## Shabbat Daf 28a

###### Shabbat 28a:1
[Shabbat 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:1)

מִמִּשְׁכָּן. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַיִּפְרוֹשׂ אֶת הָאֹהֶל עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן״. מַה לְּהַלָּן שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן קָרוּי ״אֹהֶל״ — אַף כָּאן שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן קָרוּי ״אֹהֶל״. אִי מַה לְּהַלָּן שְׁזוּרִין וְחוּטָן כָּפוּל שִׁשָּׁה, אַף כָּאן שְׁזוּרִין וְחוּטָן כָּפוּל שִׁשָּׁה? — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֹהֶל״ ״אֹהֶל״ רִיבָּה. אִי ״אֹהֶל״ ״אֹהֶל״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי! אִם כֵּן גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Shabbat 28a:2
[Shabbat 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:2)

וְאֵימָא: מַה לְּהַלָּן קְרָשִׁים, אַף כָּאן קְרָשִׁים! אָמַר קְרָא ״וְעָשִׂיתָ קְרָשִׁים לַמִּשְׁכָּן״. מִשְׁכָּן קָרוּי מִשְׁכָּן, וְאֵין קְרָשִׁים קְרוּיִין מִשְׁכָּן. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וְעָשִׂיתָ מִכְסֶה לָאֹהֶל״ — הָכִי נָמֵי מִכְסֶה לָא אִיקְּרִי ״אֹהֶל״. אֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטַּמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת. הַשְׁתָּא עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה לָא מִטַּמֵּא, עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִיבַּעְיָא?! — שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דַּהֲדַר אַהְדְּרֵיהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָשְׂאוּ אֶת יְרִיעוֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד מִכְסֵהוּ וּמִכְסֵה הַתַּחַשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו״. מַקִּישׁ עֶלְיוֹן לְתַחְתּוֹן — מַה תַּחְתּוֹן קָרוּי ״אֹהֶל״, אַף עֶלְיוֹן קָרוּי ״אֹהֶל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Shabbat 28a:3
[Shabbat 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:3)

גּוּפָא. בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֹהָלִין. מַאי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: תַּחַשׁ שֶׁהָיָה בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — טָמֵא הָיָה אוֹ טָהוֹר הָיָה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, תְּנֵינָא: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִמְלֶאכֶת שָׁמַיִם אֶלָּא עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Shabbat 28a:4
[Shabbat 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:4)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי אַבָּא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי מִכְסָאוֹת הָיוּ, אֶחָד שֶׁל עוֹרוֹת אֵילִים מְאָדָּמִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁל עוֹרוֹת תְּחָשִׁים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: מִכְסֶה אֶחָד הָיָה, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִין תְּלָא אִילָן. וְהָא תְּלָא אִילָן טָמֵא הוּא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּמִין תְּלָא אִילָן הוּא, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גְּווֹנִין הַרְבֵּה, וְלֹא תְּלָא אִילָן. דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם טָמֵא, וְהָכָא טָהוֹר. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ דִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן ״סָסְגּוֹנָא״, שֶׁשָּׂשׂ בִּגְווֹנִין הַרְבֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*].**


###### Shabbat 28a:5
[Shabbat 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:5)

רָבָא אָמַר: עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה דְּמִטַּמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת מֵהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״עוֹר״ ״אוֹ בְעוֹר״ — רִיבָּה עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְשֶׁלָּקָה בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, קָצַץ מִכּוּלָּן וְעָשָׂה אַחַת מֵהֶן, מִנַּיִן? — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ בְּכׇל מְלֶאכֶת עוֹר״. וְאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ, מָה לִנְגָעִים שֶׁכֵּן שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב טָמֵא בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Shabbat 28a:6
[Shabbat 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:6)

אֶלָּא גָּמַר מִשְּׁרָצִים: דְּתַנְיָא: ״עוֹר״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ עוֹר״. וְאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִשְׁרָצִים שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמְּאִין בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. נְגָעִים יוֹכִיחוּ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן — שֶׁעוֹר טָמֵא בָּהֶן, וְעָשָׂה עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה כְּעוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֹהֶל הַמֵּת שֶׁעוֹר טָמֵא בּוֹ, וְנַעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה כְּעוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Shabbat 28a:7
[Shabbat 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ — מַה לְּהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן טְמֵאִין בְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת, תֹּאמַר בְּמֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 28a:8
[Shabbat 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28a:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava from Barnish said** it can be derived in the following manner: