1) (Vayikra 11:32) "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei." Of what is this verse speaking? If of their death, this has already been stated (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal), this is stated below (Vayikra 11:35). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hechai (a limb of a living animal, [and "in their death" signifies the death of the limb]). (But why is a verse needed for this?) Is it not derivable a fortiori? viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh (to confer tumah), ever min hechai of it confers tumah, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should ever min hechai of it confer tumah! (Why, then, is the verse needed?) No, if this is so with a beast, it may be so because it confers tumah by being carried. Would you, then, say the same for a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, (but only by being touched)? Since it does not confer tumah by being carried, (I would say that) ever min hechai of it does not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei" — to include ever min hechai. 2) I might think (that it confers tumah) even if it (the limb of the sheretz) is hanging on it like a hair. It is, therefore, written "upon which there falls." It does not confer tumah until it falls (from the sheretz). 3) I might think that flesh which separates from a living creature confers tumah. It is, therefore, written "in their death." Just as death has no "replacement," so, a limb from a living creature has no replacement, (to exclude flesh, which does replace itself.) These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Just as death (involves) sinews and bones, so ever min hechai (to confer tumah, must involve) sinews and bones. Rebbi says: Just as a sheretz is flesh, sinews, and bones, so ever min hechai (must be) flesh, sinews, and bones. 4) (Vayikra 11:32): "vessels of wood": I might think (to include) a ladder, a rack, a tray, and a lamp. It is, therefore, written "of … wood," and not all wood. Or I might think (to exclude) a table, a tavla, and a dolfaki (also kinds of tables). It is, therefore, written "all … wood," for inclusion. Why did you see fit to include these and to exclude these? After Scripture included, it excluded. It is, therefore, written "sack." Just as sack is distinct in serving both man (He can clothe himself in it) and his servers (He can put his vessels in it), so I include table and dolfaki, which serve man (He can support himself on them) and the servers of man (He can place his vessels in them), and I exclude ladder, which serves man but not the servers of man, and (I exclude) rack, tray, and lamp, which serve the servers of man, but do not serve man. 5) (Vayikra 11:32): "of every vessel of wood (…where there shall fall of them"): I might think (this to include) a chest, a box, a closet, a straw receptacle, a reed receptacle, and the (wooden, water) reservoir of an Alexandrian boat, which have rims and which hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor in dry measure. It is, therefore, written "of… vessel of wood," and not all vessels of wood. Or, I might think to exclude a (wooden water) tank on wheels, the provision boxes of kings, the tanners' trough, the reservoir of a small boat, and an ark. It is, therefore, written "every vessel of wood," to include them. Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude these? After Scripture included, it excluded. It is, therefore, written "sack." Jus as a sack is distinct in that it is moved when full, so I include a wheeled tank, kings' boxes, the tanners' trough, the reservoir of a small boat, and an ark, which are moved when full, and I exclude chest, box, and closet, straw receptacle, reed receptacle, and the reservoir of an Alexandrian boat, which have rims and which hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor in dry measure, which are not moved when full. 6) R. Meir says: All that the sages enumerated as clean (i.e., chest, box, closet, etc.) are clean, and the rest are tamei. R. Yehudah says: All that the sages enumerated as tamei (i.e., a tank on wheels, etc.) are tamei, and the rest are clean. There is no difference between the words of R. Meir and R. Yehudah but a householder's trough. (According to R. Meir, since it is not enumerated among the clean, it is tamei. According to R. Yehudah, since it is not enumerated among the tamei, it is clean.) 7) R. Nechemiah says: The big baskets and the big vessels, which have rims and hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor of dry measure (are tamei). For, (being light,) even though they are not moved when full, they are moved with what remains in them. 8) See Section 4:9. Whence is it derived that felt-materials are included (as becoming tamei)? From "or garment." 9) "or skin": I might think that even sea-skins become tamei. (Initially,) I would reason: There is plague-spot tumah and sheretz tumah. Just as sea-skins are not made tamei by plague-spots, so they should not be made tamei by sheratzim. 10) And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If plague-spots, which confer tumah upon warp and woof, do not confer tumah upon sea-skins, then sheratzim, which do not confer tumah upon warp and woof, how much more so should they not confer tumah upon sea-skins! — No, this may be so with plague-spots, which do not confer tumah upon dyed stuff. Would you say the same for sheratzim, which do confer tumah upon dyed stuff! Since it confers tumah upon dyed stuff, it should confer tumah upon sea-skins. It is, therefore, written "garment." Just as a garment comes from what grows on the land, so skin (to be tamei) must come from what grows on the land. I might think to exclude (from tumah) (even) connecting to it (a sea-skin) something of what grows on the land. It is, therefore, written ("garment) or skin." If "garment" includes connecting it (a sea-skin) with something that grows on the land, it may be even a thread, even a cord, so long as it is connected as required for conferring tumah. 11) I might think that (included for tumah) are even untanned hide and partially processed hide, with which (the entire) work (of processing) has not been done; it is, therefore, written "with which work is done." I would then exclude (from tumah) untanned hide and partially processed hide, with which work has not been done; but I would not exclude the skins of thongs and sandals, with which work has been done. It is, therefore written "vessel," to exclude sandal-thongs, which are not vessels. I might then think to exclude tent-skins, which are not vessels. It is, therefore, written "all … with which work is done," to include tent-skins.
Sifra Shemini Section 6
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.