ממשכן כתיב הכא זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל וכתיב התם ויפרוש את האהל על המשכן מה להלן של פשתן קרוי אהל אף כאן של פשתן קרוי אהל אי מה להלן שזורין וחוטן כפול ששה אף כאן שזורין וחוטן כפול ששה תלמוד לומר אהל אהל ריבה אי אהל אהל ריבה אפילו כל מילי נמי אם כן גזירה שוה מאי אהני ליה
written in the context of the Tabernacle. It is written here, in the discussion of the laws of ritual impurity: “This is the law: When a man dies in a tent, every one that comes into the tent, and everything that is in the tent, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:14), and it is written there: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle, and put the covering of the tent above upon it; as the Lord commanded Moses” (Exodus 40:19). Just as below, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was made of linen and is considered a tent, so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, only a tent made of linen is considered a tent. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same verbal analogy: Just as below the linen threads in the Tabernacle were specifically threads that were twisted and the threads were folded six times, so too, here, in all of the halakhot pertaining to a tent over a corpse, the threads must be twisted and their threads folded six times. The verse states the word tent, tent several times to amplify and include even a tent made of linen not identical to the Tabernacle. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the word tent, tent several times amplifies, even all things should be included among those items that can receive ritual impurity as a tent. The Gemara answers: This amplification cannot be that far-reaching, as, if so, the verbal analogy of tent, tent, that teaches us to derive the tent over a corpse from the Tabernacle, what purpose does it serve if everything is included? Rather, certainly the amplification is not absolute. Through the combination of the verbal analogy and the amplification, it is derived that this halakha applies specifically to linen.
ואימא מה להלן קרשים אף כאן קרשים אמר קרא ועשית קרשים למשכן משכן קרוי משכן ואין קרשים קרויין משכן אלא מעתה ועשית מכסה לאהל הכי נמי מכסה לא איקרי אהל אלא הא דבעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא באהל המת השתא עור בהמה טהורה לא מטמא עור בהמה טמאה מיבעיא שאני התם דהדר אהדריה קרא דכתיב ונשאו את יריעות המשכן ואת אהל מועד מכסהו ומכסה התחש אשר עליו מקיש עליון לתחתון מה תחתון קרוי אהל אף עליון קרוי אהל:
And perhaps say: Just as below, in the Tabernacle, there were beams supporting the tent, so too, here, in the laws of ritual impurity, a tent made of beams should also be considered a tent. The Gemara responds that the verse said: “And you shall make the beams for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing up” (Exodus 26:15). From the language of the verse, it is derived that the Tabernacle, i.e., the curtains alone, is called Tabernacle, and the beams are not called Tabernacle, because they merely facilitate the Tabernacle. The Gemara rejects this: But if that is so, based on an analysis of the language of the verse, it says there: “And you shall make a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red and a covering of teḥashim above” (Exodus 26:14), then in that case, too, say that the covering is not considered a tent. If so, however, what of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Elazar: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? If the covering of the Tabernacle is not considered a tent, now, the hide of a kosher animal that covered the Tabernacle cannot become ritually impure. If that is so, is it necessary to mention that the hide of a non-kosher animal cannot become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The cases are not comparable because it is different there, in the case of the covering of animal hides, because the verse subsequently restored its status as a tent by uniting the tent and its covering, as it is written: “They shall bear the curtains of the Tabernacle, and the Tent of Meeting, its covering, and the covering of taḥash that is upon it” (Numbers 4:25). The verse juxtaposes the upper to the lower covering; just as the lower covering is considered a tent, so too, the upper covering is considered a tent.
גופא בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין מאי קמיבעיא ליה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד
Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma was mentioned above, and now the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? The Gemara clarifies: What is the essence of his dilemma? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The taḥash that existed in the time of Moses is at the crux of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma. Was it non-kosher or was it kosher? Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Didn’t we learn explicitly: Only the hide of a kosher animal was deemed suitable for heavenly service? Certainly, the taḥash was a kosher species.
מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן והא תלא אילן טמא הוא הכי קאמר כמין תלא אילן הוא שיש בו גוונין הרבה ולא תלא אילן דאילו התם טמא והכא טהור אמר רב יוסף אי הכי היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא ששש בגוונין הרבה
Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of the hides of teḥashim. Rabbi Neḥemya says: There was only one covering for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams’ hides and half from the hides of teḥashim. And teḥashim were similar to the species of undomesticated animals called tela ilan. The Gemara asks: But isn’t a tela ilan a non-kosher creature? The Gemara emends this statement: This is what Rabbi Neḥemya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals. Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate the word taḥash as sasgona, which means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim].
רבא אמר עור בהמה טמאה דמטמא באהל המת מהכא דתניא עור או בעור ריבה עור בהמה טמאה ושלקה ביד כהן קצץ מכולן ועשה אחת מהן מנין תלמוד לומר או בכל מלאכת עור ואיכא למיפרך מה לנגעים שכן שתי וערב טמא בהן
Rava said that the proof that the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure in a tent over a corpse is derived from here, as it was taught in a baraita that it is stated in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy that the leprosy could be: “Either in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a hide, or in any thing made of hide” (Leviticus 13:48). The verse could have simply stated: Or hide, and it said instead: Or in a hide. The Sages said: These words, or in a hide, amplify to include the hide of a non-kosher animal as well as hide that was afflicted in the hands of a priest, i.e., before the owner showed it to the priest there was no leprosy but it became leprous while in the hands of the priest, that they too become ritually impure. If one cut pieces from each of these types and made of them a single cloth, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states from the broader amplification: Or in anything made of hide. The Gemara remarks: There is room to refute this parallel, rendering it impossible to derive the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse from the laws of leprosy. What is the comparison to leprosy with regard to which the Torah is stringent, as even the warp and woof that have not been woven into a garment can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case in impurity imparted by a corpse?
אלא גמר משרצים דתניא עור אין לי אלא עור בהמה טהורה עור בהמה טמאה מנין תלמוד לומר או עור ואיכא למיפרך מה לשרצים שכן מטמאין בכעדשה נגעים יוכיחו וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שעור טמא בהן ועשה עור בהמה טמאה כעור בהמה טהורה אף אני אביא אהל המת שעור טמא בו ונעשה בו עור בהמה טמאה כעור בהמה טהורה
Rather, one could say that he derived it from the laws of the ritual impurity of creeping animals, as it is stated with regard to them: “And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be impure; whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or hide, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, with which any work is done” (Leviticus 11:32). As it was taught in a baraita: From the use of the word hide, I have derived nothing other than the fact that the hide of a kosher animal becomes ritually impure from contact with a creeping animal; however, from where is it derived that the hide of a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure? This is derived from the amplification, as the verse states: Or hide. Since, with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals the laws of the hides of kosher and non-kosher animals are identical, it is derived that this is also true with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Once again, the Gemara says: There is room to refute this derivation and say: What is the comparison to creeping animals, as their legal status is stringent because they become ritually impure even if they are as small as a lentil-bulk, which is not true in the case of a corpse? In order for a corpse to transmit ritual impurity, it must be larger, an olive-bulk. Therefore, the Gemara says: If so, the case of leprosy can prove that the fact that creeping animals that are a lentil-bulk transmit impurity is not a factor in whether or not a non-kosher animal hide can become ritually impure. Leprosy that is a lentil-bulk does not transmit impurity and, nevertheless, the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure from it. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common denominator is that hide, in general, is ritually impure in both cases, and the Torah rendered the hide of a non-kosher animal equal to the hide of a kosher animal in that it becomes ritually impure. I will also bring the additional halakha of a tent over a corpse made of the hide of a non-kosher animal, and in that case as well, the hide of a non-kosher animal will be rendered equal to the hide of a kosher animal.
אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן טמאין בפחות מכזית תאמר במת שאינו מטמא אלא בכזית
Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi: There is still room to refute this statement and say: What is the comparison to leprosy and creeping animals? Their common denominator is that they both transmit ritual impurity when smaller than an olive-bulk. Can you say the same in the case of a corpse, which only transmits ritual impurity when it is at least an olive-bulk? Therefore, despite the differences between them, these two halakhot are both more stringent than the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the status of a non-kosher animal hide cannot be derived from them.
אלא אמר רבא מברניש
Rather, Rava from Barnish said it can be derived in the following manner: