UNICORNS?

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].

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.

This is the offering … and rams’ skins dyed red, and sealskins (Exod. 25:3). R. Judah and R. Nehemiah discussed this verse. R. Judah said: It was a large pure animal, with a single horn in its forehead and a skin of six different colors that roamed the desert.⁹The authorities were undecided as to whether it was a domesticated animal or a wild beast. See Shabbat 28b. They captured one of them and from its skin made a covering for the ark. R. Nehemiah contended that it was a miraculous creature He created for that precise moment, and that it disappeared immediately thereafter from earth. Why is it called orot tahashim (“sealskins,” lit. “skins of tahashim”)? Because the verse states: The length of each curtain shall be thirty cubits (Exod. 26:8). What known animal could supply enough skin for a curtain of thirty cubits? It must, indeed, have been a miraculous creation, which disappeared (immediately after it was created).

The Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter of the taḥash that existed in the days of Moses? Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that Rabbi Meir used to say: The taḥash that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the Sages did not determine whether it was a type of undomesticated animal or a type of domesticated animal. And it had a single horn on its forehead, and this taḥash happened to come to Moses for the moment while the Tabernacle was being built, and he made the covering for the Tabernacle from it. And from then on the taḥash was suppressed and is no longer found.

The Gemara comments: From the fact that it is said that the taḥash had a single horn on its forehead, conclude from this that it was kosher, as Rav Yehuda said in a similar vein: The ox that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a horned [makrin] and hooved ox” (Psalms 69:32). The word makrin means one with a horn. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, makrin indicates that it has two horns. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, it is written mikeren without the letter yod to indicate that it had only a single horn. The Gemara asks: If so, let us resolve from the same baraita that just as it was derived from the ox of Adam, the first man, that an animal with one horn is kosher, derive that an animal with one horn is a type of domesticated animal. The Gemara answers: Since there is the keresh which is a type of undomesticated animal, and it has only a single horn, it is also possible to say that the taḥash is a type of undomesticated animal. This dilemma was not resolved.

Jemimah [Yemima]; in her beauty she was similar to the day [yom]. Keziah; her scent wafted like the cassia [ketzia] tree. Keren-happuch; in the school of Rav Sheila they say: She was similar to the horn [keren] of a keresh, an animal whose horns are particularly beautiful. They laughed at this in the West, Eretz Yisrael, since it is considered a blemish when a person resembles the horn of a keresh. Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: She was like garden saffron [kekurkema derishka], which is the best of its kind. Keren refers to a garden, and pukh means ornament, as it is stated: “Though you enlarge your eyes with paint [pukh], you beautify yourself in vain” (Jeremiah 4:30).