Avodah Zarah, Lammed Zayin, Part 3

 

Introduction

Above, the Talmud quoted a mishnah from Eduyot 8:4. Although this mishnah has nothing to do with Avodah Zarah, the Talmud will explain it now. It is interesting to note that there is no Talmud on Tractate Eduyot, neither Bavli or Yerushalmi. But clearly Talmudic rabbis learned this Tractate. Some tractates simply did not get commented on in the Talmud.

Today s sugya discusses which type of locust is kosher and the liquids on the floor of the slaughter-house in the Temple.

 

העיד יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה על אייל קמצא דכן ועל משקה בי מטבחיא דכן ועל דיקרב למיתא מסאב וקרו ליה יוסף שריא

Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer, a man of Zereda, testified concerning the ayal-locust, that it is pure;

And concerning liquid in the slaughter-house (of the Temple), that it is pure;

And that one who touches a corpse is impure.

And they called him Yose the permitter.

 

This is the quote of the mishnah. It will now be explained.

 

גופא מאי אייל קמצא? רב פפא אמר שושיבא. ורב חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר סוסביל.

רב פפא אמר שושיבא וקמיפלגי בראשו ארוך מר סבר ראשו ארוך אסור ומר סבר ראשו ארוך מותר

רב חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר סוסביל בראשו ארוך כ"ע לא פליגי דאסור והכא בכנפיו חופין את רובו על ידי הדחק קמיפלגי מר סבר רובא כל דהו בעינן ומר סבר רובא דמנכר בעינן:

 

To return to the matter from above: What is the ayal-locust? R. Papa said: Shoshiba, and R. Hiyya b. Ammi said in the name of Ulla: Susbil.

R. Papa said it is the shoshiba, and they differ on [the permissibility] of the long-headed locust, one holding that it is prohibited and the other that it is permitted.

R. Hiyya b. Ammi said in the name of Ulla that it was the susbil, and nobody disagrees that the long-headed locust is prohibited, and here they disagree when there is difficulty in perceiving whether its wings cover the greater part of the body, one holding that we require [the wings] to cover just more than the greater part of the body and the other that we require it appreciably to cover the greater part of the body.

 

In this section two amoraim argue over what type of locust the tannaim in the Mishnah were arguing about a shoshiba or a susbil.

I must admit, I m not an expert on which locusts are edible. Ashkenazim stopped eating them many, many centuries ago. Ostensibly this was because they did not know which were kosher and which were not, but in reality we know why they stopped eating them. No one in Europe ate them. But people in the Middle East did eat them, and Yemenites still eat them. Some of my Ashkenazi friends have tried them. Evidently if you fry them and salt them they taste like meaty potato chips. Sounds good.

 

ועל משקה בי מטבחיא דכן: מאי דכן? רב אמר דכן ממש. ושמואל אמר דכן מלטמא אחרים אבל טומאת עצמן יש בהן

 

That the flow [of blood and water] from the place of slaughter [in the Temple] is pure.

What means pure mean?

Rav said: It is actually pure.

But Shmuel said: It is pure in the sense that it does not render other things impure but in itself there was impurity.

 

According to Rav, the blood that was on the floor of the Temple is pure, but according to Shmuel, it does have a small degree of impurity.

רב אמר דכן ממש קסבר טומאת משקין דרבנן וכי גזור רבנן טומאה במשקין דעלמא אבל במשקה בי מטבחיא לא גזרו רבנן

 

Rav that it was actually pure: he holds that the impurity of liquids was a rabbinical ordinance and when the rabbis decreed they referred to liquids in general, but not to liquids in the slaughter house.

 

Rav thinks that the notion that liquids could become impure by contact with an impure thing is only a rabbinic decree. The rabbis made this decree outside of the Temple, but not inside it. Thus these liquids are not susceptible to impurity.

 

 

ושמואל אמר דכן מלטמא אחרים אבל טומאת עצמן יש בהן קסבר טומאת משקין דאורייתא לטמא אחרים דרבנן וכי גזרו רבנן במשקין דעלמא במשקין בי מטבחיא לא גזרו:

 

But Shmuel said that it was pure in the sense that it did not render other things impure but in itself there was impurity. He holds that the impurity of liquids is from the Torah; but with respect to its power to render other things unclean it was a rabbinic ordinance, and when the Rabbis decreed, they decreed it about liquids in general, but they did not decree it about liquids in the slaughter house.

 

Shmuel holds that this liquid is susceptible to impurity, but that even if impure, it does not convey impurity to anything else. This is unlike liquids in general which are highly conducive of impurity. Liquid impurity is from the Torah, but it is only the rabbis that hold that it can convey impurity to other things.