The point is that if a person wants to use a pitcher for expensive fluids, he will employ a pitcher which has a spout, so as not to waste part of the fluid. Here we have a pitcher of metal, which has a round mouth. The owner intends to strike the mouth in order to form a spout, as in Tos. Kel. B.M. 2:10. This explanation is from Professor Saul Lieberman (Personal Letter, July 15, 1973), and see also TR III, p. 4 7. M. 2 5 :9, as noted, says that utensils enter the category of uncleanness when one merely intends to use them in a way which will subject them to uncleanness. But that law applies only to vessels which the man wants to use just as they are now. So there is no contradiction with the present law. Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:17 completes M. 14:5.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN The unit on utensils of wood begins (15:lA-E) with the familiar, misleading allegation that utensils of wood, leather, bone, and glass are clean when flat, and unclean when they form receptacles ( 2: 1, 11 :1). That statement is as problematical for the present unit as for the one on metal utensils. For flat wooden utensils may be unclean when they are designated regularly to function in some useful way. For example, 15 :2 tells us flat baking boards of bakers are unclean, and we shall deal also with beams, tables, and other flat objects. A second, not much better start on wooden utensils comes with 15 :lF-S, which give us a dispute between Meir and Judah about the susceptibility of very large wooden boxes. These heavy boxes are not regularly moved about, so may be regarded as fastened to the ground and clean. Or they are made for their present function ("they have no other use than to go about carrying what is in them"), and since their maker regarded them as useful, his intention is decisive and they will be unclean. The dispute certainly does not correspond to the logical unfolding of the rules on metal utensils in M. 11 :1-3ff. Then come several discrete rules, centered on a single principle, namely, the cleanness and uncleanness of various objects, with the important distinction being whether the objects belong to professionals or householders. In the former case they will be unclean, because they are designated for a single function ("they have a name unto themselves"). In the home, however, they may equally serve several useful purposes, so are not specific to a single use and therefore will be clean. 15 :2-3 present these materials. 15 :4 lays down rules on wooden hangers attached to utensils. Meir holds most hangers are unclean. Sages say most are clean, except those which are necessary for use when the utensil itself is put into operation. 15 :5 says that a push-broom is clean, but a shovel, used for holding something, is susceptible to uncleanness. 15 :6 is constructed according to a formulary pattern: X is unclean, but X' is clean. This formulary pattern links otherwise unrelated objects. 15 :6 also contains a list of musical instruments and determines their susceptibility, and closes with the rule that a weasel-trap is unclean, and a mouse-trap is clean. 4

50

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN

15 :1

15:6 is probably the worst constructed pericope before us, yet Tos. shows that it is not a random collection of unrelated sentences, but a pericope deriving from a single redactional circle, Judah's; it has not undergone revision for use in Mishnah. That is why it seems to us so exceptional in its aimless mixture of objects and problems. Presumably the later redactional process took materials like these from several circles or schools and revised them into a single, relatively coherent code. If we are correct in supposing 15 :6 shows us what a single circle would have yielded, then the achievement of the ultimate redactor becomes impressive indeed. Theories of Meir and Judah predominate. The chapter surely is an Ushan construction.

15:1 Utensils of wood, utensils of leather, utensils of bone, utensils of glassB. when they are flat (PSW'fYHN), they are clean. C. And when they form receptacles (MQBLYHN), they are unclean. D. (If] they have been broken, they are clean (NSBRW 'fHRW). E. [If) one went and maide (I:IZR wcsH) from them [from their sherds or remnants, newJ vessels, they receive uncleanness from now and henceforward (MK?N WLHBJ). F. "The chest, the box, and the cUiPboard,a straw hive (KWWRT, better: basket), and a reed hive [basket], and a [water} tank (BWR) of an Alexandrian ship G. "which have [ flat J bottoms H. "and hold forty seJahs in liquid measure, which are the same as two kors in dry measure. I. "lo, these are clean. J. "And all the rest of the u~ensi'ls [of the aforementioned substances], whether they hold or whether they do not hold [forty se,ahs in liquid measure, which are the same as two kors in dry measure) K. "are unclean," the words of R. Meir. L. R. Judah says, "The tub of a [water] wagon (DRDWR cGLH), an:d the food-chests (QSTWT) of kings, and the tanner's trough, and the [water] tank of a small ship, and the ark, M. "even though they hold [forty .reJahsin liquid measure, which are the same as two kors in dry measure), N. "are unclean, 0. "for they are made to carry only what is in them. [Danby: "Since they have no other use than to go about carrying what is in them."] P. "And all other utensilsQ. "those that hold [ forty seJahs .in liquid measure, etc.] are clean. A.

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN

15: 1

51

"And which do not hold [forty se'ahs etc.] are unclean." S. Between the opinion of R. Meir anid that of R. Judah the difference is only the baking-trough of the householder (lYN BYN R.

... 'L) ... ).

[Meir says it is unclean, Judah says it with Judah's view.] M. Kel. 15:1 b. Shab. 35a, b. Hag. 26a,

is clean, and M. 24:3 accords (F: M. Oh. 8:1; straw basket: b. Eruv. 14b; b. Shab. 123b, b. Yoma 21b, b. Meg. 26b)

We begin our consideration of utensils made from still a third set of substances, apart from day and metal. The rule repeats 2 :1; in point of fact, 2:1 = 11:1 = 15:lA-E = 30:1 probably were originally a single statement of law. The substances, bone, glass, wood, and leather, have the same traits as clay; flat articles made of them are insusceptible, but utensils made of them which form receptacles are subject to uncleanness, and "breaking them is purifying them" ( for clay utensils), or "[if] they are broken, they are dean" (for wood, leather, bone, and glass ones). Maimonides points out in his comment to 2: 1, however, that it is not entirely correct to say that utensils of leather when flat are insusceptible, because they are susceptible to the uncleanness imparted by a Zab's sitting on them or lying on them; but such objects are not susceptible to the uncleanness imparted by a creeping thing or a corpse. The obvious distinction in flat wooden objects is between cleanness by Pentateuchal revelation ( = A-C) and uncleanness through scribal decree (the 'exceptions')-so TYT, TYY, etc. It remains to observe that A-E contain a complete and sufficient statement of the law. Further principles should not be required for the application of these rules to all articles made from the specified materials. Entirely independent of the foregoing, F-R contain a dispute between Meir and Judah, with a gloss in S. Were the two sayings not juxtapooed, we should not have supposed they were going to generate a dispute, for each is a complete statement. Except for the tanks (Alexandrian vs. small ship), Meir's list and Judah's have nothing in common except H + M, and this is almost certainly the center of the dispute, because even though of M requires a contrary statement. Then O explains Judah's view in M-N. These objects are unclean because their primary function is to carry a great quantity of material, so these huge vessels carry out the original intention of their maker. J and P-Q present a second dispute, this one on whether we distinguish utensils by size. Meir says "all other utensils," whether or not they

52

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15: 1

hold a huge quantity of substance, are unclean. Judah says we distinguish between those that hold forty or more se'ahs in liquid measure, which are clean, and those which do not hold that quantity, which are unclean. So the dispute is in two parts, F-1 vs. L-0, and J-K vs. P-R. The first centers on objects capable of holding a large quantity of materials; Meir says they are clean, Judah says they are unclean, and at issue is quantity, as shown in M. The second, as just now indicated, is about whether one distinguishes all other utensils, apart from those specified, in terms of size. The point is that these items are clean because they are so heavy as to be stationary, so Meir. Judah says that even if they are very large, they still in some instances are carried, so will be unclean. In the second dispute, we have large containers which are attached to carriers, so are movable. Now behind this last dispute must be an unstated rule: wooden boxes of a certain size are subject to uncleanness, but wooden boxes of larger than that size are insusceptible. Only with that principle in mind can the first dispute between Meir and Judah have been generated. Then Meir will hold that unstated rule does apply to very large containers, Judah says it does not necessarily apply; this allows Meir to declare those objects clean, Judah unclean. The second dispute has the two authorities go over much the same ground. All other utensils, Meir says in J, are unclean, no matter their quantity; Judah reverses himself too: all other vessels will be unclean only in the event that they hold less than the specified quantity of liquids or solids. So if the principle we have proposed lies behind the dispute, then the two authorities take internally contradictory positions on that principle, denying in the second case what they concede in the first. The contradiction will have to be seen as illusory, for the specified objects clearly are regarded in both sayings (E, L-0) as special and exceptional. Then the second dispute presents the. authorities' real opinions, the first simply provides the exceptions which each party is willing to concede. I am inclined, therefore, to regard the second case (J-K, P-R) as primary. And this one is defined by a single superscription, with the masters' operative opinions consisting of what we should have expected, a matched syzygy: A. B. C.

