Sometimes the Gemara can be entirely unexpected. Take for example Meilah 17. The last book in Seder Kodashim (about sacrifices) , Masechet Meilah is about the very technical aspects of deriving benefit from a sanctified object. In the midst of a lengthy section about the impurity of insects and its implications, we get a story. And not just any story. A wonderful, windy, multi-layered tale, featuring an ancient version of a Jewish secret agent, a discussion and display of paternal anxiety, intellectual competition between rabbis, and a fascinating lesser known narrative that can help us round out our picture of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. What is the role of this story? How does it interact with the rest of the Masechet? These are only some of the questions raised on this daf.
אמר ליה כי קא מקיש רחמנא (ויקרא כ כה) לבל תשקצו אבל לשיעורין לא מתני׳ דם השרץ והבשר מצטרפין זה עם זה כלל אמר רבי יהושע כל שטומאתו ושיעורו שוין מצטרפין טומאתו ולא שיעורו שיעורו ולא טומאתו לא טומאתו [ולא] שיעורו אין מצטרפין גמ׳ אמר רב חנין אמר רב זעירא וכן אמר רבי יוסי בר ר"ח (ויקרא יא לא) הטמאין מלמד שהן מצטרפין ואפילו שרץ ושרץ שרץ ודם בין משם אחד בין משני שמות אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא כאן בכולו כאן במקצתו ומנא תימרא מדתניא נשפך על הרצפה והיה מקומה קטפרס איהל על מקצתו טהור איהל על כולו טמא מאי מקצתו אילימא מקצת דם והא אמר רבי חנינא אמר רבי רביעית דם שהגיס בה טהורה אלא לאו שמע מינה כאן בכולו כאן במקצתו ש"מ שאל רבי מתיא בן חרש את רבי שמעון בן יוחאי בעיר [רומי] מנין לדם שרצים שהוא טמא א"ל דאמר קרא (ויקרא יא, כט) וזה לכם הטמא אמרו לו תלמידיו חכים ליה בן יוחאי אמר להם תלמוד ערוך בפיו של רבי אלעזר בר רבי יוסי שפעם אחת גזרה המלכות גזרה שלא ישמרו את השבת ושלא ימולו את בניהם ושיבעלו את נדות הלך רבי ראובן בן איסטרובלי וסיפר קומי והלך וישב עמהם אמר להם מי שיש לו אויב יעני או יעשיר אמרו לו יעני אמר להם אם כן לא יעשו מלאכה בשבת כדי שיענו אמרו טבית אמר ליבטל ובטלוה חזר ואמר להם מי שיש לו אויב יכחיש או יבריא אמרו לו יכחיש אמר להם אם כן ימולו בניהם לשמונה ימים ויכחישו אמרו טבית אמר ובטלוה חזר ואמר להם מי שיש לו אויב ירבה או יתמעט אמרו לו יתמעט אם כן לא יבעלו נדות אמרו טבית אמר ובטלוה הכירו בו שהוא יהודי החזירום אמרו מי ילך ויבטל הגזרות ילך ר' שמעון בן יוחאי שהוא מלומד בנסים ואחריו מי ילך ר"א בר ר' יוסי אמר להם רבי יוסי ואילו היה אבא חלפתא קיים יכולין אתם לומר לו תן בנך להריגה אמר להם ר' שמעון אילו היה יוחאי אבא קיים יכולין אתם לומר לו תן בנך להריגה אמר להו רבי יוסי אנא אזלין דלמא עניש ליה ר' שמעון דקא מסתפינא קביל עליה דלא ליענשיה אפילו הכי ענשיה כשהיו מהלכין בדרך נשאלה שאלה זו בפניהם מנין לדם השרץ שהוא טמא עקם פיו ר' אלעזר בר רבי יוסי ואמר (ויקרא יא, כט) וזה לכם הטמא אמר ליה ר' שמעון מעקימת שפתיך אתה ניכר שתלמיד חכם אתה אל יחזור הבן אצל אביו יצא לקראתו בן תמליון רצונכם אבוא עמכם בכה ר' שמעון ואמר מה שפחה של בית אבא נזדמן לה מלאך שלש פעמים ואני לא פעם אחת יבא הנס מכל מקום קדים הוא על בברתיה דקיסר כי מטא התם אמר בן תמליון צא בן תמליון צא וכיון דקרו ליה נפק אזל אמר להון שאילו כל מה דאית לכון למישאל ועיילינהו לגנזיה לשקול כל דבעו אשכחו ההוא איגרא שקלוה וקרעוה והיינו דאמר רבי אלעזר בר רבי יוסי אני ראיתיה בעיר [רומי] והוו עליה כמה טיפי דמים מתני׳ הפיגול והנותר אין מצטרפין מפני שהן שני שמות השרץ והנבלה וכן הנבלה ובשר המת אין מצטרפין זה עם זה לטמא אפילו בקל שבשניהן גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא לטומאת הידים דמדרבנן היא אבל לענין אכילה מצטרפין דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר (שמות כט, לד) לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו מתני׳ האוכל שנטמא באב הטומאה ושנטמא בולד הטומאה מצטרפין זה עם זה לטמא בקל שבשניהם כל האוכלים מצטרפין זה עם זה לפסול הגוייה כבחצי פרס כבמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב וכביצה לטמא טומאת אוכלין וכגרוגרת להוצאת שבת וככותבת ביום הכפורים כל המשקין מצטרפין זו עם זו לפסול את הגוייה ברביעית וכמלא לוגמא ביום הכפורים גמ׳ תניא רבי שמעון אומר מה טעם שאפשר לשני שיעשה ראשון ומי קא עביד שני ראשון הא לא אפשר אמר רבא הכי קאמר מי גרם לשני לאו ראשון רב אשי אמר ראשון ושני לגבי שלישי בני חדא ביקתא אינון:
Rava said to Rav Adda bar Ahava: When the Merciful One juxtaposes kosher and non-kosher animals to creeping animals, this is referring to the prohibition of: “You shall not make your souls detestable” (Leviticus 20:25), teaching that they are all included in that prohibition. But with regard to measures the Torah does not juxtapose those animals to creeping animals. For this reason there is no difference between the measure of impurity of carcasses of kosher animals and non-kosher animals. MISHNA: The blood of one of the eight creeping animals listed in the Torah and their flesh join together to constitute the lentil-bulk measure to impart impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle: With regard to any items whose impurity, in terms of degree and duration, and measure to impart impurity, are equal, e.g., two halves of an olive-bulk from two corpses or two animal carcasses or two halves of a lentil-bulk from two creeping animals, they join together to constitute the requisite measure. Rabbi Yehoshua continued: By contrast, with regard to items whose impurity is equal but their measure is not equal, e.g., a creeping animal and an animal carcass, each of which renders one impure until the evening, but the measure of a creeping animal is a lentil-bulk, whereas that of an animal carcass is an olive-bulk; or items whose measure is equal but whose impurity is not equal, e.g., a corpse and an animal carcass, with regard to which the measure of each is an olive-bulk, but the duration of the impurity imparted by a corpse is one week and the duration of the impurity imparted by an animal carcass is until the evening; or items that are equal neither in terms of their impurity nor in terms of their measure, they do not join together to constitute the requisite measure. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the blood of one of the eight creeping animals listed in the Torah and the flesh of those animals join together to constitute the lentil-bulk measure required to impart impurity. Rav Ḥanin says that Rav Zeira says: The blood and flesh join together only if the blood is from the same animal as the flesh, but not if it is from a different animal. And similarly, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina says, in rejection of Rav Zeira’s statement: It is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “These are the impure [hateme’in] to you among all that creep; whoever touches them when they are dead, shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:31). This plural form of “hateme’in” teaches that they join together to impart ritual impurity. And this applies even to the flesh of a creeping animal and the flesh of another creeping animal, or the flesh of a creeping animal and the blood of another creeping animal, whether they are from one category, i.e., one type of creeping animal, or from two categories of creeping animal. Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood both came from an entire animal, and therefore the two half-measures combine, due to the significance of an entire animal. There, in the statement of Rav Zeira, he is speaking of a case where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood each come from part of an animal. And from where do you say that there is a distinction between a case where the flesh and blood come from an entire animal and a case where they come from part of an animal? From that which is taught in a baraita: In a case where one quarter-log of blood from a corpse was spilled on the floor, and its place was a slope [ketafres], so that the blood trickles down, and someone leaned over so that he covered part of it, he remains ritually pure. If he covered all of it, he is rendered impure. The Gemara clarifies the halakha: What does the phrase: Part of it, mean in this context? If we say that it is referring to part of the one quarter-log of blood, whereas if it is a full quarter-log then he is impure, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there was exactly one quarter-log of blood in a pot that one stirred without touching the blood, he remains pure, despite the fact that his body must have overshadowed all the blood at the time, and would therefore have had the status of a tent over it. The reason is that some of the blood must have been absorbed into the spoon with which he stirred, and therefore there no longer remains an entire connected quarter-log. This shows that the entire quarter-log must be together, as one unit, in order to impart impurity. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this baraita that there is a distinction between a case where the blood came from an entire corpse, and where it came from part of a corpse? In other words, if the blood came from one body it need not be together as a single unit, whereas if it came from more than one body, it must all be joined together, as in the case mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Similarly, with regard to the statements of Rav Zeira and the baraita, here the baraita is referring to a situation where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood came from an entire animal, and due to the significance of an entire animal the two half-measures combine. There, Rav Zeira is referring to a case where the half-measure of flesh and the half-measure of blood come from part of the animal. The Gemara notes that one should indeed conclude from it that this is the correct distinction. § The Gemara relates that Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash asked Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai in the city of Rome: From where is it derived with regard to the blood of creeping animals that it is impure? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: It is derived from the fact that the verse states: “And these are they that are impure for you among the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:29). Since a similar phrase already appears in Leviticus 11:31, it is derived from here that the blood of creeping animals is impure. Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash’s students said to him in amazement: How wise is Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai! Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash said to them: This source is not his own, as it is a set tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai learned it from him. Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash provided the background for this claim. As, on one occasion the gentile monarchy issued a decree that the Jewish people may not observe Shabbat, and that they may not circumcise their sons, and that they must engage in intercourse with their wives when they are menstruating. Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli went and cut his hair in a komei hairstyle,which was common only among the gentiles, and he went and sat with the gentiles when they were discussing these three decrees. He said to them: One who has an enemy, does he want his enemy to become poor or to become rich? They said to him: He wants his enemy to become poor. Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli said to them: If so, with regard to the Jewish people as well, isn’t it better that they will not perform labor on Shabbat in order that they will become poor? The gentiles said: That is a good claim that he said; let us nullify our decree. And they indeed nullified it. Again Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli spoke to them and said: One who has an enemy, does he want his enemy to become weak or to become healthy? They said to him: He wants his enemy to become weak. Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli said to them: If so, with regard to the Jewish people as well, isn’t it better that they circumcise their sons after eight days and thereby cause them to become weak? The gentiles said: That is a good claim that he said, and they nullified their decree. Once again Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli spoke to them and said: One who has an enemy, does he want his enemy to multiply or to decrease? They said to him: He wants his enemy to decrease. Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli said to them: If so, with regard to the Jewish people as well, isn’t it better that they do not engage in intercourse with their wives when they are menstruating? The gentiles said: That is a good claim that he said, and they nullified their decree. A short time later they recognized that Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli was a Jew, and they realized that he had fooled them to the advantage of the Jewish people. They therefore arose and reinstated all of their decrees. The Sages then said: Who will go and nullify these decrees? Let Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai go to Rome, as he is accustomed to experiencing miracles. And who shall go after him, i.e., with him? Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei. When Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Elazar’s father, heard this suggestion, he said to the Sages: But if Abba Ḥalafta, my father, were alive, would you be able to say to him: Give your son to be killed? If so, how can you ask me to send my son to Rome, where he is likely to be killed? Rabbi Shimon said to the Sages: If Yoḥai, my father, were alive, would you be able to say to him: Give your son to be killed? Nevertheless, I am prepared to risk my life and go to Rome, and if so, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei should accompany me. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yosei said to the Sages: If so, I will go in place of my son. I do not want him to go with Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, as this is what I fear: My son Elazar is young and quick to answer, and I am concerned lest Rabbi Shimon, who is hot-tempered, will become angry with him and punish him. Rabbi Shimon accepted upon himself that he would not punish Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara notes that even so, Rabbi Shimon did punish him while they were on their journey. Why did Rabbi Shimon end up punishing Rabbi Elazar? When they were walking on the road, this following question was asked before them: From where is it derived with regard to blood of a creeping animal that it is impure? Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei twisted his mouth to whisper and said: It is derived from the verse: “And these are they that are impure for you among the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:29). Although Rabbi Elazar tried to whisper so that Rabbi Shimon would not hear, Rabbi Shimon said to him: From the twisting of your mouth and your answer it is clear that you are a Torah scholar. Nevertheless, it is prohibited for a student to issue a ruling of halakha in the presence of his teacher. Therefore, I curse you that the son will not return from this journey to his father. The Gemara continues the story: As they were journeying, a demon named ben Temalyon emerged to greet them. He said to them: Do you wish that I will join you and come with you in order to help nullify this decree? When he saw that a demon was coming to help save the Jewish people, Rabbi Shimon cried and said: What, even for a maidservant of my father’s home, Hagar the Egyptian, who was Abraham’s handmaid, an angel was made available to appear to her three times to help her. Each of the three mentions of “and the angel of the Lord said unto her” (Genesis 16:9–11) in the story of Hagar is understood as a reference to a different angel. But I apparently do not deserve assistance from an angel even one time, but only help from a demon. In any case, let the miracle come and save the Jewish people, even if only through a demon. The demon ben Temalyon went before them and ascended into the emperor’s daughter and possessed her. When Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai arrived there, the emperor’s palace, he said: Ben Temalyon, emerge! Ben Temalyon, emerge! And once Rabbi Shimon called to him, ben Temalyon emerged and left the emperor’s daughter, and she was cured. When the emperor saw that Rabbi Shimon had cured his daughter, he said to them: Ask from me any reward that you want to ask. And he took them up to his treasury to take whatever they wanted. They found that letter there that contained the decrees against the Jewish people, and they took it and tore it up, and thereby nullified the decrees. The Gemara adds: And this is the background for that which Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei said (Yoma 57a): I saw the Curtain of the Sanctuary in the city of Rome, and on the Curtain were several drops of blood from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. When the emperor took them into his treasury Rabbi Elazar saw the Temple vessels that the Romans had captured when they conquered Jerusalem, including the Curtain. MISHNA: Sacrificial meat that is piggul and sacrificial meat that is notar do not join together to constitute the requisite measure of an olive-bulk, due to the fact that they belong to two separate categories of prohibition. The flesh of the carcass of the creeping animal and the flesh of the animal carcass, and likewise the flesh of the animal carcass and the flesh of the corpse, do not join together to transmit ritual impurity, not even for the more lenient of the two impurities, i.e., the impurity that requires the greater measure. GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna taught that piggul and notar do not join together only with regard to the ritual impurity of the hands if one touched them, which is by rabbinic law. But with regard to the matter of eating, they do join together. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states with regard to leftover sacrificial food from meat and bread: “It shall not be eaten because it is sacred” (Exodus 29:34). This teaches with regard to anything sacred that has been disqualified for whatever reason, that the verse comes to apply a prohibition with regard to its consumption. MISHNA: The food that became ritually impure through contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, thereby assuming first-degree ritual impurity, and the food that became ritually impure through contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, thereby assuming second-degree ritual impurity, join together to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to transmit impurity in accordance with the more lenient of the two, i.e., second-degree ritual impurity. All the ritually impure foods join together to constitute the requisite measure to disqualify the body [hageviyya] of one who eats half of a half-loaf-bulk [peras] of the impure foods from partaking of teruma. Likewise, all foods join together to constitute the requisite measure of food sufficient for two meals, to establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries; and to form the requisite measure of an egg-bulk, to render an item impure with the ritual impurity of food; and to form the measure of a dried fig-bulk, which establishes liability for carrying out food on Shabbat; and to form the volume of a large date, which establishes liability for eating on Yom Kippur. All the liquids join together to constitute the requisite measure to disqualify the body of one who drinks a quarter-log of ritually impure liquid from partaking of teruma; and to constitute the measure of a cheekful, which establishes liability for drinking on Yom Kippur. GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: What is the reason that food with first-degree ritual impurity joins together with food that has second-degree ritual impurity? The reason is that it is possible for the food with second-degree impurity to render another food impure with first-degree impurity. The Gemara asks: But can a food with second-degree impurity render another food impure with first-degree impurity? That is not possible. If food impure with second-degree impurity touches other food, it renders that food impure with third-degree impurity, not first-degree impurity. Rava said that this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: What caused that food to become impure with second-degree impurity? Is it not that it was touched by food with first-degree impurity? Since they share a common source, they join together. Rav Ashi similarly said: Food impure with first-degree impurity and food impure with second-degree impurity, with regard to food impure with third-degree impurity, are considered like members of one house, i.e., they both lead to third-degree impurity, either directly or indirectly, and for this reason they join together.
מִדְּרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף. דְּרַב יוֹסֵף סִינַי וְרַבָּה עוֹקֵר הָרִים, אִצְטְרִיכָא לְהוּ שַׁעְתָּא. שְׁלַחוּ לְהָתָם: סִינַי וְעוֹקֵר הָרִים, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם קוֹדֵם? שְׁלַחוּ לְהוּ: סִינַי קוֹדֵם, שֶׁהַכֹּל צְרִיכִין לְמָרֵי חִטַּיָּא. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ כַּלְדָּאֵי: מָלְכַתְּ תַּרְתֵּין שְׁנִין.
This may be derived from an incident involving Rabba and Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef was Sinai, extremely erudite, and Rabba was one who uproots mountains, extremely sharp. The moment arrived when they were needed; one of them was to be chosen as head of the yeshiva. They sent the following question there, to the Sages of Eretz Yisrael: Which takes precedence, Sinai or one who uproots mountains? They sent to them in response: Sinai takes precedence, for everyone needs the owner of the wheat, one who is expert in the sources. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef did not accept the appointment, as the Chaldean astrologers told him: You will preside as head of the yeshiva for two years.