A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 4: Ohalot: Commentary (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 9781597529280, 1597529281

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART FOUR

S1-;UDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUI~TY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

.A HISTORY

OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART FOUR

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART FOUR

OHALOT COMMENTARY

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene, Oregon

Indexes in parts IV-VIII will appear in part VIII

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 4 Ohalot: Commentary By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1974 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-928-0 ISBN 10: 1-59752-928-1 Publication date 4/1/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1974

For Mary Boyce

CONTENTS Preface

IX

Abbreviations and Bibliography .

XI

Transliterations Introduction

.

XVI

1

I.

Ohalot Chapter One

19

II.

Ohalot Chapter Two

35

III.

Ohalot Chapter Three.

80

IV.

Ohalot Chapter Four

111

V.

Ohalot Chapter Five

121

VI.

Ohalot Chapter Six .

146

VIL

Ohalot Chapter Seven

174

VIII.

Ohalot Chapter Eight

188

IX.

Ohalot Chapter Nine .

200

X.

Ohalot Chapter Ten

224

XL

Ohalot Chapter Eleven .

242

XII.

Ohalot Chapter Twelve

256

XIII.

Ohalot Chapter Thirteen

271

XIV.

Ohalot Chapter Fourteen

280

xv.

Ohalot Chapter Fifteen .

289

XVI.

Ohalot Chapter Sixteen .

306

XVII.

Ohalot Chapter Seventeen.

318

XVIII. Ohalot Chapter Eighteen .

328

Addendum to :rvLOhalot 2:3, by Joel Gereboff

349

PREFACE The purposes and methods of this commentary continue those of Kelim and are explained in Part I (pp. xi-xx). While my primary goal is to carry out the studies in the next part, Ohalot. Literary and Historical Problems, that work cannot be undertaken or understood without a clear and responsible account of the laws under discussion. The present task is by far the more difficult of the two, and, alas, I can claim only moderate success. If, as I hope, I contribute in some small measure to the interpretation of the law, much more work still is to be done. Yet for the historical purposes for which the exegetical task is undertaken, I hope the modest achievement of the present work will suffice. No one can come to the study of Mishnah-Tosefta without a considerable measure of humility before both the great contributions of earlier exegetes and the intellectual accomplishments of the Tannaim, which I propose to explain. I welcome the criticism of others interested in the same problems of explanation and understanding. I thank The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for a research fellowship in the calendar year 1974 and Brown University for an extraordinary research-leave during the same period. My thanks go to E. J. Brill for the continuing commitment to the publication of my research. Nothing I attempt to accomplish would be possible without the encouragement of my colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies at Brown University, of my graduate-students and former students, now engaged in their own research, of my teacher, Morton Smith, and my teachers and friends, Baruch A. Levine and Isadore Twersky. The specific contribution, in the form of letters, of Professor Saul Lieberman, is quoted verbatim. The work is dedicated to Professor Mary Boyce, University of London, who is a friend and an inspiration. June 28th, 1974 8 Tammuz 5734 cErev Shabbat Parashat lf.uqqat

J. N.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY AE

Ah. Albeck A.Z. b. B.B. B.M. B.Q. Ber.

-

-

-

Bes.

-

Bik. Blackman

-

Bornstein

Buechler

C Danby Dem. Ed. EG Eruv. Git. Goldberg

-

-

GRA

HA

-

Hag. Hal HD

-

Hoffmann Hor. Hui.

'Aqiva Eger, 1761-1837. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). Ahilot I:f. Albeck, Seder 'f ohorot (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958) cA vodah Zarah Bavli, Babylonian Talmud Bava:>Batra:> Bava:>M~ica:> Bava:>Qamma:> Berakhot Be~ah Bikkurim Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. VI. Order Taharoth (London, 1955). H.Bornstein, Oholoth. Translated into English, with Notes, in I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud Seder Tohoroth (London, 1948: The Soncino Press), pp. 143-228. A. Buechler, "The Levitical Impurity of the Gentile in Palestine before the Year 70," Jewish Quarterly Review n.s. 17, 1926-7, pp. 1-81. H. Loewe, The Mishnah of the Palestinian Talmud (HaMishnah ca/ pi Ketav-Y ad Cambridge) (Jerusalem, 1967). Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London, 1933). Dema:ii 'Eduyyot Hiddushe Eliyyahu MiGreiditz. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). 'Eruvin Gittin Abraham Goldberg, The Mishnah Treatise Ohaloth. Critically edited and provided with introduction, commentary and notes (Jerusalem, 1955). Elijah hen Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), for M., and from standard text of Tos. Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, for Tos. Hon 'Ashir. Emanuel I:Jai b. Abraham Riqi. In Qevufat Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962), Vol. VI. I:Jagigah I:Jallah l;lasde David. David Pardo, Sefer l;lasde David, Part IV. Tosefet Merubah, vehu perush 'al haTosefta Seder 'f ohorot. I. Kelim, Ahilot. II. NegaCim, Parah, Niddah (Jerusalem, 1970). David Hoffmann, Mischnajot. VI. Ordnung 'foharot. Punktiert, ins Deutsche ubersetzt, und erk/art (Wiesbaden, 1933). Horayot I:Jullin

XII

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

ID

-

Jastrow

=

K Katsh

-

Kel. Ker. Kil. Krauss, TA

-

Krauss, Qad.

-

Lieberman, SZ Lieberman, TR

-

Lieberman, YK M

-

M. MA (Mishnah Al;aronah) Ma. Maharam

-

Maimonides

-

=

Maimonides, Code

Mak. Me. Men. Meyers

-

Miq. MY

-

M.Q.

-

M.S. MS

-

MT

-

N

-

Imre DaCat. Nathan Lieberman. In Qevufat Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, etc. (Reprint: N.Y. 1950). Georg Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1968). Abraham I. Katsh, Ginze Mishnah. One Hundred and FiftyNine Fragments from the Cairo Geniza in the SaltykovSchedrin Library in Leningrad (Jerusalem, 1970). Kelim Keritot Kila'yim Samuel Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie (Leipzig, 19101912) I-III. Samuel Krauss, Qadmoniyot HaTalmud (Berlin & Vienna, No Date) I, i. (Tel Aviv, 1929) II, i. (Tel Aviv, 1945) II, ii. Saul Lieberman, Siphre Zutta (The Midrash of Lydda) (N.Y., 1968), in particular, pp. 47-62. Saul Lieberman, Tosefeth Rishonim. A Commentary. Based on Manuscripts of the Tosefta and Works of the Rishonim and 1-riidrashimand Rare Editions. III. Kelim-Niddah. IV. Mikwaoth-U ktzin (Jerusalem, 1939). Saul Lieberman[n], HaYerushalmi Kifshu/o (Jerusalem, 1934) Part I, Vol. 1. Babylonian Talmud Codex Munich (95). (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). Mishnah. Ephraim Isaac of Premysla. Published in 1882. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. MaCaserot Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg (1215-1293). For source, see Sens. Mishnah Cim Perush Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon. Trans. Joseph David Qappal}. VL Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem, 1968). The Code of Maimonides. Book Ten. The Book of Cleanness, trans. Herbert Danby (New Haven, 1954). Treatise One: Corpse-Uncleanness, pp. 1-94. Makshirin MeCilah Menal}ot Eric M. Meyers, / ewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth (Rome, 1971: Biblical Institute Press). Miqva'ot Mayyane Yehoshuca. Joshua Aaron Heller. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1879, 1887). MoCed Qaian MaCaser Sheni Melekhet Shelomo. Shelomo bar Joshua Adeni, 1567-1625. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Mayim Tal}orim. Judah Leb Edel Halevi of Bialystok, 5577 [= 1817]. From reprint of Mishnah in Babylonian Talmud. Mishnah cfm Perush HaRambam. Defus Rishon Napoli [5] 252 (1492) (Jerusalem, 1970).

ABBREVIA'flONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Naz. Nid. Nusab

-

Oh. p

_

Par. PB Pes. Qid. QS Rabad, Ed. Rabad R.H. Rosh RSS Sanh. Sens

Shah. Shav. Shev. Sif. Num.

Sot. ST Strashun Suk.

sz T

T. Ta.

-

XIII

Nazir Niddah Y. N. Epstein, Mavo leNusab haMishnah (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 19542). Ohalot Shishah Sidre Mishnah. Ketav Yad Parma DeRossi 138 (Jerusalem, 1970). Parah Mishnah Codex Parma "B" DeRossi 497. Seder Teharoth. Introduction by M. Bar Asher (Jerusalem 1971). Pesal)im

Qiddushin

Qol Sofer. I;Iaim Sofer. From Qevu[at Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. R. Abraham hen David. Commentary to M. Ed. From reprint of M. Ed. in Babylonian Talmud, Romm ed. (Vilna, 1887). - Supercommentary to Maimonides, Code. Rosh Hashanah =_Asher hen Yel;tiel, ca. 1250-1327. For source, see Sens. See Strashun. - Sanhedrin Samson hen Abraham of Sens, ca. 1150-1230. From reprint of Mishnah Seder '[ohorot in Babylonian Talmud, Romm ed. (Vilna, 1887). - Shabbat - ShavuCot - Shevicit - Sifre Numbers. Siphre ad Numeros adiecto Siphre Zutta, ed. H. S. Horovitz (Leipzig, 1917). Page numbers given according to this edition. SZ: Y. N. Epstein, "Sifre Zuna Parashat Parah," Tarbi1, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 46-77. Page and line references for SZ given according to Epstein. - Sotah - Gerson Enoch Leiner, Sidre '[ohorot (1873, repr. N.Y., 1960). I. Kelim. II. Ohalot. - Samuel hen Joseph Strashun, 1794-1872. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. - Sukkah - See Sif. Num. - Sidre Mishnah. Neziqin, Qodoshin, '[ohoroP. Ketav Yad Y erushalayim, 1336. Ketav Yav beniqud lefi Massoret Teman. (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1970). Introduction by S. Morag. - Tosefta -

-

Tan.

-

Tern. Ter. Tif. Jacob

-

Toh.

-

-

Ta:c=anit Y. N. Epstein, Mevo.,ot leSifrut Hatanna'>im.Mishnah, Tosefta uMidrashe Halakhah. Edited by E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957). Temurah Terumot Tiferet Yacaqov. Jacob ~evi Shapira. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tohorot

XIV

ABBREVIATIONS

Tos. Windfuhr

-

Tos. Zuck.

-

Tosaf. TR T.Y. TYB TYT

-

-

TYY Uqs. V

Windfuhr y. Y.T. Yad. Yev. Zab. Zev.

-

-

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., Rabbinische Texte. Erste Reihe. Die Tosefta. Text, (Jbersetzung, Erklarung. Herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel and Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Band 6. Seder T oharot. Text, Obersetzung, Erklarung. Kelim-Ahilot. Edited by Walter Windfuhr. Toharot-Uksin, edited by Gerhard Lisowsky, Giinter Mayer, Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, and Emanuel Schereschewsky. (Stuttgart, 1953-1967). Tosephta. Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices, with parallels and variants, by M. S. Zuckermandel (Repr. Jerusalem, 1963). Tosafot. From reprint of Babylonian Talmud, ed. Romm. See Lieberman, TR Tevul Yorn Tiferet Yisrael, Boaz. See TYY. Tosafot Yorn Tov. Yorn Tov Lipmann Heller, 1579-1654. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tiferet Yisrael, Yakhin. Israel ben Gedaliah Lipschi.itz, 1782-1860. (With supercommentary of Baruch >Isaac Lipschi.itz = TYB), from reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. cuq~in Seder Tohorot c;m Perush... Moshe bar Maimon. Nidpas cat yede Daniel Bomberg Bishenat 5282 [= 1522]. Venezia. (Venice, 1522. Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). See Tos. Windfuhr Y erushalmi. Palestinian Talmud. Yorn Tov Yadayim Yevamot Zabim Zeval;iim

NOTE I have consistently translated 'HL as "Tent," and B~HL as "in the Tent," thus TM' B=>HL as "contaminate," or "render unclean, in the Tent." Bornstein gives "defile by overshadowing a corpse," and Danby, "convey uncleanness by overshadowing."

TRANSLITERATIONS N :i

,

1

= = -

>

Cl

B

1

l

-

- s

D

!.7

H

- z n - I.I ~

7

::, i,

=T

-

M N

0

T

t,

-

G

, -=W

il

~

y K

L

~ D

r

-

-

:!:t p -

., -

(

p $

Q R

- s ID - s n - T IJj

INTRODUCTION The laws about Tents originate in Numbers 19:11, 14-16, and 22, which state that if a corpse is located in a Tent, then whatever else is found underneath that Tent, even not actually in physical contact with the corpse, is contaminated by the uncleanness produced by the corpse, unclean for seven days. The Scriptures are as follows. First comes the simple statement (Num. 19:11) that a corpse contaminates: "He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days." The context, of course, is the preservation of cultic purity, "Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord." Then (Num. 19:14-16) we find the specific rule developed in our tractate, "'This is the law when a man dies in a Tent: everyone who comes into the Tent, and every one who is in the Tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean. Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days." Finally, we have the rule (Num. 19:22), "And whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean; and any one who touches it shall be unclean until evening." Upon these simple rules, particularly vss. 14-16, the entire tractate before us is supposed to rest. In fact, the wide discrepancy between those rules and the considerable structure of law in our tractate was recognized in antiquity. M. J:Iagigah 1 :8 states, "The purities and impurities and forbidden [ marital J relations have what to rest on [ = stand on good, Scriptural authority J, and it is they that are the essentials of the Torah." Concerning this Mishnah passage, we have the following (b. Hag. Ila [trans. I. Abraham, p. 56)): A Tanna taught: The laws concerning defilement through leprosysigns and Tents have scant Scriptural basis and many laws. [You say] leprosy-signs have scant Scriptural basis? {On the contmry] leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis. R. Papa said, "It means as follows: Leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis and few laws. "[~efilement through] 'ftents has scant Scciptural brusis and many laws. But what practical ,diffierencedoes it make?

2

INTRODUCTION

If you are in doubt about anything concerning leprosy-signs, search the Torah, but if you are in doubt about anything concerning [defilement throUJgh} Tents, search the Mishnah.

Before us is the recommended tractate. Corpse-contamination for the priestly legislators is represented as a matter of concern not solely to priests, but to the entire community. Baruch A. Levine (In the Presence of the Lord. Aspects of Ritlt?i! in Ancient lsrde! [Leiden, 1974], p. 106) states, '''The contamination from contact with dead bodies ... directly endangered the purity of the sanctuary, like the offenses of the priesthood. This is stated in so many words in Numbers 19:13: 'Anyone who is in contact with a dead body of a human being who has died and does not undergo purification has defiled the sanctuary of Yahweh ... ''' The consequence of such contamination is described by Levine as follows (p. 75): The purification rites undertaken on behalf of one so contaminated included the sprinkling of blood from the red heifer on the surface of the 11cnt of Meeting, itself, prelimina,ry :to the preparation of a mixture of ashes and water to be used in s,ubsequent rites (Numbers 19: 4). The purificatory •rites of those impure as a result of contact with a dead, human body has a two-fold purpose: to purify the persons dti,rectly contaminated, and at the same time t,o protect the abode of the resident deity from contamination. This latter aspect must be clarified further. One becoming imprn1e as the result of an offense against the deity introduced a kind of demonic contagion into the community. The more horrendous the offense, the greater the threat to the purity of the sanctuary and the smrounding community by the presence of the offender, who was ,a carrier of impurity. This. person 11equired puri-ficarion if the community was to be restored to its ritua!l.state, which, in turn, was a precondition set down by the resident deity for his continued presence among the people. The deity had made a vital concession to the Israelites, by consenting to dwell amidst the impurities endemic to the human situation (Leviticus 16:16). If his continued r\esidence was ito be realized, Yahweh required a,n extreme degree of purity (Exodus 25:8). In his heavenly abode, Yahweh was well guarded from impurity, and this condition was to be reiproduced as nearly as posl5ible in his earthly residence.

While at their beginnings the lavvs of Tents therefore are part of the larger set of rules governing the protection of the cultic community from impurity, in the period in ,1·hich the Mishnah took shape the rules also were conceived by those who made them up to apply not only to priests but to ordinary folk, not only not standing in the

INTRODUCTION

3

Temple, but not even intending to go to the Temple (which was in ruins). It was supposed that the meal in the home was the counterpart of the meal in the Temple, the domestic hearth and table being compared to the altar. Earlier inquiries into the laws attributed by the later rabbis to the Pharisees before 70 and into the laws of utensils show that Pharisees before 70, and their rabbinic heirs thereafter, imagined that all Israelites were supposed to keep the purity-lav-is even outside the cult and certainly took for granted that Pharisees in particular and do, do so. In the context of Greco-Roman religious this was by no means an alien conception. A very exact analogy to the Pharisaic discipline, for example, is to be found in the Pythagorean tradition, islike the co11pseand .its opening is four handbrerudths." T. 5:2 (Wind:fuhr, p. 102, ls. 15-17) A simply cites M. 3.6E. B's rule is extreme. It rejects the view of M. 3:6A, that an olive's bulk of a corpse requires an opening of a handbreadth for the egress of uncleanness, by saying that anything which separates from a corpse is like the corpse and so requires four handbreadths. So Nathan rejects the position of A, also of D, which limits matters to which more than a handbreadth applies. In all instances, Nathan holds, the requisite opening is four handbreadths. ST observes that Nathan thus augments Yose's rule, with which he agrees. Goldberg (p. 30) cites only the opening clause of Nathan's saying and makes Nathan agree with M.A. and differ from Yose. ST must be correct. There seems no reason to doubt M. 3: 6 is an Ushan pericope.

106

OHALOT CHAPTER THREE

3 :7

3:7 A. A cubic handbreadth ["a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth in height, in a cube"} introduces the uncleanness and interposes before the uncleanness. [b. Suk. 10a: "But if it is less than one hand.breadth high, it neither contaminates no.r interposes."} B. How [ does the Tent intet'pose before the uncleanness,}? C. An drain which tis arched under the houseD. it is a handbreadth wide, and its outlet is [Goldberg: ·not] a handbreadth wideE. uncleanness is in itF. the house is clean. G. Uncleanness is in the houseH. what is in it is dean, [GoLdberg's text omitis,:J I. for the way of the uncleanness iis to •exude, and it is not its way to seep in. J. It is a ha'OJdbreadthwide, and its outlet is oot a handbreadth wide-K. the uncleanness is in itL. the house is unclean. M. Uncleanness is in the houseN. what is in it tis dean, [Goldberg's text omits:} P. for it is the way of the uncleanness to eX!llde,and it is not its way to seep in. Q. It is not a ha.nid:breadthwide, and its outlet is not a handbreadth wideR. uncleanness is in its. the house is unclean. T. Uncleanness iis in the houseU. what is in it is unclean. [= M 15:5, The ground beneath the house, down to the abyss, is regardied as part of the houseJ. V. All the same is the hole dug by water or insects, or which saltpetre has eaten throughW. and so a row of stones, and so a [hollow space formed byJ pile of beams [ all oonstitute Tents :and interposeJ. X. R. Judah says, "Any Tent which is not maide by man is no Tent." Y. But he agrees concerning the clefts and overhanging rocks. M. 3:7 (M. Kel. 17:12; A: b. Sulk. 10a; b. Nid. 26b; Sif. Num. 126, p. 161, ls. 23-4, p. 162, ls. 1-5; V-Y: b. Suk. 21a) 3 :7A is stated as a complete and general principle, in a full sentence. Then we revert to apocopation for the examples following B. C, D, E, and F are autonomous clauses, stating a problem by setting up its conditions, then deciding the result of those conditions. G-H

OHALOT

CHAPTER

THREE

3 :7

107

do the same. I clearly is intruded, on simple, formal grounds; so too is P, which follows a different forrnulary pattern from J, K, L, M, and N. Q-S lack the generalization and constitute the simplest sort of apocopated clause. V-W and X then form a dispute. V, supplemented by the glosses of W, lacks a concluding phrase, which I have supplied. Judah responds not to the language of V, but to its thought. Y then glosses X. So the dispute of V-Y is not in dispute form, in the sense that that form normally imposes a close interrelationship of formulae. But it is normal for Ushan disputes to ignore the mnemonic structure faithfully followed in the disputes attributed to Yavneans. So '' All the same ... " may well be countered by the excellent formulation given to Judah. Y is curious in referring to items not listed in V-W. No one has mentioned clefts and rocks, and there is no obvious reason that they should be distinguished from other Tents not made by man. The problem introduced at 3 :6 continues. Having been told the measurements for taking out the corpse and corpse-matter, so affording protection for windows and doors not used in this connection, we now are given the far more important, general rule about the size of a Tent capable of introducing ( = "overshadowing"), or interposing before, uncleanness. A Tent is, at a minimum, a cubic handbreadth, a handbreadth square which is a handbreadth in height. \Vhatever is under such a Tent is contaminated by the corpse. Similarly, however, that enclosed space covering corpse-matter will prevent the passage of uncleanness. It is this latter point which now is explained ( B). C gives us a drain beneath the house. If it is of requisite size, it forms a Tent unto itself. Therefore if uncleanness is in it, the house is unaffected; we posit that there is adequate exit for the uncleanness in the drain, an outlet of a handbreadth. If uncleanness is in the house, what is in the drain is clean. That completes the illustration of interposition. J now reverses the former conditions. A new law is at hand, stressing the outlet. The drain is of requisite size, but its exit is not. It therefore forms a Tent unto itself and is not wholly part of the house. But uncleanness in the drain affects the house, for it has no exit. Un:leanness in the house does not affect the drain. We do not have an autonomcus Tent; I will not apply. P-U give us the final case, a drain entirely part of the house. The whole illustration, C-U, is hardly apposite to A and looks like an autonomous case. V-Y then give us an autonomous dispute on the status of natural, not man-made, Tents. b. Suk. 21a gives Judah's reason as follows:

108

OHALOT CHAPTER THREE

3:7

"It is written here, This is the law: When a man dies in the tent

(Num. 19:14), and it is written there, And he spread the tent over the tabernacle (Ex. 40:19). As there, Tent means one made by man, so here it means one made by man." V, with its glosses in W, lacks a conclusion. Judah provides the opposite rule, so we may surmise that V ended with language applying A to the new topic. Judah rejects V, requiring the intent that a space · serve as a Tent. Why he should then concede the point of Y I cannot say. V-Y certainly do not relate to the foregoing (MA). The formulary pattern-apocopated sentences-will continue through 3:7 and 4:1-3. Our present definition of a Tent ( 3 :7A) curiously omits a further requirement, taken for granted everywhere else, which is that the Tent must have an opening. A cubic handbreadth of space which is without an exit does not constitute a Tent; rather, it is regarded as a sealed tomb, and uncleanness exudes on all sides. Less than a cubic handbreadth of space compresses the uncleanness, which therefore bursts forth upwards and downwards, but not on the sides ( thus, unlike the sealed tomb). So M. 3::7A is a very limited and incomplete definition indeed. (But TYY says our examples concern the sealed tomb.) What follows hardly helps, concentrating as it does solely upon interposition. So we have three possibilities: ( 1) an enclosed tomb, which contaminates on all sides; ( 2) a compression of the uncleanness; and (3) a Tent which traps the uncleanness and prevents its egress, the outer parts of which therefore are unaffected by the contamination and are clean. TYY, Rosh, and Sens regard J-L as a case of compressed uncleanness, in the absence of adequate egress. We shall return to the problem in Chapter Four. Following MS and MA, Goldberg .(pp. 31-2) maintains that I and P are irrelevant here and have been carried over from M. 4:1. MA observes that since the drain is not open to the house, there will be no transference of uncleanness, just as there is none between two adjacent, but unconnected rooms, each with an opening to the out-of-doors. The "explanation," therefore, is hardly required. T. 5 :3, Goldberg observes, also omits the explanation (I). As to P, the same considerations apply. Goldberg stresses that the phrase is absent in important MSS evidence also. He further observes that I/P occur in cases of a Tent inside a Tent (M. 4:1-3, 9:9-10) and neatly explain T. Kel. B.Q. 6:12. The ''reason" has no pertinence whatever to our problem. But TYY's explanation (N. 71) is perfectly sensible, and

OHALOT CHAPTER THREE

3: 7

109

Maimonides, Code 20:7, gives I and P as the reason, on which point Rabad is silent. A. An rainspout which is arched under the house, four handbreadiths wide, with its outlet four handbJieadths, and it [ a corpse] fell into itB. the house is dean. C. [If] it fell into the houseD. what is in it is clean. E. It is four handbreaidths wide, but its, outlet is not four handbreadthsF. [if a co.qpse] fell !into it, the house is dean. G. [If] it fiell inrl:othe hous e, what is ~n it is clean. H. [If] there are neither in it nor in its ex.it four handbreadthsI. [ if a corpse] fell into it, the house is unclean. J. [:rf a corpse] fdl into the house, what is in it is unclean. [GRA: clean.] K. If it was broad inside [ = part of the spout] and na:rrow outside [ the pa:rt thait proj,ects](Lieberman, TR III, p. 106: Under the house it is a handbreadth wide, but under the wall Jt is not] L. uncleanness is in the wide partM. the house is unclean. N. In the narrow part0. irt:[the wall under which the pipe is Jocated] is judged half and half. P. Uncleanness is in the house-Q. utensils in the wide part are unclean, and those in the narrow pa.rt a:re clean. T. 5:3 (Windfuhr, p. 102, ls. 18-22, p. 103, Is. 1-5) 1

The sole difference between M. 3:7C-N and T. 5:3A-J is the different specifications of size. M. speaks of a handbreadth, in line with its opening clause about a square handbreadth, while T., which knows nothing of M.'s introductory generalization, refers to four handbreadths. The obvious difference is that T. requires that measurement for all sorts of corpse-matter, in line with Nathan, or rejects Nathan's view but speaks solely of a corpse or its equivalent. M. B is shown to be out of place. We notice that M.' s reasons are unknown to T., as Goldberg points out. The case of K-Q has a pipe which is broad under the house and narrow under the wall through which it exits. If uncleanness is in the wide part, the house is unclean, because the exit is inadequate; the uncleanness breaks forth upward. If the uncleanness is in the narrow part, under the wall, then the wall is judged in halves ( = M.

110

OHALOT CHAPTER THREE

3 :7

6:3), as we shall discover with reference to the cupboard of M. 4:1. If uncleanness is in the house, utensils in the wide part are subject to that uncleanness, but the ones in the narrow part, under the wall, are not. R. Judah agrees conGerning clefts and overhanging r10cks, that, even though they 2Jte not [made for J a Tent, they are regarded as lik,e.a Tent. T. 5:4 (Windfuhr, p. 103, ls. 6-7) (b. Suk. 21a)

T. repeats M. 3: 7T and explains it. ST says the reason is that they encompass the requisite space. Rashi (b. Suk. 21a) says Judah's rule in M. applies to a Tent of a handbreadth, and he agrees concerning a Tent of greater height, a more considerable space (HD).

CHAPTER FOUR

OHALOT CHAPTER FOUR Having been given a generalization, we turn to a special case, which occupies the whole chapter. M. 3 :7 has told us about two separate Tents, M. 4:1 now will speak about a Tent within a Tent ( Goldberg, p. 33). \Ve have a large cupboard, assumed to be so large as to be insusceptible to uncleanness and to constitute not a utensil but a Tent. What we want to know is not how the cupboard functions as a Tent; it will, obviously, hardly differ from any other. Rather we are concerned with the subdivisions of the cupboard, and the real issue of the chapter, therefore, relates to the parts of a cupboard serving as a Tent. 4:1 asks about the thick walls of the Tent, specifically, whether spaces ,vithin those walls are regarded as autonomous Tents on their own, or whether they are regarded as part of the larger Tent formed by the cupboard. Then, in 4:2, we turn to the drawers of the cupboard. These too are going to form autonomous Tents. The issue is not only the size of the Tent, but also the size of the exit of the Tent. If, as in M. 3:7, we do not have an exit of a square handbreadth, the uncleanness in the drawer will not have an egress except through the larger Tent of which the drawer forms a part. So the drawer will not be subject to the uncleanness in the cupboard, since it forms a Tent to interpose, as in M. 3:7. But the cupboard will be subject to the uncleanness in the drawer, there being no adequate egress. Yose glosses this point, and his position is so remarkable that it seems probable the purpose of the whole is to give expression to his position. As in M. 2:7, he says it cannot be taken for granted that the uncleanness makes its egress solely through the cupboard. The final point has to do with the cupboard standing in the doorway. Essentially the same problem as M. 4:2 is introduced, namely, the egress of uncleanness from the Tent and from its subdivisions; but now the house forms the Tent, and the cupboard the autonomous subdivision. 4:3 further introduces the trundle of the cupboard and stresses that the trundle is wholly part of the cupboard. If there is uncleanness in the trundle, and the trundle extends less than a handbreadth back-

112

OHALO'f CHAPTER FOUR

4:1

ward from the cupboard into the house, the house is unaffected, there being inadequate egress for the uncleanness; adequate egress, we know, is a square handbreadth. All the units of Chapter Four laws are formulated in perfect apocopation, with glosses, by contrast, in full sentences. The named authorities are Ushan. Since the focus of interest is the theory of Yose-which is rejected in the course and formulation of the analysis -we may take for granted the entire chapter is an Ushan composition.

4:1 A. A cupboard which stands in th!e open airB. the uncleanness is in itC. u'l!ensilswhich are in its thickness [Bornstein: "vessels in the (niches in the) thickness (of its walls)"] are clean. D. Uncleanness is in its thickness ["in (the niches in) .its thickness"]E. utensils which are in it are clean. F. R. Yose says, "Half and half." [Utlensils in the half nearer the uncleanness are unclean, those in the other half are clean.] G. It was standing in the house-----H. uncleanness is in it [ci.lf:herin the niche or in the cupboard 1

(MA)]I. the house is unclean.

J.

Uncleanness is in the house-K. what i'Sin it is clean, L. for the way of uncleanness is to exude, and its way is not to seep in. M. Utensils which are between it and the ground, which are between it and the wall, which are between it and the roof-beams, N. ~'fthere is there a square h:a.ndibreadth[of space], are unclean, and if not, they are clean [ contrary to M. 15:6). [Maimonides (CorpsecUncleanness 18:5) adds, "Clean, since we can regard the roof-beams as descending and closing up the space below them." He draws not on M. 3:6, but on T.] P. [If] the uncleanness is there [in the space between the cupboatidand the ground, etc.], the house is unclean. M. 4:1 (M. Kel. 8:6; b. Sanh. 106a) A and G set the stage for the problem. The first has a large cabinet, itself so large as to be insusceptible to uncleanness (M. Kel. 15 :1, 18:1), standing in the open air. If the cupboard were not insusceptible, it could not interpose (M. 8:1). The problem now is only the thick walls of the cabinet. (MA compares our case to M. 6:1-the walls of the house in which uncleanness is compressed.) If the cabinet were

OHALOT

CHAPTER FOUR

4:1

113

not in the open air, we could not so clearly focus on that problem, but T. shows there is no difference between the house and the open air so far as our pericope is concerned. The walls have spaces for objects. These niches are not regarded as part of the airspace of the cabinet itself. B-C pose no problems. If uncleanness is in the cabinet, the walls are unaffected. \Vhat about uncleanness in the walls 1 E simply repeats the point of C. The niches are separate from the cabinet. The important side is Y ose's, who says that the part of the niche in the thickness closer to the inner part of the cabinet is regarded as part of the cabinet, and the part of the niche closer to the outer wall is not. Yose compares the niche of M. 4:1 to the wall of M. 6:3. Now we move the cabinet into the house. It forms a Tent unto itself, within the house. If uncleanness is in the cabinet, the house is unclean, for the uncleanness eventually will exude from the cabinet. The main point is that the cabinet protects its own contents from uncleanness under the roof of the house, for that uncleanness will not seep into the cabinet, there being no entry of a square handbreadth. Yose will not repe,lt F at G-I, because now the uncleanness affects everything in the house (Rosh). MA points out that both halves ( F) are in the house and under its Tent. But Goldberg, p. 33, says the niches are separate from the cupboard and will be clean in the house which overshadows corpse-matter. M-N deal with the space between the cabinet and the ground, the roof, and the beams. We postulate (N) a square handbreadth between the cabinet and the walls (etc.). Then there is space for the uncleanness to make its entry ( = M. 3:6), and utensils located in the space are contaminated. But if there is no entry-way of a square handbreadth, there is no entry for the uncleanness and they will be clean, that is, M. 3:6 all over again. Then (P) we ask about uncleanness in the contained space between the cabinet and the earth, wall, or beams. The question of the size of the area no longer applies. The uncleanness certainly will exude, because of L. So again we learn that the handbreadth of space will afford protection ( N). This last rule simply repeats J-L. \Ve must now introduce a complication. M. Kel. 1():1 specifies that various containers afford protection when covered with a tightlysealed stopper, including insusceptible wooden utensils, such as we posit are before us. The conception is that, without such a tight seal, the uncleanness will seep into the container. Now our pericope-like all others in M. Ohalot-knows nothing about a tightly-sealed stopper. 8

114

OHALO'f

CHI\ PTER FOUR

4: 1

The cupboard is assumed to be closed, but no reference is made to a seal. Maharam therefore posits that our cupboard indeed has a tight seal; he simply cites M. Kel. 10:1. Sens says that the closed doors constitute a tight seal for our cupboard. Bertinoro observes that even though the doors are closed, the uncleanness exudes (L), this, I think, tightly-sealed cover protects in accord with T. Kel. B.Q. 7: 1 2-the its contents but does not prevent the egress of uncleanness. MA follows the reasoning of Sens and Mahararn. ST, (p. 86a), by contrast, says a Tent does not require a tight seal, unlike a utensil, which does. The larger issue, then, is whether a large cupboard is regarded as a utensil or a Tent. ST surely is right. Chapter Nine gives us another ambiguous object. A. A cupboard which stands, whether 111 the house or 111 the open airB. uncleanness is in itC. utens.ils which are in [ niches in} its thick walls are clean. D. Uncleanness is in its thick walls--E. utensils which are in it are dean. F. And R. Yasesays, "Half and half." G. If it was standing in the midst of the house and uncleanness is in it, the house is unclean. H. Uncleanness, is in the house~ I. what is in it is clean, J. for it is the way of uncleanness to exude, and it is not its way to seep in. K. Utensils which are between it and the grounid, which are between it and the wall, which are between it and the roof-beams~L. if there is there a cubic handbreadth, are unclean, and if not, they arc clean. M. Uncleanness is ther,e-N. the housie is clean. P. Utensils which are in the wall behind it and which are in the plaster above it are regarded half and half. Q. Uncleanness is under its [the cupboard's} leg or on top of comits leg, and it presses down [ or, and it-the rnrpse-matter------,is pressed]R. uncleanness breaks forth upward and 'breaks forth downward. S. To what is this [matter} likened? To a pillar which stands in the midst of the house and uncleanness is under it and it presses down [ = M. 6:6]undeanness breaks upward rnd breaks forth downwa!1d. T. 1f it was set on i-ts side and scaled (MWGP) and uncleanness is under it and it presses downuncleanness breaks forth upward and breaks forth downward.

OHALOT CHAPTER FOUR

4:1

115

Utensils which are lying in the small cupboards which are in the cupboard on either siide are clean (following TR III, p. 107]. U. If it [thie ~pboard] was standing in the midst of the doorway, opening outward, and uncleanness iis in it, the house is clean. V. If uncleanness is in the house, what is in it is dean ( alt.: unclean], for it is the way of uncleanness to exude, anid it is not the way of uncleanness to s·eepin. T. 5:5 (Windlfuhr, p. 103, ls. 8-23, p. 104, ls. 1-2)

The point of A-N, Lieberman explains (Personal Letter, Feb. 4, 197 4) is as follows. The problem of B-F is the situation of the utensils inside the cupboard versus those in its walls, not in the niches, but

in a cavity closed on all sides. In H-N the problem is utensils, or uncleanness, inside the house versus the utensils, or uncleanness, inside the cupboard. Yose, who rules in the first instance that we adjudge 'half and hi,tlf' refers to both cases and says that, in both instances, the law is $e same with regard to utensils in the thick walls or uncleanness in the thick walls, but with regard to utensils in the house, there is no disagreement, exactly as in M. Goldberg, p. 33, likewise comments that T. clarifies M. in showing that the rule applies whether the cupboard is inside or outside, so M. does not necessarily speak of a cupboard only inside a house. Even though the cupboard is in the house, the thick space of the cupboard is regarded as an autonomous area, separate from the cupboard itself. Even though the house itself certainly is unclean on account of uncleanness in the thick space of the wall, the cupboard itself is clean, since it is closed from all sides and is to begin with insusceptible because of its size. It forms a separate Tent, autonomous from the house. When the uncleanness is in the cupboard, the thick wall-space likewise is unaffected. M. stresses 'in the open air' while T. speaks of 'whether inside or out' to stress the difference between the first problem and the second, to show that the law of the second problem applies specifically when the cupboard is in the house. Goldberg. credits this explanation to ST and Rosh. P introduces a new problem. The utensils in P are treated as are those in the thick places of the cupboard. Q then has the uncleanness under the leg of the cupboard, with pressure on the leg. The uncleanness exudes upward or downward. The cupboard is compared ( S) to a pillar in the house . . T's problem is similar to the foregoing. Now we have a sealed cupboard, set on its side, equivalent to the leg of Q. The cupboard presses down on the uncleanness. The problem is the same as in S,

116

OHALOT CHAPTER FOUR

4:1-2

and the solution is identical. The uncleanness works as before. Compressed uncleanness contaminates what is above or below, but not what is at the sides. Utensils in separate cupboards on either side of the main one, not over the uncleanness, therefore are ruled to be unaffected. U repeats M. 4:3, without variation, except for T. V's clean, a recurring problem. See Lieberman, TR III, p. 107.

4:2

A. A drawer of the cupboardB. there is in it a cubic han1dlbreadth,but there is not in lits outlet a cubic handbreadthC.

uncleanness is in it-

D. the house is unclean. E. Uncleanness is in the house--F. what is in :iJtis clean, G. for the way of uncleanness is to exude, and its way iis not to seep in. declares clean [in the case of A-DJ, because one can H. R. Yose remove it in halves or burn it in its place." [Goldberg, p. 34, citing T. 5:7: "The uncleanness never exuides through a space of less than a square handbreadth."] M. 4:2 (b. Hul. 125b-126a) What is important is not the repetition of the same principle as above, that the space a square handbreadth forms a Tent unto itself to interpose against uncleanness (M. 3:7). Clearly, the drawer will contaminate the house through the corpse-matter contained within it. The uncleanness goes forth. It interposes because it forms a Tent and its opening is less than the size sufficient to admit uncleanness. The really significant point comes with Yose's rejection of the principle that what is going to exude is treated as if it has exuded (MA). That is not necessarily so, for someone can divide the corpsematter in half. That must mean he concurs with the sages who differ from cAqiva's view of the effects of the Tent in uniting discrete volumes of corpse-matter (M. 2:2, etc.) and agrees with Dosa b. Harkinas ( 3: 1). Burning the matter in its place, by contrast, does not contain an implication on Yose' s opinion on the related question of divided corpse-matter in a Tent. Albeck, p. 538, distinguishes H from M. 3:7. In the case of M. 3 :7 Yosemust agree, since one cannot easily get at the corpse-matter in the pipe. Goldberg, p. 34, cites M. 15:5.

OHALOT CHAPTER FOUR

4:3

117

4:3 A. [If) it [the cupboard] was standing in the doorway and opened outwardB. uncleanness is in itC. the house is clean. D. Uncleanness is in the house-E. what is in it is unclean. [Maimonides, Corpse-Uncleanness,18:4: "Since it is open within the doorway." TYY: "There is no other egress."] F. For it is the way of uncleanness to exude, and :it is not its way to ~pin. G. [If] tits base (MKNY) protruded backward [toward the inside of the house by] three fingers [ = 3/ 4ths of a handbreadth ]H. uncleanness [ was] there [ directlyJ under [ = opposite] the ·roof-beamsI. the house is [nonetheless] clean [for the base is part of the cupboard]. J. Under what circumstances? K. (1) When there is there [in the base] a space of a cubic handbreadth, (and) (2) it is not tdetachable, L. (and) (3) when the cupboard: comes in requisite size [to be insusceptible to be unclean, forty se,ahs in liquiid volume = M. 8:1). [Maimonides, Code 18:4: "But if its wheelwork does not have a hollow space of one cubic hand/breadth, the uncleanness is compressed within the house and the house beoomes unclean."] M. 4:3

Now the cupboard stands at the door of the house, facing outward. The apocopated sentences continue. If uncleanness is in the cupboard, the house remains clean, for the uncleanness goes out, not in; the cupboard forms a tent unto itself and interposes. If, on the other hand, the corpse-matter is in the house, what is in the cupboard is unclean, because the uncleanness exudes from the house. Here are no surprises. What is interesting is G-I. The trundle extends backward into the house less than the requisite handbreadth ( = four fingerbreadths). It is regarded as part of the cupboard, so if there is corpse-matter on the trundle, and even if the trundle is under the eaves of the house, the house nonetheless is clean. We then are given three conditions. First, the trundle has to form a Tent-a square handbreadth; second, it has to be firmly attached; and third, the cupboard itself has to be insusceptible to uncleanness, a point surely taken for granted throughout the discussion of the cupboard. Following T., Maimonides lays stress on the measurement of less than a handbreadth. In this case uncleanness will not pass into the

118

OHALOT CHAPTER FOUR

4:3

house from the trundle, for we require a handbreadth for that purpose. On "unclean" of E, see Goldberg, pp. 35-6, and his explanation of the version of M. in b. Hul. 125b. Rosh, Sens, and Bertinoro prefer ''clean." Bertinoro says, ''It is not the way of uncleanness to enter there"-and F surely explains why something is clean, not why it is unclean. But Goldberg's preference seems to me well-founded. TYT says we assume there is no other passage for the uncleanness except via the cupboard. TYY (n. 24) makes the same assumption. Epstein, Nusa{J, p. 966, prefers "unclean" and rejects b. Hui's discussion. He says we have a revision of M. in the light of a baraita (Tan., p. 139, n. 81). Said R. Yose, "Is this the law? Is the power of the utensil to interpose greater in the tightly sealed ja:r or in Tents? If ,it affords protection from the power of the tightly sealed jar with respect to a rolling stone [ of the grave], all the more so by means of Tents (will protection be afforded]." T. 5:6 (Windfuhr, p. 104, ls. 3-5. Text followed: GRA and Sens to M. 4:3) Professor Saul Lieberman explains the pericope as follows (Personal Letter, March 7, 1974): R. Yose proves that the inside of a cupboard standing in the door of a Tent in which uncleanness is located is clean, as against M. 4:3 D-F. For the Mishnah (M. 15:9) teaches that a jar filled with clean liquid and fastened with a tightly sealed cover which serves as a rolling stone, that is, closes the door of a grave, remains clean ( including the liquid). The jar is clean when removed from the grave because clay utensils do not receive uncleanness from their outer surfaces. The liquid is clean because the tightly sealed cover prevents the uncleanness of the grave from entering the jar. Now the force of a Tent with regard to screening out contamination is much greater than that of a tightly sealed cover, for the latter bars uncleanness from entering it, but not from leaving it, whereas the Tent screens contamination both from entering and from leaving. And if a jar with a tightly sealed cover which closes the door of a grave prevents uncleanness from entering its inside, all the more so that a cupboard which is a Tent will have the same effect. It is worthwhile, also, to review other comments on the matter, having established its meaning and relevance to our problem with Professor Lieberman's help. GRA explains that Yose asks whether this is the law, referring~ GRA says, to M. 4:3 G-L and 4:2. Yose holds we do not take for granted that the uncleanness is going to

OHALOT CHAPTER FOUR

4:3

119

exude. If a clean object is in the cupboard, it remains clean ( against T. 5:3V), and the house is unclean in M. 4:2A-D. Why? Not because the uncleanness must exude, but because the cupboard has no exit through which the uncleanness can go forth by itself. It is not regarded as a Tent by itself to afford protection for the house against the uncleanness inside the cupboard. The tightly stopped up jar protects what is clean in its midst from becoming unclean but will not interpose against uncleanness in its midst from seeping out. Here too the cupboard does not interpose against uncleanness in its midst. In the case of the cupboard in the doorway, with uncleanness in the house, what is in the cupboard is clean. The uncleanness can escape from the house by some other route. The issue is whether we have a Tent, so GRA. Goldberg, p. 36, says Yose does not ask a question, but states that this is the law; as is clear, we have followed this view. ST reads T. 5 :6 as a continuation of T. 5 :5. So too, Windfuhr (p. 228) assigns Yose's saying to the conclusion of T. 5:5, ''R. Jose sagte: So ist die Halaka." Then T. 5 :6 follows, "Wann ist die Kraft, [vor Totenunreinheit) zu schutzen, starker: beim festen Deckelverschluss, oder bei der Bezeltung? [Doch wohl bei der Bezeltung.) W enn man [also) durch fest en Deck elverschluss [ den Inhalt eines Passes, welches man] als Grabverschluss [ verwendet, vor Totenunreinheit) schutzt, so TM)[with the uncleanness breaking forth upward and downward, to what is directly above or below. Maiimonildesand Sens: Above 1mly.] · D. If it was visible from within the hOUSle,in any event [whether or not there is an open space measuriing a cubic· handbreadth], the house is urwJean [ as though the co11pse-mati!erwere located in the house]. · · M. 6:5 The rule is phrased as a complete sentence, lacking only ''if" in A, which surely is understood. Then the sentence unfolds with good syJ;J.tax.D, with if to be supplied, is likewise a simple declarative sentence. We move on from the plaster to a further, related problem .. Now we speak of the space between the beams of the ceiling. A bit of corpse-matter is located there, covered over by a thin layer of plaster. If the space in which the corpse-matter lies is a cubic handbreadth,

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX

6:5-6

163

then we have nothing other than a sealed grave (Maharam, GRA), from which uncleanness exudes in all directions. So the house and the upper room are unclean. If there is less than that space, however, the uncleanness is closed up or stoppered. It will exude upward and downward, but not on all sides. Sens, Maharam, and Bert. hold that our pericope follows Judah, assigning the plaster to the upper room; the uncleanness breaks forth and only ascends. ST explains that the plaster forms the floor of a Tent, preventing the uncleanness from spurting downward. They are followed by Al beck ( p. 144), "... it belongs to the upper room, therefore the upper room is unclean, and the house is clean." But why should we ignore the sages, in whose view whatever is above or below the plaster will be affected, as circumstances dictate? Rabad and Rosh reject the assignment to Judah; GRA logically tells us, "And [if it is located] from the midpoint [of the beam] and downward, the house is unclean, and the upper room is clean, and from the midpoint and upward, the upper room is unclean, and the house is clean." But M. does not specify "'half and half." D limits the foregoing. If the corpse-matter may be discerned, then the plaster is of no account, and it is as if we have the corpsematter in the house itself, for the corpse-matter is visible within the house itself ( GRA). In this case whether or not there is a space of a cubic handbreadth is irrelevant. But the upper room is clean ( Goldberg, p. 51). Maimonides (Corpse-Uncleanness 24:8) states the rule as follows: "If there is. something unclean inside the ceiling of a room and there is but the thickness of garliic peel below it, the room remains clean, for the uncleanness is regarded as though it was compressed in the ground, rendering unclean only what is directly in, line with it. But if where it lies there is a space measuring one cubic handbreatlth, everything becomes unclean. So too ff it is visible within the room: in either case the room becomes,unclean."

He. interprets "'fM as compre~sed and stands behind those who say the compressed uncleanness spurts upward only. 6:6 A. A house which serves the wall [Danby: "If a house forms part of a wall"] is adjudged in accord with the principle of the garlic peel. [TYY: "rather than in accord with the principle of location nearer to, or farther from, the uncleanness."]

164

OHALOT

CHAPTER SIX

6:6

B. How so? C. A wall which is between two tomb-niches or between two cavernsuncleanness is du the houses, and utensils are in the wall, and over them rs about a garlic peel [' s thickness of plaster]they are clean. D. · Uncleanness is in thle wall, anid utensils are in the houses, and on them ,is a layer of plaster [ as thick} as a ga:rlic peelthey are clean. E. Uncleanness is under the pillar [Rosh: "which stands in the cavern"]uncleanness breaks forth upward anid. brealks forth downward [ through the solid matter}. M. 6:6

6:6A is not entirely parallel in formulation to 6:3A and 6:4A. The examples C-E are all in apocopated sentences. Yet if we supplied the necessary if' s, the sentences still would not be smooth, because the apodosis, they are unclean, here refers to items in the protasis, utensils, not closely tied to it. But in complete apocopation, they are unclean would not refer to anything mentioned in the protasis. The wall was there before the house. (Here ''house" clearly means "tomb-niche.") That is, two houses are excavated, leaving a wall inbetween. This is the counterpart of M. 6:3. The language corresponds: A wall which serves the house is judged half .and half A house which serves the wall is judged like the garlic peel

But the point is quite different. If a covering, even so thin as the garlic peel, intervenes between the wall and the house, the wall is not judged as part of the house, but as an autonomous area. The wall is wholly separate from the house, and the covering marks off its limit. What is confusing is that in M. 6:5 the presence of the plaster as thin as a garlic peel does not intervene between the uncleanness and the house or the upper room, as the case may be. Here, by contrast, YDWN KQLYPT HSWM means we indeed do have an interposing wall. The examples, C-D, show that the plaster protects items in the wall from uncleanness in the houses or items in the houses from uncleanness in the wall. M. 6 :5 has told us the plaster will not protect items in the house or room if the uncleanness covered by the plaster is in a space of less than a cubic handbreadth, all the more so if the space is greater.

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX

6:6

165

Clearly, the difference in the cases is that here the wall in no way is part of the house, having been present before the house was created. The effect of the plaster therefore is to secure a place for the uncleanness wholly outside of the house's domain. By contrast, in 6:5 the problem is uncleanness which surely forms part of the domain of the beams. The presence of the plaster will simply redirect the effects of the corpse-matter, but even though the corpse-matter is wholly part of the beam (without a cubic handbreadth of space), its effects then are adjudged as part of the beam. The difficult language, ''adjudged like the garlic peel ['s thickness of plaster]," in the present context simply does not seem to mean what '"garlic peel" means in M. 6:5. E's pillar is in the midst of the house. Underneath it, in a space less than a cubic handbreadth, is compressed corpse-matter--compressed because it is in such a small space. The uncleanness then breaks forth upward or downward, but not to the sides, and whatever is above it is unclean. On the surface, this rule is independent of the foregoing and continues at 6:7 A. MA points out that in the wall of D the uncleanness is compressed, as in the case of uncleanness in the wall serving the house of 6:4. The uncleanness therefore breaks forth upward or downward, but not sideways-thus leaving the utensils in the house clean. But MA does not tell us why the utensils in the house have, by implication, to be covered by a thin layer of plaster. Even without it they should be clean, if the main issue is the flow of uncleanness up or down the wall ( and the pillar). Maimonides understands this pillar to be the same as the wall which intervenes between the two burial niches or caverns. Since the uncleanness is compressed, it contaminates everything above or below. He reminds us of the principle that wherever we have uncleanness plugged up or compressed, without a space of a cubic handbreadth, it will contaminate whatever is above or below it. Maimonides (Corpse-Uncleanness24:6) phrases the rule as follows: "To a house which forms part of a wall, th:e 'garlic-peel prindple' should be applied. Thus if a man is digging out two tomb-niches or two vaults side by side until they form two rooms dug out iin the ground with a wall separating the two, then if there is somethirng unclean in the rooms, anld there are vessels within the wall, and anything as thin as garlic peel covers them, the vessels remain clean. If thtere is somet~ing runckan in the wall, and there are vessels in the rooms, and anything as thin as garlic peel covers them, then they ,remain clean. Thus we may infer that a wall which is part of a building is 1deemedto be divided into halves; while to a wall formed

166

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX 6 :6

out of the rock or from solid ground, when it is dug out first on one side and then the other, the principle of the garlic peel should be appl,ied." E. So did R. Judah say, "A waH which is between two niches or between two caverns"[if the wall is thicker than six handbreaidths, then] up to six handbreadths, it is adjudged half and half; [if it is thicker] than that, it is aJdjudged like the garlic peel." T. 7:10 (W~ndfohr, ip. 110, ls. 17-20)

If the wall is six handbreadths thick, it is regarded as a wall (ST), as secondary to the niche, and is adjudged in accord with the rule of "'half and half," that is, we take account of the location of the uncleanness. But if it is thicker than six handbreadths, we do not take account of the location of the unclean matter, but, so long as the corpse-matter is covered, it is treated as a separate domain, of no effect on the rooms. Judah thus rejects M. 6:6, which takes no account of the thickness of the wall. Goldberg observes ( p. 51, n. 2) that the issue of whether the wall is regarded as part of the house is worked out logically. When the sages hold that only half of the wall belongs to the house, Judah says the entire wall is assigned to the house (M. 6:3). When the sages do not regard the wall as part of the house at all (M. 6:6), Judah assigns half of the wall, at the very least, to the house, if the wall is not thicker than six handbreadths. A. A pot which is placed (1) on the side of the wall of a cavern ddes not afford prottect:ion. [If it is placed] (2) on the side of the arch of a cavern, lo, this affortds prorection. B. If it was set on the window which is between two houses, and uncleanness is in one of them, lo, this [ other house] is dean, because it affords protecbion with the wall of the seconid. [TR: "With the half of the wall df the second house, which is clean. But joined to the half of the first, it does not interpose because the wall Jtself is unclean"]. . C. [If] uncleanness was in the pot which is between them, and there is in its space a cubic handbreadth, if there is not between its mouth and the liintel a spaiC!eof a cubic handibreaidth, lo, this affords protection. D. If there is between its mouth and the ,Llntela cubic handbreadth, lo, this does not ,afford protection. T. 7:n (Windfuhr, p. 110, ls. 21-24, p. 111, ls. 1-4)

As we know frdm M. 6:1, utensils will not serve to form Tents with other utensils, but with a wall they will. Evidently the wall

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX

6:6

167

(A2) of the cavern has been repaired by man (TR III, p. 114), so it will conjoin with the pot. B's point is familiar from M. 5 :5-6; the pot is conjoined with the wall. C explains, moreover, that if the pot itself forms a Tent, the uncleanness cannot exude through its mouth, the mouth being close to the lintel; thus the pot is still going to afford protection to both rooms. But, D notes, if the uncleanness can exude, then the pot will serve no purpose. A. "A pitcher (QLL) of purification°water which is placed in the window, and there is in its place a cubic handbreaidth, if there is not between 1itsmouth and the lintel a space of a cubic handbreadth, lo, this affords protection, and if not, it does not afford protection," the words of R. Eliezer. B. R. Joshua says, "It never affords protection, until there will be space, on its ins,ilde,of a cubic handbreadth." T. 7:12 (Windfohr, p. 111, ls. 5-9) ST (p. 97a) explains that next to the pitcher is some corpse-matter. Eliezer holds that the pitcher affords protection if there is no space for uncleanness to enter, parallel to cAqiva's view in M. 5 :7. Joshua says that the contents in no circumstances are protected, for Joshua requires that the pitcher be located in a clean place, even though .the pitcher is not contaminated (TR III, p. 115). See M. Par. 10:3. If under the pitcher is a space of a cubic handbreadth, we shall have a separate Tent. ST assigns T. to M. 5:7. A. A pillar which stands in the midst of the house, and uncleanness Js under it, and it presses down [ = there is not· a cubic halJldbreadth of space (ST)]· uncleannessbreaks forth and ascends,breaks forth and ldescends. B. But if there is in the place of the uncleanness a cubic handb!'eadth, lo, this is like a closed grave anid conveys uncleanness round about :itself [ on all sides]. C. Utensils which are under the capital are clean. And R. Yohanan b. Nuri d~lares unclean. . T. 7:13 (Winidfuhr, p. 1111, ls. 10-14)

T. interprets M. 6:6E to refer to a pillar in the house, not to a pillar formed by carving out dirt in a cavern. It adds that if the space is a cubic handbreadth, then we have a closed· grave_:_there being no exit for the uncleanness-and the contamination will work its way out in all directions. C takes us to M. 6:7A, simply repeating M., good evidence that

168

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX

6:6-7

M. 6:6E and 6:7A are a single pericope. The uncleanness is compressed, so spurts up perpendicularly, leaving utensils under the capital clean.

6:7 A. Utensils which are under the capital [ of the afore-mentioned pillar] are clean. [Uncleanness Sipurts upward, not to the sides (TYY).] B. R. Yol).anan b. Nuri declares [them] unclean. C. The undeannes& and the utensils which are und:er the capital, if there is there (M: BHN) a square handbreadth [of space over which the capital projectted], [the utensils] are unclean. And if not, they are clean. D. Two wall-cupboards [each a cubic han1dibreadth] one beside the other or one on top of the other[ if] one of them [under which unclean matter is located] was openedit and the house are unclean, but its feHow is clean [for the uncleanness .is not compresoocl.As in M. 4:'l, the cupboard is an autonomous Tent (TYY).] E. And they regard the wall-cupboard as though it is sealed (plugged up) ("is deemed a closed up space"]. F. It is adjudged [when closed] half and haH, to bring the uncleanness into the house [ = M. 6: 3]. [Danby: "And in what ooncerns conveying uncleanness to the house the principle of ( dividing the wall into) hal~ applies to it."] M. 6:7

A,B form a normal dispute. C then gives an example, illustrating the principle of 6:7A. The apodosis, ''they are unclean," however, closely relates to the protasis's utensils, and the same is so for D. E glosses D, and F completes E. Maimonides (Corpse-Uncleanness 25:1-2) treats M. 6:6E and 6:7A as a single rule: "If a pillar stands within a room and compressed uncleanness lies below it, the uncleanness penetrates directly upwaros and downwards and cotJJVeysuncleanness only to what is directly in Line with the uncleanness. If the capital of this pillar projects, and there are vessels below the capital, the vessels remain dean, since only what is directly in tine with the uncleanness becomes unclean. If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth containing the unclean thing, dt counts as a blocked-up gravie and conveys uncleanness in every direction; also, the whole room becomes unclean, since it has overshadowed the grave." As stated, therefore, M. 6:7 continues the problem of the pillar in 6:6E. A says that utensils which are under the capital of the pillar are clean. The uncleanness in the column breaks forth upward and

OHALOT CHAPTER STX

6:7

downward, but not to the sides. Yol:ianan regards the capital as part of the pillar, so what is under its shadow is contaminated. The issue therefore is the status of the capital; the basic rule of M. 6:6E is taken for granted. Before introducing the complexities of C, let me give the simplest possible explanation, following Sens and Rosh. \v e now have a pillar out of doors. Thus the issue is solely the effects of the capital. Uncleanness and utensils are underneath the overhanging capital. Are the utensils made unclean by the effects of the overhang? The answer is simple. If we have ,t square handbreadth of space in the overhang, then we have a Tent. In this case, the uncleanness is spread by the Tent to the utensils. If we do not have a square handbreadth of space in the capital, we have no Tent, and the utensils, unaffected by the corpse-matter, remain clean. That is the sum and substance of C. Does C relate to A-B? Of course it does. A-B ask about utensils under the capital of a pillar, under which j1i!lc1ris corpse-matter. C asks about utensils under the capital of a pillar, under which capital corpse-matter is located. It is a natural progression. \vhy does Yol)anan not differ in C? Because there now is no issue but the size of the overhang of the capital. Let us now proceed to the exegesis of C as laid out in several important commentaries. The primary questions are: (l) Where is the capital? (2) Where are the utensils? (3) Where is the uncleanness? following Rosh and Sens, Bert. has the column out of doors, with the capital protruding for the specified space, a handbreadth. If the requisite space is available, the uncleanness breaks forth upward and downward, but does not affect the sides. With the uncleanness and the utensils under the capital, the requisite space makes the difference as specified by the explanation which Albcck will now reject. Albeck (pp. 144, 540), has the uncleanness not lying on the earth under the pillar. It is located above, on the pillar, but under the capital. The utensils, on the other hand, are on the ground, under the capital. If the space up above, in which the corpse-matter is located, is of requisite size, a cubic handbreadth, then the utensils are unclean, as in M. 6:5 and 7:l. \vhy? Because we have a sealed grave. If the space is smaller, hov,cver, then the uncleanness is compressed and breaks forth upward and downward. Albeck explains (p. 540) that if we interpret the case to locate the uncleanness and the utensils on the ground together, with the capital projecting a cubic handbreadth, then the capital serves as a Tent. If so, however, we see the pillar is

170

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX

6:7

not in a Tent, but in the open-air. For if it were in a Tent, then without the requisite size, the utensils are unclean anyhow. (Here Albeck has copied MA.) But, Albeck argues, the context requires a pillar in a Tent (house). Further, reference to the handbreadth normally means cubic space, not the overshadowing part which creates the Tent. M.'s point is that even though the uncleanness is under the capital, if there is not a cubic handbreadth of space, we do not rule that the uncleanness is compressed and breaks forth toward the capital, contaminating the utensils under it. Albeck's explanation is followed by Goldberg (p. 52): "The uncleanness is lying on the pillar under the capital, and the utensils are lying on the ground under the capital. If the place in which the corpse-matter is located is not a handbreadth, the uncleanness is compressed and contaminates neither the Tent of the house, nor the utensils under the capital." Then the pillar is in the house. But, as the commentaries (Rosh, Sens, for instance) whose position Goldberg rejects ask, If the pillar is in the house, why is the entire house not affected by the uncleanness? And what difference does it make whether we have a cubic space or less in the place in which the uncleanness is located, since all are assumed to be under one roof? ST (p. 106a) has a pillar in the house, with its capital projecting upward above the roof. That is a good solution; now we do not have to worry about the effects of the roof. He then has the utensils and the corpse-matter together under the overhang of the capital. If we have a Tent in that space ( a cubic handbreadth), all is unclean. If not, there is no Tent. Y. b. N. here agrees, he says, because only where we have a Tent do we have the sloping side, affecting the utensils. To introduce the consensus of the other exegetes, we turn to Bornstein (p. 173) who gives, "In the case of the uncleanness and the vessels being together beneath the capital, if there is a space of one cubic hand breadth there, the vessels become unclean; if not, they remain clean." He explains that "less than one handbreadth [is] insufficient to convey uncleanness by overshadowing." That seems to be the simplest possible exegesis, then in line with M. 16:1. But Bornstein· does not tell us where the pillar is located-inside the house or out of doors. Perhaps he is wise to ignore the problems troubling the great exegetes. MS does not see C as much of a problem. He has the corpse-matter and the utensils under the capital, "That is, the uncleanness is compressed under the capital." Then, if there is a cubic handbreadth in

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX

6: 7

171

the overhanging part of the capital, the utensils are unclean, in line with M. 16:1. TYY likewise sees a space of a cubic handbreadth above the uncleanness and the utensils under it. Then the utensils are unclean, because of the effects of the Tent which is above the utensils. Concerning, ''If there is there a cubic handbreadth, they are unclean," MA says, "That which stands above, on the capital, is clean, and if there is not there a cubic handbreadth, utensils which are on its side are clean, and that which stands above, directly opposite the uncleanness, is unclean, for the uncleanness breaks forth upward ... " Maimonides (Mishnah-commentary) reads, "The uncleanness is in the utensils which are under the capital." That this is not an error is shown in his comment, "And if the uncleanness was in one of those utensils which are under the capital, and there were there other utensils under the same capital, if there was in the overhang of the capital, under which are the uncleanness and the utensils, a handbreadth or more, lo, it has overshadowed all, and all the utensils are made unclean through the Tent of the corpse. And if there was less than a handbreadth, it is no Tent." Then only the utensils which touch the uncleanness are unclean. As is clear, my explanation copies Maimonides (Rosh, Sens, Bert.). D introduces a new item, two wall-cupboards attached or dug into the wall. Uncleanness is in one of them. If the one in which the uncleanness is located is opened, the one beside it is clean. It constitutes a Tent unto itself. GRA explains D as follows: If one of the cupboards were not opened, then the uncleanness would spread through the whole lot, as with the sealed grave. But since it is opened, the uncleanness goes forth. The other cupboard is clean, since it is a cubic handbreadth and constitutes a Tent unto itself. E·F bring us back to M. 6:5. We regard the closed cupboard, containing corpse-matter, as sealed or plugged up, therefore determined in accord with the principle governing the wall which serves the house. If the uncleanness is nearer the house, we reckon the cupboard as part of the wall. If the wall is two handbreadths thick, and the cupboard is a handbreadth thick, we do not say the thickness of the wall is only a handbreadth and a half toward the house. On the contrary, the wall cupboard is included in the sealed wall, sharing in the thickness of two handbreadths, and a handbreadth toward the house is adjudged as part of the house ( Albeck, p. 145, following T. 7: 16-17 and Maimonides).

172

OHALOT

CHAPTER SIX

6:7

Maimonides explains F as follows. The wall is four amot thick, but of these the cupboard takes two. Since the cupboard is dug out of the wall, this leaves only two amot in the wall itself. With the uncleanness hidden in the wall at a handbreadth, then, if we examine the distance between the uncleanness and the space of the house exactly, a handbreadth remains. But if we deem the cupboard's space as sealed into the wall, then the distance of the uncleanness from the house-space is two amot and a handbreadth. This is more than half the wall; the house will be clean. That is the value, he says, of regarding the cupboards as sealed into the wall, so far as bringing uncleanness into the house is concerned. But as to one of the cupboard's becoming unclean because of the other, we regard them as sealed, so that the uncleanness breaks forth upward and downward. As to F, GRA says, if the cupboards are not a cubic handbreadth in volume, we regard them as if they are sealed into the wall. From the half-way point of the cupboard and wall and inward toward the house, uncleanness will render the house unclean, and if the uncleanness is found in the outer half, the house will be clean. The relevant passage in Maimonides (Corpse-Uncleanness 25:4-5) is as follows: "If, in the thickne55of the walls, there is a large cavity sux::ha:s people make to se~ their needs-such as is called a pardesik, a wall Ol.lipboard-andsomething unclean Liesins,ide it, and there are closed doom to the cupboard, the rodm remains clean. If the uncleanness is compressed in the cupboaoo's floor or walls or ·roof, the whole cavity is regarded as though it was solid, anld account is taken of the place containing the unclean thing: if it is in the half of the wall's thickness that faces the iinside of the roo.m, the room becomes unclean; but jf the unclean thing is in the outer half of the wall, the room remains dean. If it is midway the room becomes unclean. If there are two wahl cupboards side by side or one above the other, and something unclean lies in on1eof them. and this cupboaoo is opened, it and the room become unclean, but the other rupboard remains dean. If compresised uncleanness lies within the structure, the cupboards are regarded as though they were so1id, and the principle of dividing the intervening wall into halves applies." A. A box which one miade into a wall-cupboard, even though one makes use of it, is clean [ as part of the wall]. B. Jt is was unclean and one made it into a wall-cupboard, it js unclean until one will affix it [to the wall] with a nail. T. 7:14 (Wiindfuhr, p. 111, ls. 15-17) The point of A is that the wall-cupboard, being affixed to the wall-something attached to the ground-is insusceptible to unclean-

OHALOT CHAPTER SIX

6: 7

173

ness. This rule is separate from M. Then in B we are told that once the box is properly and permanently affixed to the wall, it enters the insusceptible status of the wall itself. A. A wall-