D.

All vessels which hold less than forty se:Jahs (etc.) are unclean. [As to J vessels which hold more than forty se'ahs (etc.): R. Meir declares unclean. R. Judah declares clean.

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15 : 1

53

(Or B-D + "and they agree" + A.) The order is exactly right in our present pericope, with the authority holding the stringent ("unclean") position coming first. G is unnecessary. Meir's point is that those large containers which have flat bottoms and which hold large quantities of liquid or solid measure are clean; all others are unclean. Slotki explains Meir's opinion in F-I: "Being heavy, they are not moved about when full as when empty, and, having flat bottoms, they come under the category of stationary wooden vessels which are insusceptible to uncleanness." And this clarifies 0: Judah holds these containers are invariably intended to be· moved about with their contents. Judah says nothing about flat bottoms. But his point is that these few items will be unclean because they are made for the purpose which they presently serve and for that alone, but all other utensils of such a size are clean. The gloss of S is curious. Neither party has referred (F, L) to the domestic baking-trough. The gloss therefore must serve only the second dispute. Then the trough must hold more than forty se:>ahs, and Meir will regard it as unclean, Judah as clean. But this seems odd, for there must have been other objects capable of holding more than forty se"ahs and therefore of generating exactly the same contrary opinions. A. Wooden utensils: B. One might suppose thatthe chest, box, and cupboard and straw basket and reed basket and hold of an Alexandrian ship which have bottoms and hold forty se,ahs in liquid measure which are two kors in dry measure [ should be unclean]. Scripture says, "Among wooden utensils" and not all wooden utensils. C. Or one might think that I exclude; the tub of a [water] wagon and food chests of kings and the tanner's trough and the hold of a small ship and the ark [from uncleanness]. Scripture says, "All wooden utensils"-as an inclusion. D. Why have you included these and excluded the others? [ For J after ScJ.1iptureincluded [ some items] it excluded [others]. E. Scripture says, "Sacking." F. Just as sacking :is peculiar in that it is carried when it is filled, so I include [ in the category of uncleanness] the tub of a [water] wagon and food chests of kings and the tanner's trough and the hold of a small ship and the ark, which are carried when they are filled. G. And I exclude [ from the category of uncleanness] the chest, the box, and the cupboard, and the straw basket and the reed basket

54

KELIM CHAPTER

FIFTEEN

15; 1

and the hold of an Alexand11ianship which have bottoms and hold forty seJabs in liquid measure which are two kors in dry measure, which are not carried when they are filled. H. R. Me:ir says, "Whatever sages listed in reference to cleanness is clean, and all els:eis unclean." I. R. Judah says, "Whatever sages have listed in uncleanness is unclean, and the remainder is clean." J. The difference between the opinion of R. Meir and the oipinion of R. Judah is only the trough of householders. Sifra Shemini Parashah 6:5-6 (Weiss, p. 52D-53A) Sifra has an interesting formulation of the dispute. B presents the contrary of Meir's position, with an exegesis in support of the view which he has maintained. Then C gives us the same pattern for Judah's opinion. D then points out that we have combined exegeses for two contrary positions, and E gives us the basis for the dispute. It explains the principle of Judah's ruling in M. That is, whatever is carried about when it is filled is going to be unclean, like sacking, but what is not carried about when it is filled is going to be clean. E-G therefore support the position of Judah; said items are unclean even though they hold the prescribed measure, because they serve their intended purpose, in that they are carried about. Then H-J give us a very lucid formulation of the 'rest of all utensils' problem, with M.S. the verbatim equivalent of Sifra J. So Sifra has provided a full account of M., with a conclusion favoring the position of Judah. Sifra then follows with Tos.'s additional materials as we shall see in a moment, and this now seems characteristic of the Sifra materials under review, which will give us both M. and Tos. Surely Sifra must be regarded as posterior to both. A. Utensils of dung and utensils of stone and utensils of dirt which come in [prescribed} measure [forty seJabs etc.JR. Meir says, "Lo, they are like utensils." And sages say, "Lo, they are like tents." B. R. Nehemiah says, "Large boxes and large provisfon chests (I::ISJYN; Jastrow: SWG) which have [flat} bottoms and hold forty [seJabs] in liquid measure which are two kors in dry measure, lo, they are like utensils, for even though they are not carnied when they are foll, they are carried with what remains in them (BMSTYYR BHN)." C. And how much are they? D. A cubit by a cubit by three cubits-they are six hundred and forty-eight handbreadths. E. Bvidence for the matter comes from the measurements of the table. Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:1 (Tos. Reng. p. 47, ls. 7-12) [ = Sifra Shemini Parashah 6:7}

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN

15 :1-2

55

F. R. Yose says, "In [reference to] the sea which Solomon made, it says, 'It holds three thousand' baths' (II Chron. 4:5). Anrd in another place it says, 'It he1d two thousand baths' (I Kings 7:26). It is not possible to say 'two thousand,' for already 'three thousand' has been said, and it is not possible to say 'three thousand,' for 'two thousand' already has been said. On this basis state, 'Two thousand in liquid measure are three thousand in dry measure."' Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:2 (Tos,. Reng. p. 47, ls. 15-20)

Nehemiah's cases (B) pertain to the dispute of Judah and Meir. To Meir these items will be susceptible to uncleanness, to Judah they will be insusceptible, for they are not carried when full (M. 15 :1 part O). Since they can be carried when partly full, Meir will regard them as unclean. The point of the sages in A is that these utensils are insusceptible to uncleanness and afford protection in the tent of a corpse; they act as a screen against uncleanness. This is a valuable clarification. The question of C is explained as follows by Maimonides, Kelim 4: 3: "Any vessel which even in its broken condition still measures one cubit square by three cubits high can contain forty seJahs liquid measure ... If it is one cubit square and three cubits high ... it is not susceptible to uncleanness." R. Nehemiah says, "Large boxes and large provision chests (SYGYM) [which] have bottoms and hold forty [seJahs] in wet measure which are two kors in dry measure, even though they are not carried when filled, are carried with what remains in them.'' Sifra Shemini Parashah 6:7 (Weiss, p. 53A)

Sifra omits the importants words, "are like utensils." That surely is an error, since in its present formulation Nehemiah's saying is meaningless. (But compare Albeck, p. 523). 15:2 A. The baking boards (JRWBWT; alt.: JRWKWT) of bakers are unclean, and of householders, are clean. B. [If) one colored them red or colored them saffron, they are unclean. C. The board of the bakers which one affixed onto the wallD. R. Eliezer declares clean [since it is attached to the ground]. E. And sages declare unclean [ since it rema,ins an autonomous utensil). F. The frame (SRWD) of the bakers is unclean, and that of householders is clean. G. [If] one shut it up [with rimsJ (GPPW) on all four sides, it is unclean.

56

KELIM CHAPTER

FIFTEEN

15 :2

H. [If} it [the rim} was broken off (NPR~) from one direction, it is dean. I, R. Simeon says, "If he [the househo1der}adapted it [the frame} so as to be separat;ingon it [ = to cut the dough on it} [ even without making rims (Sens, TYT)}, it is unclean [like that of the baker]." J. And so the rolling-pin (McRWK) is unclean. M. Kel. 15:2 (M. Ed. 7:7) The principle underlying the several pericope in the present group is that a wood object set aside or designated as a utensil is going to be unclean, even though it is flat. Tos. makes this principle explicit. But what is used only at random is not going to be unclean. A-B deal with a wooden baking board. It is flat, but still unclean (contrary to 15:1/2:1), because it is a utensil unto itself, used for a single purpose. But the one in the household may be used for various purposes, not solely as a baking trough, therefore it is clean. B then says that if the householder's trough is colored, in that way it is designated for the afore-stated purpose and is in the same category as the baker's one. C-E give us a dispute on the baker's board affixed to a wall. According to Eliezer it is clean, because it is now greatly changed by being attached to the ground via the wall, as in 11 :1, 2. The sages say it has not been damaged or greatly altered ( consistent with the sages of 14:2 (also M. 20:5-6) in reference to the siphon attached to a door), therefore it remains susceptible to uncleanness. Following b. B.B. 66b, Maimonides, Kelim 11 :24, has C as a metal board of bakers. It is unclean since it functions as before (E). But the context seems to imply it is a wooden board, even though the legal issues11 :1-2 vs. 14:2-derive from metal objects. F now makes the same distinction as in A, of course in the same formulary pattern. G corresponds to B. If the frame is enclosed, it no longer is flat and will have a receptacle, so it obviously is susceptible. H then qualifies G. Only three sides do not impose the appearance of a utensil. Simeon's opinioh (I) is that the householder's frame may be unclean, just as is that of the bakers, if it is arranged to be used for cutting dough. He will differ from A as well, parallel to B. J regards the rolling-pin as designated for a particular purpose. It therefore seems clear that the same principle in respect to metal utensils applies here. (That is why we cannot follow Maimonides on 15 :2C.) That is, a utensil which is specified for a particular purpose is going to be unclean. The rule of 15:1/2:1 that a flat wooden utensil is clean then is either contradicted outright or modified by the

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN

15 :2

57

application of that principle. This modification or contradiction will demand an explanation, and, as noted above, the commentators from earliest times provided a "historical" reason to explain away the contradiction. Bertinoro says A distinguishes between the uncleanness decreed by Mosaic revelation and that decreed by the 'scribes.' The latter have decreed that the baking troughs of bakers be unclean, even though, from the viewpoint of Scriptural law, they are clean. He says the difference is that baking troughs of bakers have the "shape of a utensil." But that seems to me to impose a distinction in the traits of baking troughs owned by the two sorts of people, which the text does not admit; "shape of a utensil" should be regarded as corresponding to "name of a utensil" of metal objects. Maimonides here observes that wooden utensils which are shaped like a utensil, even though flat, are susceptible to uncleanness by rabbinic decree; if they have a receptacle, they are susceptible from Scriptural rule. Metal utensils in both forms are unclean by. Scriptural decree. As regards the uncleanness imparted by sitting and lying, wooden utensils are susceptible even when flat (M. Kel. 24:10). As before, it seems that the contradiction between the generalization of 2:1/11:1/15:1 and the various specific rules may be explained in a different way. 2 :1 stresses the traits of all utensils, for, in every instance except metal, flat utensils are clean, receptacles are unclean. The emphasis therefore is on the shape of the utensil, without regard to the material of which it is made ( except for metal). When we come to the numerous specific rules which take for granted some flat utensils made from various materials may be unclean, the predominant interest is in the traits of the materials, not in qualities common to all utensils. The generalization therefore is possible because of its primary concern for whether or not utensils have receptacles. The specific rules assume, by contrast, that whatever shape is given to a substance, uncleanness may apply. Our discussion of M. 2 :1, furthermore, left the strong presumption that that generalization, therefore all which are modeled on it, derives from the last stage in the formation of materials in the present tractate, certainly after the major Ushan authorities who predominate. Perhaps we may theorize that stress on the qualities of utensils in general is a byproduct of the Ushans' interest in the conceptual issues pertinent and common to utensils, without attention to either specific materials, or, all the more so, to specific objects. In other words, the Ushans interest in generalizations may stand behind the law before us. Then it fell to the

58

KELIM CHAPTER

FIFTEEN

15 :2

Amoraim to recognize and take account of the conflicts among the several strata of law. A. The boards used at weddings as tables (Rl;IWYNYWT; Jastrow: Dl;IWWNWT) which are dining rooms-householders eat on them, for even though they are divided like the talon of a bird (K~PWRN) (and certainly are not usually meant as a dining table}, they are unclean, because they are l,ike a tray. B. WMcsH B: A householder haid boards (N~RYM) in his house, and they would borrow them for a mourner's house or for a banquet-house. And the matter came before sages. They declared it clean. He saw that they needed them [frequently}, and he gave them [the boards} to them [the borrowers} as a gift. And the matter came before sages and they declared them unclean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:3 (Tos. Reng. p. 47, ls. 21-22, p. 48, ls. 1-4)

The tables in A are flat boards, and as flat wooden objects should be clean. But since people rou,tinely use them for eating-that is, for a definite, limited purpose-they are susceptible to uncleanness. The important point in B is that the boards were regularly used for tables and as a result they were set aside as trays or tables; therefore the sages, taking account of their fixed status and function, declared them susceptible to uncleanness. This will accord with M. 15 :2, the utensils of a householder may serve a number of purposes, therefore will not be unclean as would be the case if they functioned for a particular purpose. A. Why are baking boards eRWKWT) of bakers unclean? Because they are designated (MYWl;IDWT) as utensils. And (those} of householders are clean until one will designate them as a utensil. B. R. Simeon says, "Why is the frame of bakers which is divided (PRWS) unclean? Because he cuts, [dough} and on it brings the rolls to the oven. "And of householders---..if he adaipted it [solely} for cutting [rdough} and bringing rolls on it to the oven, it [too} is unclean." Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:4 (Tos. Reng. p. 48, ls. 5-10)

Alternative readings for Yl;ID give l;IZR-thus, "restore them" for use as a utensil. I have given Yl:fD, designate, throughout. A-B correspond to and explain M. 15 :2A-B. The point is obvious: the bakers' boards clearly are ready for use as a utensil; if domestic ones are so designated ( = M. 15 :2B, "colored"), they too are unclean as utensils, even though flat. Simeon's view, B, is in principle the same as in M. 15 :2I.

KELIM CHAPTER FH"'TEEN

15 :3

59

15:3 A. The container of the sifter (YM NPH) of the flour-dealers is unclean, and of householders is clean. B. R. Judah says, "Also that of hair-dressers is subject to uncleanness from sitting (MSWM MWSB), [Danby: "susceptible to uncleanness as being something that is sat upon; it is suscept,ibleto midras-uncleanness,"), C. "because girls sit on it and have their haJirdone (GWDLWT)." M. Kel. 15:3 Albeck explains (p. 524) that a yam (container) is a place for collection; it is not a utensil unto itself but is attached to the sifter to receive the flour. When the yam of a miller's sifter is broken away, it is still unclean because it is going to be restored. But a householder's is not susceptible until it actually is restored. It may serve other purposes. The formulation of A follows the established pattern, X of professionals is unclean, X of private people is clean. Judah then says that the yam of hairdressers is susceptible to the uncleanness of a chair (TM 3 MWSB) because it is sat upon. I do not see the point of Judah's remark here. But Tos. keeps both matters together, so the corresponding version will have had the same themes -disparate containers. M. 15 :6 has an even more curious combination of unrelated items and rules. A. The frame with a rim of plated ropes (SRWD SL ,?PYRH), if it has handles, is unclean. [If) it does not have handles, it is clean. B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, "Even though it does not have handles, it is unclean." C. Why ,is the sieve (NPH) of millers unclean? Because one designates it as a utensil. And [that) of householders is clean until one will designate it as a utensil. [In the home, it may serve a variety of functions.) D. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "Even that of millers is dean until he will designate it as a utensil." E. R. Judah says, "That of haiir-dressers is unclean with the uncleanness imparted by sitting because it is still a utensil (S0NDYHW, cWDYYHW). "Girls sit in it and fix their hair." Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:5 (Tos. Reng. p. 48, ls. 11-18; b. Suk. 20b) A-B correspond to M. 15:2F-G. C (= M. 15:3A) gives us Tos.'s general explanation for the Mishnah's rule, which modifies M.'s view of the domestic item. E repeats M. 15 :3B. I do not know the meaning of 3 ND/cWD. Windfuhr gives, "weil, wahrend sie flicht, die Madchen darin sitzen ... ," thus MPNY scWDH GWDLT HBNWT, etc.

60

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15:3-4

My translation follows HD, p. 105 Col. B. But Lieberman, TR III, p. 48, says the explanation of E is not clear to him, and the matter therefore is in doubt. 15:4 A. "All hangers [ affixed to utensils] (TL WYM) are unclean [ connected to the primary utensil], except for the hanger of the sifter or riiddle (hanger) of the householders [ which are not always joined (TYT) ]," the words of R. Meir. B. And sages say, "They all are clean, except for the hanger of the sifter of the flour dealers, and the hanger of the sieve of the threshing floors, and the hanger of the hand-sickle, and the hanger of the excisemen's staff [So Danby for HBLSJ, because they ass-istin the time of the work." [Danby: "Since they aid the implement at the time of its use."] C. This is the general rule [for BJ: That which is used to assist in the time of work [ as a handle] is unclean [ = regarded as connected]. That which is used for hanging [alone] (LTLWY) is clean, [ for dt serves the utensil, not man]. M. Kel. 15:4

The "hanger" here is a handle of a utensil, by which the utensil is hung up. All are susceptible to uncleanness, in Meir's opinion, except the two specified. Gamaliel in 12 :6 has said the hanger of a strigil is susceptible; Meir's view is not inconsistent. The sages hold that only a hanger which serves the purpose of the utensil is unclean. They will differ from Gamaliel. C is an expansion of the principle of B, restating it in more reasonable fashion. But C does not exclude only B's items. What is made only as a hook on the utensil itself but serves no purpose intrinsic to the utensil is not susceptible. What serves also as a handle when the utensil is used is part of the utensil and unclean. Obviously the sages' "all of them" takes for granted Meir's "all hangers." But otherwise the sages' saying could readily stand as an independent statement, for it in no way balances, or corresponds to, Meir's. The fundamental difference between the two positions is this: According to what principle will the matter be decided? Meir regards the decisive consideration as the connection between the hanger and the utensil. The two are connected, therefore the former shares in the status of the latter. The sages' criterion is, as stated, what is in use when the utensil itself is used. This accords with the principle established earlier that the 'cutting edge' of a utensil when metal will subject the entire utensil, even if it is wood, to the rules of unclean-

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15 :4-6

61

ness to which metal objects are liable. This same view is stated alternatively. Wood parts subsidiary to metal ones are subject to the rule of the metal ones, and vice versa. So, as is clear, if the hanger serves as a grip for the object when it is in use, the hanger is subject to uncleanness. Mere connectedness is no issue, and the sages introduce a more subtle, logical consideration. A. All hangers which are perforated are a connector. B. R. Yol_iananb. Nuri said, "Also the wedged ones [I:IRWQYN, following Lieberman, TR III, pp. 48-49; note also M. Par. 12:8]." C. Added to them [are] a belt-hanger and a small sword's [hanger} because they assist in the time of work. D. The hanger of a flagon tray and a cup tray which is sewn is unclean. [If it is] tied and fastened by means of a loop (cNWB), it is clean. E. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Meir, "All hangers are unclean. They did not declare clean the hanger of the sifter (NPH) and the riddle (KBRH) of the householders, except in the time that he slides (MSHYL) two heads to one 9ide [ at which point it does not assist in the work of the utensil]." Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:6 (Tos. Reng. p. 48, ls. 19-23, p. 49, ls. 1-2)

For E see Lieberman, TR III, p. 49, to line 5. A makes explicit the consideration of the connector, but then C introduces the question of whether or not the hanger is useful when the object actually carries out its function, so both considerations are taken as operative--therefore confused. C supports the sages against Meir, but A and B seem to accord with Meir's principle. 15:5 A. The shovel (RI::fT) of the grist-dealers is unclean, .and of the storerooms is clean. That of the winepresses is unclean, and of the threshing floors is clean. B. This ds.the general rule: That which is made for receiving is unclean, and for gathering (KNWS) ["to heap stuff together"] ,is clean. M. Kel. 15:5

B explains A. One is a shovel, the other a push-broom or shovel with no receptacle. 15:6 A; Harps for singing (NBL Y HSRH) are unclean, and harps of the sons of Levi are clean. B. All the liquids are unclean, and the liquids of the slaughterhouse are clean.

62

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN

15 :6

C. · All [Torah-] scrolls render the hands unclean, except for the scroll of the [Temple J courtyard. D. (1) The markof [K: Markob] is clean. (2) The lute, (3) the wooden leg (niqtemon) [Bunte: Eselsfigur], and ( 4) the drum-lo, they are unclean. E. R. Judah says, "The drum is susceptible to the uncleanness of something that is sat upon (TM" MWSB), because the wailing woman sits on it." F. The weasel-trap is unclean, and that of mice is clean. M. Kel. 15:6 (B: M. Ed. 8:4; D2: b. Shab. 66a)

The present pericope seems out of place; it introduces leather objects, excluding B, which is utterly out of context. B belongs to M. Ed. 8:4, C to M. Yad. 4:5-6. The point of A is that these harps have a receptacle for coins collected from the audience. They are carried both empty and filled. But the harps of the Temple do not have such receptacles, or are clean because of the considerations in B and C: to reduce the problem of uncleanness in the Temple. The markof is rendered by Slotki (p. 76) as "a wooden toy horse, or, alternatively, as "the wooden arm of a harp." "Clean" here means that it is not subject to midrasuncleanness( !). The other items are musical instruments. Judah's point is clear. Evidently the weasel-trap has a receptacle, but the mouse-trap does not. Copying Maimonides, Kelim 5 :4, GRA, and TYY, Slotki states that the former is susceptible "because it has a receptacle for the animal, whose skin is of use," but the other "has no receptacle, its only purpose being to crush the mouse. Even if it has a receptacle, it is disregarded since a mouse serves no useful purpose." Bertinoro says the former has the shape of a utensil, the latter not, also in line with Maimonides. It looks to me as though the operative distinction in A-C is the convenience of the cult (TYY: "between the sacred and the profane"). The harps of the Levites are clean, so too the scroll of the Temple courtyard, so as to keep to a minimum the sources of uncleanness in the Temple itself. The same is obviously so for the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse; if they are capable of rendering something susceptible to uncleanness, the conduct of the cult will be considerably more complicated than otherwise. It may be, too, that the cleanness decreed for the bed-frames of the Levites is for the same consideration, rather than for those reasons adduced to explain it. The remaining items, D-F, follow the same formulary pattern, but have nothing to do with the first group.

KELLM CHAPTER

It would be difficult

FIFTEEN

15 :6

63

to construct a better example of a redactional

mess. First, we have no idea why the pericope is included in the present chapter, to which it is entirely irrelevant. But the elements within the collection are no more closely related to one another. On the contrary, B and C are entirely remote from all relationship to Kelim. A is a plausible inclusion. If a markof is a wooden horse, then it should not be listed with the lute. If the niqtemon is a wooden leg, then it too is impertinent. That the drum and lute belong together goes without saying, and E makes clear that Judah knew at least the final item of D. How F fits in I simply do not know. If this pericope is an example of what the editor of the tractate had to work with, then we may admire his ability to reorganize most matters into coherent and cogent units. Yet for the moment let us suppose that someone has intentionally put these materials together. We may then readily understand how the redactor, keeping together what had come down to him, chose to put them into the present chapter of Kelirn, for A and F follow an established formulary pattern; important in the present chapter. B and C are tied to A because of the reference to Temple equipment. D seems to involve musical instruments, therefore is left to develop A, so too E. F then is a random item, but in its formulation entirely in place. In a curious way, therefore, the inclusion of the pericope in its present location may make some sense. The real problem is now the pericope itself took shape, and on that subject we m:1y stress the common theme of the Temple for A-C, possibly also D-E. F is no problem, since it is not integral and may just as well stand as a separate pericope. What on the surface look like unredacted singletons thus may provide il remnant of some earlier mode of organizing legal materials. A. Every garter is clean [ = M. Shab. 6:4}. The garter of the plough is unclean. B. All pieces [of fish] arc unclean, and a piece of Tltith-fish is clean [ = Judah, M. Mak. 6:3]. Tos. Kel. 13.M. 5:7 A (Tos. Reng. p. 49. ls. 3-4) These items arc inclmled because they set the formulary pattern; but they are not relevant to the present rule. A. All the harps (NBL YN) are clean, and the harps, of song (NBL Y sYRH) are unclean. B. All liquids are unclean, an,d the liquids of the slaU1ghterhouse [ of the Temple] are clean.

64

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN

15 :6

C. And what are the liquids of the slaughterhouse which are clean? This 1s the blood and the water. (If) they were made unclean within [the court), even though they went forth outside [the 'Temple court), they are clean. [If) they were made unclean outside and went into the Temple court, they are unclean. D. (1). The Scroll of Ezra (cZR0 ) which went forth outside [the court) renders the hands unclean, and not only of the Scroll of Ezra alone did they speak, but even the Prophets and the Pentateuchs. (2). And another scroll [not belonging to the Temple court] which entered into there renders the hands unclean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:7B-8 (Tos. Reng. p. 49, ls. 3-12) E. R. Judah says, "The markof of song is clean, for it w:asmade only to serve with the ground. F. "If he made a nail on its head to hold on to it, it js unclean. G. "From [ = at) the place of the threshing, it tis clean." H. R. Yose b. R. Judah says, "The mouse-trap which has a receptacle is unclean." Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:10 (Tos. Reng. p. 49, ls. 13-22)

Tos. Kel. B.M. 5 :7A corresponds to M. Kel. 15 :6A; B-C similarly, to M. 15:6B; and D to M. Kel. 15:6C. This seems to show that whatever tradition lies behind M., 15 :6 is not a mishmash without rhyme or reason, but a pericope put together with some purpose in mind. Tos. then provides, as usual, its supplement: explanations, emendations, expansions. Tos.'s scroll of Ezra must be the correct reading for Tos., for it goes on to explain matters, "Not only of the scroll of Ezra alone ... " That explanation would not have been necessary had other readings given czRH, the courtyard. So for Tos. czR 0 is necessary, and certainly wrong. Or the gloss justifies a misinterpretation. In this instance Tos. therefore has preserved some sort of independent tradition, closely related to M. but not responsive to M.'s primary point-a very strange state of affairs. D2 proves D1 is a false reading! Tos. E-H give a further, peculiar proof that M. 15:6D and F are meant to come together. M. 15 :6D now appears to be explained by Judah, and in Tos. H, Yose b. R. Judah hints at the reason behind the ruling of M. 15 :6F, the presence or absence of a receptacle, surely the basis for Maimonides' interpretation. Tos. F and G are certainly odd. If they are part of Judah's saying, their meaning is more or less clear. If the markof has a nail on its head, meaning that one leans on the markof when requiring a cane, the markof is unclean because wood subsidiary to metal is unclean

KELIM CHAPTER FIFTEEN

15 :6

65

as metal. But this strongly calls to mind M. 14:2A and Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:3A; indeed the passages correspond as follows: Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:3: MQL sc~lH BR)sW MSMR LHYWT TWPS BW BMQWM HDYYs THWR Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:10: MRKWP [SL ZMR THWRJ csH BR)SW MSMR LHWYT TWPS BW [TM)] MMQWM HDYYS THWR The only difference in the operative clause is that 4:3 lacks TM' and has BMQWM instead of MMQWM. These look, therefore, suspiciously alike, and by some process ( which I cannot remotely imagine), the traditions have given pretty much the same rule for the markof and for the maqqal. That the whole comes from Judah's circle seems clear.

5

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

KELIJvI CHAPTER SIXTEEN Chapter Sixteen is not much better organized than its predecessor. It begins with a rule for purifying wooden utensils. If they are split into two, they are clean, with the exception of articles which have dual parts, e.g. a double-table, in which case splitting the wooden utensil in two leaves it entirely useful as before (16:1). 16:lC through 16 :4 provide an excellent set of consistent rules on the point of susceptibility to uncleanness of wooden and leather utensils. The whole is an essay on Judah's theory that that point comes fairly late in the process of manufacture, against the anonymous rule that places it somewhat earlier. But no party will hold what we have until now thought to be the case, that is, that unformed wooden utensils are susceptible to uncleanness, by contrast to unformed metal ones. Everyone takes for granted unformed wood is clean until processedagainst 12 :8. 16:5 and 16:6 set forth various paired objects, some unclean, others clean. The principles are not difficult to follow. 16:6 ends with a general rule, as do 16:7 and 16:8. The generalization of 16:6 is a good one. The other two pose many problems. 16:7 presents a long list of items, ending with a generalization purporting to explain the foregoing. But the generalization of Yosc conflicts with some items and is irrelevant to others on the foregoing list. As if this were not sufficient, 16:8 then ignores the whole of 16:7-iterns and generalization!--and presents its theory of matters, which cannot be shown even to relate to, let alone to harmonize with, 16:7. The problem is the cleanness or uncleanness of various sorts of leather or wood cases, covers, bases, and blocks. The antecedent issues of the chapter are ignored entirely; there is no connection between 16:8 and 17:1. 16:1 A. Every wooden utensil which has been divided into two is clean, except for (1) the folding table (SLI;IN HKP\VL), (2) the serving dish (TMI;IWY HMZNWN-a dish made with several partitions for food) and (3) the footslool ("PPWDYN) belonging to a house-

holder.

KELIM CHAPTER SIXTEEN

16; 1

67

B. R. Judah says, "A'1so (4) the double dish (MGYS) and (5) the BalbyiloOJian tray (QWD) (C: KWR; M: QWR) are like them." C. Wooden utensils-from what time do they receive uncleanness? D. The bed and the cot (cRYSH)-when one will have rubbed them with fish skin. E. [If] one decided (GMR) not to rub [it], it is [forthwith] unclean [ = M. 25:9]. F. R. Meir says, "The bed-when one will have knit together (SRG) on it three rows (BTYM) [of the mesh of the underwebbing]." M. Kel. 16:1 (b. Hul. 25a, b. Ned. 566, b. Sanh. 20b, y. Ber. 3:1, y. M.Q. 3:5, y. Ned. 7:5, b. M.Q. 10b)

The theory of purification in the present chapter is that breaking the wooden object serves to render it insusceptible to impurity or, if it is unclean, to purify it. M. 17: 1, by contrast, introduces the purificationtheory based on perforations and their specific sizes. The entire matter is dealt with solely in 16:lA-B. The remainder of the pericope as well as the two that follow deal with the point in the manufacture of various wooden objects at which susceptibility to uncleanness begins. 16:4 deals with the same problem for leather ones. The theory of A-B is in accord with M. 3:3-4, though the larger underlying principle of susceptibility is not stated. When the wooden object is broken and no longer functions as an autonomous utensil, it no longer is susceptible or unclean. No consideration is given to the condition of the segments remaining after the original object is broken (2:2), except for the wooden objects which, even when split in half, constitute whole, autonomous utensils in themselves. That is, either half of the folding table or of the serving dish made into partitions or the double dish will constitute a utensil in itself. It may still be designated a utensil (3:3), or it may still have the "form" of a utensil, as with Tos.'s theory of the metal objects just now surveyed. Since Chapter Sixteen is clear and uncomplicated on this point, it is not going to list a great many objects and the point of their purification. A is phrased, as we should by now expect, as a simple declarative sentence. Judah's gloss is in a minor matter, and does not represent a difference of opinion with A; Judah therefore provides a sound attestation for A. C-F, to be continued in 16:2-4, ask when, in the process of manufacture, the wooden and leather objects are regarded as utensils unto themselves, completely and finally processed. For clay utensils, the matter is not so clearly stated. 5 :1 tells us that when an oven's

68

KELIM CHAPTER SIXTEEN

16: 1

manufacture is completed, it is subject to uncleanness. This corresponds to "its beginning is three/four", and then specifies the completion of manufacture. Chapters Eleven through Fifteen have not told us the same rule for metal, but Tos. takes it for granted, as we noticed. So in this matter M. 16:lC is a better formulation than what has gone before, though the rule is no different. When the wooden object has been finished (polished and rubbed), just as when a metal object has been finished (sharpened and polished), it will be susceptible, but not before that point. 5: 1's oven is insufficient for the generation of this larger principle, depending as it does solely on the height of the oven. But then its explicit statement on the completion of the manufacturing process serves an even better purpose than the present specifications, for it states as a general rule, covering all utensils, what we now have only in some specific details. M. 12 :8 has told us that unformed wooden utensils are unclean. Now we take for granted that the manufacturing process must be entirely completed to the final, finishing touches. I do not see how 12:8 cannot conflict with 16:lff. As usual, Mishnah Aparonah is alert to the problem. His solution is that 12 :8 refers to objects which do not come into contact with a person's body, but a crib or bed on which people lie will have to be fully finished to be useful. But 16:2-3 deal with baskets, so MA's explanation is not possible. (TYY gives the same.) Maimonides, Kelim 5:1, states, "(1) Unfinished wooden utensils become susceptible ... after the utensil has assumed its shape ... ( 2) Any unfinished wooden utensil is susceptible to uncleanness except those of boxwood ... (3) If a wooden utensil still lacks the shape of a utensil, even though use is made of it, it is not susceptible to uncleanness." I do not see now one can harmonize these rules, since the first and the third surely contradict the second. Rosh gives, "Even though unformed clay utensils are susceptible, in any case when they lack preparation (TYQWN), they are regarded as clean." This seems no more viable than the above. But b. Hui., copied below, seems to me to support Rosh, who cites it. The formulary pattern is rigidly followed: X-from when one will have done Y. The operative verbs do not occur in 16:1, but then recur throughout 16:2-3: binding (J::ISM) and smoothing (QNB). These here concern baskets. 16:1D has the final polishing, and E gives us an important, but obvious clarification. Meir in F exhibits no difference in principle; he merely differs on finishing the bed, saying it is done when the knots are tied, before the ropes

KELIM CHAPTER SIXTEEN

16: 1

69

are rubbed. But F in fact is out of place and belongs at M. 19:lA. Meir's saying deals with the rope, not the wooden frame of the bed. D-E are not in completed sentences, but are formulated in separate, but related clauses. This is most clearly observed in E, which has the important condition referring to the worker-"decided not to rub"and then for the apodosis refers back to one of the two items in D. Perhaps the logic in the formulation consists in, first, opening with the items under discussion-bed and cot; second, turning to the things a person does-rub with fish skin; third, keeping the subject of the verbs as in the antecedent instance; and finally, referring back to the first-named item(s), so A-B-B-A. It remains to observe that the rule for the bed and cot will have, in respect to baskets of wood, a corresponding detail, rubbing of 16:1D (SYPH) is equivalent to smoothing (QNB) of 16:2A. No one will agree with Meir, and the fol~owing pericopae are a development of the sages' viewpoint that the later stage in the process marks the point of susceptibility. The sages concede (16:lE) Meir's point without so stating. It goes without saying that, without the attribution to Meir, D and F follow the same formulary pattern as the other rules. b. Hul. 25a-b (trans. E. Cashdan, pp. 126-7), gives the following: Mishnah. That which cannot be rendered unclean ocn wooden articles can be rendereYNH) be slipped off1. it is connected to it [ = the trundle to the chest J, 2. and is measured with it, 3. and affords protection with it in the tent of the corpse, 4. and they do drag it [the trundle] on the Sabbath even though there are coins in it [ the chest]. D. Its, arched top (QMRWN), when it (BZMN SHW, QBWc) is fixed [ securely on to the chest], 1. is connected to it, 2. and is measured with it. E. And if it is not fixed (W=>M,yNW QBWc)1. [it] is not connected to it, 2. and is not measured with it. F. How do they measure it [when the trundle is securely attached, to r,each th1e prescribed measureJ ? G. Oxhead-fashion [So Danby for R,s TWR). H. R. Judah says, "If it [the chest] cannot stand by itself [without the arched top], it [the chest] is clean [ even if it holds less than the prescribed measure].'' M. Kel. 18:2 (b. Shab. 44b, y. Shab. 3:7) B. 1. 2.

Once again, in B and C, we observe that a rule which must come from a single hand will not necessarily follow a single formulary pattern. B uses BZMN, and C, w,M; we should have preferred BZMN SV. Also, B4 has when, C4 gives even though (BZMN S vs. ,p cL PY). D and E exhibit the same fixed difference between BZMN and w:iM :iYN, so these are normal antonymics. A-E must, therefore, constitute a unitary pericope. F-G are a normal addition, along the lines of 18:1, perhaps generated by the problem of 18:1. And in H, Judah rejects the entire approach to the problem of the antecedent rules. He furthermore supplies an Ushan attestation, as we by now expect, for the whole set of rules. The MKNY ("mechanism") is a trundle on which the chest is moved about. If it is removable, then the items in B follow. It is not part of the chest, therefore is not subject along with the chest either to contamination or to purification. If the chest is less than forty se=>ahs and is made unclean, the trundle is clean; and, vice versa, if the chest is larger than that size, the trundle still is susceptible. It does not add to the chest to serve to reach the forty se,ahs; this is solely

KELIM CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

18:2

125

in accord with the Hillelite opinion above. The chest is going to afford protection to its contents in the tent of a corpse, but will not afford protection to the trundle. It may not be moved on the Sabbath, as stated. But if the trundle is part of the chest, which may be carried, the whole may be carried, because the chest will contain clothes or utensils which may be carried on the Sabbath ( so Albeck on B4 and C4). B3-4 and C3-4 do not belong in Kelim and are glosses, as proved by Dl-2 and El-2. The QMRWN is a cover for the chest; it too may or may not be securely fastened to the chest, and the rest will follow as before. If it is fixed, it is measured with the chest; F-G gloss this point (D2). "Ox-goad fashion" is explained by Slotki, p. 91 n. 3, as follows: "Straight lines are drawn from the highest point in the arched cover to the vertical sides of the chest and all the space contained between the arch of the cover and the lines is included in the measurement." Danby (p. 632, n. 2) gives, "An isoceles triangle is described, the apex being the highest point in the arch; the volume contained within the triangle is added to the bulk of the chest." According to Maimonides, Bertinoro and Rosh, H then has Judah refer back to the chest of 18:lA. If without the top it cannot stand by itself, it is not regarded as subject to uncleanness, even though it holds less than forty selahs, and it is not a utensil. Albeck, however, joins H to the QMRWN by saying, "If the chest cannot stand without the cover,"-a fair alternative explanation. Mishnah Abaronah refers H to the trundle. If it does not stand by itself, it is clean. Since in explaining Judah's meaning in H, we now have spoken of a chest, arched cover, and trundle, we have exhausted H's exegetical possibilities. In my translation I have followed Bertinoro. Again the curious ambiguity of Mishnaic language stymies a firm interpretation. 16:7 states that the QMRWN of the box (TBH) is not susceptible to uncleanness. I do not know the difference, in point of fact, between the chest and the box, for the three objects consistently are regarded as equivalent and come together: chest (SDH), box (TBH), and cupboard (MGDL). It would therefore seem that 16:7 regards the QMRWN as insusceptible, while, in contradiction, 18:2 takes for granted that when attached, it is susceptible, as in Dl-2. A railing (McQH) which is in the cupboard and the cupolas which are in it, when (BZMN SHN) they are affixed, are measured with it, and which (Ws~YN) are not foxed, are not measured with it. Tos. Kel. B.M. 8:2 (Tos. Reng. p. 58, ls. 6-7)

126

KELIM CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

18:2-3

The principle of 18:2A-C herein is applied. But Tos. sees a cliff erence between the trundle and the railing, with the former necessary to the normal use of the chest even when not affixed, I suppose. 18:3 A. The chest, the box, and [or] the cupboard [of less than prescribed measure], one of whose legs has been removed, B. even though they [can] contain [hold something], C. are clean [as if they were broken (Rosh)], D. for they do not contain [ something] according to their usual fashion. E. R. Yose declares unclean [ for they indeed were made to serve in this way (TYY)]. F. And (1) the poles of the bed (NQLYTY HMTH), and (2) the bed-base (J:IMWR), and (3) the bed-cover (J:IPWY) are dean. G. Unclean is only the bed, and the bed-frame [bed-board] (MLBN). H. And the bedframes of the sons of Levi are clean. M. Kel. 18:3 The theory of A-D is clearly stated in D, which accords with Judah, 18:2H. The utensil, though not perforated in any way, is regarded as broken if only a single part is broken, even though it may more or less adequately carry out its original function. The rule is formulated as a complete sentence, as by now we expect for the $BR-theory. Yose holds that, since the containers are capable of holding something, even though they rest on their sides, they still are susceptible to uncleanness. Implicitly he will accept 17:15, a receptacle of any sort ( made of any material, or placed in any position) is subject to uncleanness. A-D hold that a receptacle must be used in the normal way, as in Tos. Kel. B.M. 7:10. The W of Fis misleading. It begins an entirely new subject, which continues through 18:6, the bed. The objects named in Fare secondary to the bed-things which serve a utensil, not man-and are not subject to uncleanness. They serve the utensils only when in use (Maimonides, Kelim 4:1). 16:8 has already told us that what is made for a cover (l;IPWY) is clean; then G makes the obvious still clearer: the bed-frame (MLBN) and the bed are unclean. The Levites' beds were carried with them to Jerusalem, the frames therefore were portable and easily taken apart, so the bed-frames are not susceptible. The Levites slept directly on bed-boards. Maimonides Kelim 4:2 states " ... it is one of those things which serve utensils only while these are in use--such as the frames of the Sons of Levi, on which

KELIM CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

18:3

127

they hang their harps and instruments of music and which are not susceptible to uncleanness." Maimonides, Kelim 3:8, gives the following for A-D: "If a box, chest, or cupboard loses one of its feet, even if it is not breached and can still contain the prescribed quantity, it remains insusceptible to uncleanness; for it has a flat bottom and can be presumed to rest on the ground as it was before." A. The boards (DPYN) of a couch [Windfuhr: Dje Bretter des Liegeshi.hles] (QYTLYZQY. Alt.: QYTLYJQY), lo, these are clean. B. The frames on which a couch is spread (GSYsN SL QYTLYZQY), even though they are separated and lying in four corners of the house, are unclean (since they evenrually be restored]. C. The four legs which are on its [the bed's] four corners are unclean, and the rest of its legs are clean. D. The bed-base (J::IMWR) which is under the bed-frame (MLBYN) and the bowls (SPLYN) which are under the legs are clean. E. The cups (or balls] (KPWTYN = KPTYN, from KYPH) which are under the legs, even though they are hollowed out (I::IQYQYN) and receive [something; that is, even though they are formed into receptacles] are clean, and they are not subject to the rule applying to a receptacle (WJYN BHN MSWM BYT QYBWL). Tos. Kel. B.M. 8:3 (Tos. Reng. p. 58, ls. 8-14)

Lieberman, TR III, p. 59, says he does not know the meaning of the item in A, other than that it is a kind of bed. The point of B is that, since the obvious intent is to restore the frame, even though its parts are now separated, they remain susceptible to uncleanness. C says that what is not essential to the bed is insusceptible. D repeats 18.:3F2. Tos. is consistent in rejecting M. 17:15 and regarding a receptacle as not necessarily subject to uncleanness. It must be used as a receptacle, not merely as a base ( cavity) or support (Maimonides, Kelim 2:4). A. The frame (MLBN) of the bed and of the cradle, poles (NQLYTY) of the bed and boards (LWWJ::IYN) of a straw-mattress (STYBS), and the legs (KRcYM) of a table, and the handle of the knife, when they are [permanently] attached, are connected for uncleanness and for sprinkling. B. If they [can] be ren1ovedand restored, (NYTL YN, NY1NYN) they are not a connector either for uncleanness or for sprinkling. C. The frame (MLBN) of a cradle which is equif>Ped (ML WBS) with knobs (PYQWT) [and] which has (the) legs is unclean. D. [If] it is tied with ropes and does not have (the) legs~-E. R. Meir and R. Judah declare unclean.

128

KELIM CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

F. R. Yose and R. Simeon declare work with the object itself (BGWPW) Tos. Kel. ls. 15-19,

18:3-4

clean, for one does not do [ = the legless frame]. B.M. 8:4 (Tos. Reng. p. 58, p. 59, ls. 1-2)

A-B introduce the issue of connectors, absent in M. 18:3F. The point of C is that the frame is placed within the bed as one of its parts. But, D says, if the frame has no legs, it does not serve by itself, as Maimonides, Kelim 4:2, explains, "It is one of those things which serve utensils only while these are in use." That is the view of Y ose and Simeon (F). 18:4 A. The bed frame which one set on tongues [ movable props]B. R. Meir and R. Judah declare unclean [because i,t is moved with, therefore connected to the bed J. C. R. Yose and R. Simeon declare clean [because it is not moved with the bed]. D. Said R. Yose, "What is the difference between this and the bedframes of the sons of Levi? For (S) the bedfr:ames of the sons of Levi are clean." M. Kel. 18:4

The issue is clear as stated, in dispute-form, in A-C. The movable props are not part of the bed-frame, but are detachable. The authorities in B evidently see some difference between the props and the Levites' bed. Yose says there is none, so the frame, which is easily taken apart from the props, likewise should be clean, just as in Tos. B.M. 8:4F. Yose's gloss of the antecedent dispute is curious; in a true debate we should have expected a reply, perhaps from Meir. Nor can we speculate on how a dispute took shape combining two authorities for each opinion. The theory of B, according to Bertinoro, is that the props are taken along with the frame and are regarded as part of it. So the difference is whether the props are to be compared to the normal frame or to the frame of the Levites. As observed, Tos. gives a different theory to Yose (Tos. Kel. B.M. 8:4F, 5:9F). The issue is not the detachability of the frame, but whether the frame serves an essential function. A. Cloths (MTPI:IWT) of the sons of Levi [ used to cover harps] are clean. Like them [ = similarly], a householder who made cloths (MTPI:IWT) to cover the walls and pillars-th~y are clean. B. Bed-frames of the sons of Lev.i are clean. Similarly, a householder who made a bed-frame to spread it from bed to bed and from crib to crib--it iis clean.

KELIM CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

C. D.

E. F.

18:4-5

129

If he designated it for one particular bedR. Meir and R. Judah declare unclean. R. Yose and R. Simeon declare clean, for one does not do any work with the object itself. Tos. Kel. B.M. 5:9 (Tos. Reng., p. 49, ls. 13-18)

A is in accord with M. 24:14. B follows 18:3H. D-E have the same opinions as 18:4B-C; the principle is consistent for a different dispute, and then, likewise, F follows Tos. B.M. 8 :4F.

18:5 A. B.

[ As to] a bed which was unclean with midras-uncleanness(if) a short side (Q~RH) and two legs are removed (NTLH), C. it [still] is unclean. D. [If] the long side and two legs [are removed], E. (it] is clean [ since it is broken]. F. R. Nehemiah declares unclean [ for one can prop the bed up and lie in it (= Yose, M. 18:3E)). G. [If] one cut off (GDD; M PB:GRR; K:GRR; V:GDR) two tongues (LSWNWT) at diagonally opposite corners (L WKSN) [thrus dividing the bed into two sets of a long and a short piece] [or] cut off two Legs at diagonally opposite corners by a square hand:breadth (N lacks TPI::I cL TPI::I), (GRA deletes "by a square handbreadth"-thus cutting off the tongues is equivalent in all respects to cutting off the legs], or diminished it [to] less than a handbreadth (sMcTH Pl::IWT M':fPI::I)[so that the bed is less than a handbreadth above the ground), H. [it] is clean. M. Kel. 18:5 (b. Suk. 16a)

+

We have come to the first point in M. Kelim after Chapter One at which degrees or modes of uncleanness play an important role in the formulation of the law. Until now, "clean" and "unclean" sufficed. As explained by Maimonides, the matter of midras-uncleanness is as follows: A Zab, a Zabah, a woman in her menstrual period, and a "leper" (M$WR c) convey uncleanness to what they lie or sit upon or to what they overshadow. These are: MSKB-uncleanness (for lying) and MWSB-uncleanness (for sitting). The uncleanness will be through sitting, lying, standing, leaning, or being suspended over ("overshadowing") an object on which one may sit or lie. The underlying principle is that that which bears the weight of such a person is rendered unclean, even though the object is separated from the Zab (etc.) by an intervening layer of insusceptible objects, e.g. a heavy stone (as in M. Kel. 1:3). When this happens, the object which has 9

130

KELI.M CHAPTER

EIGHTEEN

18: 5

borne the weight ( or even the shadow) is regarded as unclean with

MSKB or MWSB-uncleanness, and there is no distinction between the one and the other. Such uncleannesses are among the Fathers of uncleanness. The word MDRS---that is, pressure-will subsume the whole issue. Midras-uncleanness renders both man and garments unclean. The utensil which touches something unclean with midrc1s-uncleanness is unclean with MGc MDRS-uncleanness, that is, the uncleanness imparted by contact with midras-uncleanness, and is in the first degree of uncleanness, for something which has contact with a Father of uncleanness is regarded as in the first degree of uncleanness. In point of fact, therefore, we face the question of determining degrees of uncleanness of an object: (1) midrc1s, (2) maggac-midras, or (3) wholly clean. The difference will affect the capacity of the object to impart uncleanness to the objects or substances ( e.g., food or liquid) subject to its uncleanness. The theory of 18: 5-9 follows that of the sages, according to our second interpretation in 18 :9. Eliezer there rules that a bed is made unclean or rendered clean only when whole, and not piece by piece. The sages say these ptocesses may affect the bed while it is in pieces, that is, a board or a leg may be rendered unclean or purified while not part of the whole, although when entirely by itself, it is flat and forms no receptacle, serves no purpose, and therefore should be entirely insusceptible. Eliezer's logic is excellent, and had his opinion prevailed, the pericopae concerned with the breakage or dismantling of beds would have been unnecessary. But, as we shall note in a moment, this is not the whole matter. The bed before us, as ,\e know, is in parts; there will be eight in all. It is a rectangle, with two long sides and two short ones; the boards are joined together at the corners. At the corners are props ("tongues") and legs. The fundamental issue is this: When does the bed lose its primary form and so cease to fall into the category of a complete utensil? Once it is wholly dismantled, it is as if it were broken, so is clean. When put back together without intervening purification of the parts, it will return to its former uncleanness (15:1), because the parts retain their uncleanness, not having been broken. Now to our pericope: A-C describe a bed, the head of which has been removed along with the underlying props. The bed remains subject to the former midras-uncleanness because one can lie on it.

KELIM CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

18:5

131

D-E add that if the long side is removed, the bed is clean, because if someone lies on it, he will roll off. So the "form of a bed" persists in the first instance, not in the second. Following Tosaf., b. Suk. 15b, s.v. B,RWKH, GRA adds an important observation. The legs are presumed broken, so too the long side, so that, there being no possibility of restoration, the bed is no longer in existence. If the pieces are not broken, he says, then they can be rendered unclean and made clean piece by piece; that is in accord with 19:6 and the sages of 18:9, as we shall see. But it also is possible that the present pericope knows nothing of the rules we shall consider below. Nehemiah in F supposes the bed is still useful, since it can be leaned against a wall or propped up in some other fashion. Nehemiah does not require that the utensil function in its normal fashion. If it can be used at all, it still is unclean. G-H carries forward the rule of D. If the bed's props are so damaged that it cannot stand firm, the bed will become clean; if the bed is too close to the ground, it no longer forms a separate couch but is regarded as part of the ground. Thus far, matters are phrased in extremes. The bed either suffers from midras-uncleanness or is entirely clean; that is, it either is, or is not, a normal bed. The intermediate situations will be introduced in M. 18:6. A. At first they used to say [rule]: A bed from which one cut off ('1) two tongues cross-wise, or (2) two legs cross-wise, or from which one cut off (3) a square handbreadth cross-wise, is clean. B. Our Rabbis said, "One cuts off from below until one diminishes it to less than a handbreadth [to render the bed insusceptible]." Tos. Kel. B.M. 8:5 (Tos. Reng. p. 59, ls. 3-6)

A does not differ from 18:5G, but B improves its reading by

separating the square handbreadth ( 3) from the "two legs crosswise by a square handbreadth," which, in M., is difficult. A. A bed, two tongues of which one made wide [MRWW}:IYN instead of MLWWI;IYN] on a single side (MRWl;I Jl;IT) (direction) is unclean. [If] one ma1dethe four of them wide, or [if] two of them were removed cross-wise, it is [ useful and} unclean. B. [If} the short side was removed and [also} two legs, it is unclean, because it iis like the remnants of a bed (KsYRY MTH), [so] one [may} lean [ it against, or prop it up on, something else} and sleep [ or: sit] on it. C. And if in the first place one made it thus, it is clean because it is like a pedestal [a type of bed, so Lieberman, TR Ill, p. 60) (K,WDYYNY).

132

KELIM

D. E. on the F.

CHAPTER

EIGHTEEN

18 :5-6

[If one removed} the long boaDd and two legs-R. Nehemiah declares unclean, because one places [leans} it s,ide of the bed or on the side of the stall and sleeps on it. And sages declare clean. Tos. Kel. B.M. 8:6 (Tos. Reng. p. 58, ls. 7-13)

0-F reproduce 18:50-F, but reverse the order of the opinions, also glossing Nehemiah's. B explains 18:SA-C; the bed is still unclean because one can sleep in it, though not in the normal way. But if to begin with it was manufactured in such a way, it is insusceptible (C), presumably because it was not intended to be a normal bed. I do not grasp the realia of A.

18:6 A. [ As to} a bed which WJ.S unclean with mid1'11r-tmclcanncssB. [ if} a long [side} was broken, and one repaired (TQN) [ replaced] it, C. [ the bed still is} unclean with midras-uncleanncss [ including the new board, which is integrnl to the old bed}. D. [If} a second [one] was brukcn, and one repaired [replaced} it, ,it [the bed as a whole] ,is clean from midras-uncleanness, but unclean with the uncleanness imparted by contact with midras-uncleanness (TM 0 H MCC MDRS). E. [If} one did not have time to repair [replace] the first before the second was broken, it [the bed] is clean [entirely]. M. Kel. 18: 6 (b. Shab. 1126)

TQN of B, D, and E cannot mean repairing the broken board, but providing a new one. So \VTQNH must refer to the bed~"and one repaired it," namely the bed, by replacing the broken side-board with another. This is a somewh,1t unexpected meaning for TQN. In a homely way, the pericope raises the question of when an object ceases entirely to be constituted of its original parts, even though it retains its original form. The long sides are broken, and new ones replace them. If you take off the first board and put in a new one, the original bed is deemed to continue in existence. But if the second one also is replaced, though the bed is restored to its original condition, it is regarded as a new bed, for its primary elements h:1ve been replaced. Thus the bed is deemed unclean ·with midras-uncleanness. One long side was broken. A new board is put in its place. The bed is regarded as it was before. The new piece is wholly integrated and subject to the former uncleanness. E is essential in the understanding

KELIM CIL!\PTER EIGHTEEN

1 S :6- 7

133

of D. A second board has broken. The first has already been broken but has been replaced. So, with the repair of the second, the bed is now constituted by two long boards which are different from the original constituents. D says that even though the first was put into place before the second was broken, the original bed no longer is in existence, since its primary dements, as defined in 18 :5, have been removed. It therefore falls into a lower degree of uncleanness. The new parts are unclean only through contact with the midras-uncleanness of the original bed. But uncleanness does remain. Still, because the bed is deemed to be fundamentally new, it is not regarded as unclean in the former midras-uncleanness. D is in accord with the sages of M. 18:5 vis a vis Nehemiah. E then concludes the problem. If the first was broken but not yet replaced before the second in like manner was broken, then the original bed no longer exists at all-it cannot be restored with its original components--so it is entirely clean, that is: really breaking it is purifying it. The two levels of uncleanness thus allow us to determine an intermediate stage in the condition of the bed. Once it has been restored with a single new primary constituent, it is as before; but when the two primary constituents are new, it is neither what it was nor an entirely new bed. And E follows. The present and following pericopae are a delight--Mishnaic law at its most elegant. M. 19:5 and 26:4 will repeat the matter. It goes without saying that, since the theory of purification is NSBRW THRW, we find complete sentences, as is the case, with subordinate clauses and a full repertoire of verbs. 18:7 A. [As to] a bed-leg (KRc) which was unclean with midr{l.fundeanness and (which) one attached to the bedB. the whole [bed] is unclean with midras-uncleanness. C. [If] one took it off, it [the leg] is unclean with miclrast1ncleanness, and the bed with the uncleanness imparted by contact ,vith miclr