Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Meilah

Meilah 17 for kids: The Trip to Rome

מעילה י״ז

🏛️ This daf asks when the blood and flesh of creeping animals join together to make something impure. It also tells the exciting story of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's dangerous trip to Rome to cancel harsh decrees against the Jewish people.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Meilah 17a in Daf QuestOpen Meilah 17b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Meilah 17

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Meilah 17 in simple English

Rashi on Meilah 17a, in English Tab translation (21)
  1. He said to him: when the Merciful One juxtaposes — The juxtaposition of a non-kosher and kosher animal's carcass to creeping animals is not meant to distinguish the measure of impurity between a complete carcass and an incomplete one, but rather teaches the prohibition of "you shall not make yourselves detestable." This teaches us that both the carcass of a non-kosher animal and that of a kosher animal, as well as creeping animals, render one who eats them liable also for "you shall not make yourselves detestable," and adds a prohibition: regarding a non-kosher animal's carcass, beyond the prohibition of eating a carcass there is also the prohibition of "you shall not make yourselves detestable" and the prohibition against eating a non-kosher animal.
  2. MISHNA: The blood of the creeping animal and its flesh join together — to form a lentil-bulk, in order to impart impurity.
  3. Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle: anything whose impurity and measure are equal — for example, a carcass and another carcass, or a weasel and a mouse (both creeping animals).
  4. Its impurity but not its measure — for example, a creeping animal and a carcass, whose impurity is equal, since both render impure until evening, but not their measure, since the measure of a carcass is an olive-bulk [while that of a creeping animal is a lentil-bulk].
  5. But not its impurity — for example, a carcass and a corpse, both of which impart impurity in an olive-bulk measure; but their impurity differs, since a corpse's impurity lasts seven days, while a carcass's impurity lasts only until evening.
  6. Neither its impurity nor its measure — for example, a corpse and a creeping animal: a creeping animal's measure is a lentil-bulk and its impurity lasts until evening, while a corpse's measure is an olive-bulk and its impurity lasts seven days.
  7. GEMARA: Rav Chanin says, etc. — That is, the mishna's teaching that the blood of the creeping animal and its flesh join together applies specifically when the flesh is from the very same creeping animal from which the blood came; but if the blood came from one creeping animal and the flesh from another, they do not join together.
  8. The impure ones (hateme'im) — The extra letter heh teaches that they join together even when from one creeping animal and another creeping animal — meaning a half-measure from this creeping animal and a half-measure from another join together; a half-measure from a weasel and a half-measure from a mouse join together. This poses a difficulty for Rabbi Yochanan.
  9. Rav Yosef said: here it is a whole [animal], there a part [of one] — If the creeping animals were entirely whole, whether of the same type or of two types, and a half-measure emerged from one and a half-measure from the other (or blood from one and flesh from the other), since they come from something significant — namely that both creeping animals were whole — they are considered significant and join together. Rav Chanin's statement, that they do not join, refers to a case of partial animals, where only part of each creeping animal was present, and blood emerged from one part and flesh from another; since they did not come from whole creeping animals, they are not significant, and the blood joins only with the flesh of that same creeping animal from which it emerged.
  10. And from where do you say this — that we distinguish between a whole animal and part of one?
  11. It spilled onto the floor — a complete quarter-log of blood, and its place was a slope; this is why it specifies "floor," because the floor was smooth, forming a slope, causing the blood to spread out.
  12. He overshadowed part of it — of the quarter-log of blood, for example by bending over only part of it — he remains pure, because he did not overshadow the entire measure.
  13. He overshadowed all of it — all of the quarter-log of blood — he becomes impure.
  14. But didn't Rabbi Chanina say: a quarter-log of blood that one stirred — turning it with a spindle or weaving rod — he remains pure, even though stirring it makes it impossible not to overshadow all of it; yet it is taught that the one who stirs it is pure. Why then does the other baraita teach that overshadowing all of it renders one impure?
  15. Rather, must one not conclude from this that here it refers to a whole [corpse], there to a part [of one]? — The teaching that overshadowing all of it renders one impure refers to a case where the quarter-log of blood came from a whole corpse, and is therefore significant enough to impart impurity by overshadowing. The teaching that one who stirred it remains pure refers to a case where the blood did not come from a whole corpse but emerged from a portion of a corpse lying there; even though it totals a quarter-log, since it did not come from a whole corpse it is not considered significant and does not impart impurity by overshadowing. And so Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated.
  16. He said to him: as it is written, "And these are to you," etc. — This verse is extra, coming for exegesis to teach this law, since another verse already states, "These are the impure ones to you."
  17. They said to him — Rabbi Matya's students said to Rabbi Matya.
  18. Ben Yochai is clever — Ben Yochai has already shown his cleverness in knowing how to state this teaching.
  19. A well-established tradition — meaning he did not say it on his own initiative. And from where do we know he learned it from Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei? From the following account, that once, etc.
  20. And he cut his hair in front — he shaved the hair on his forehead and left the hair at the back, like the forelock that gentiles wear, so that people would not recognize him as a Jew.
  21. One who has an enemy — do you wish for him to become rich, or do you wish for him to become poor?
Tosafot on Meilah 17a, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. The creeping animals join together with one another — meaning, for example, the eight creeping animals [listed in the Torah]: the weasel, the mouse, and so on.
  2. Anything whose impurity and measure are equal join together — for example, a creeping animal with a creeping animal, or a carcass with a carcass. [Items] whose impurity is equal but not their measure — for example, a limb from a corpse and an olive-bulk from a corpse: their impurity is equal with regard to [imparting impurity] under a tent, but not their measure, since an olive-bulk imparts impurity [only] as flesh, whereas a limb imparts impurity in any amount. [Items in which] neither the impurity nor the measure are equal — a creeping animal and a carcass.
  3. Rav Chanin said, etc. — Explanation: What the mishnah states, that the blood of a creeping animal and its flesh join together, applies specifically while the blood is still within the creeping animal; but if the blood separated from the flesh of the creeping animal, they do not join together. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Chanina raises an objection: It is taught, 'the impure ones (plural)' — teaching that they join together, even flesh of a creeping animal with [another] creeping animal, or a creeping animal's flesh with blood, whether from one type or from two types — meaning two types means two [different kinds of] creeping animals, such as a weasel and a mouse. In such a case the blood of one creeping animal joins with the flesh of another, and all the more so blood and flesh of the same creeping animal join together even once the blood has separated. Rav Yosef answers: here [it speaks of blood that separated] from a whole [animal], there [Rav Zeira spoke of blood that came] from only part [of an animal] — meaning, what the baraita states here, that the blood of one creeping animal joins with the flesh of another, applies specifically when the blood separated from a whole creeping animal, which is significant enough to combine; whereas what was said regarding the mishnah, that they do not join unless the blood is still within it, refers to a case where only a partial amount [separated] — i.e., the blood separated only from one limb or piece — which is not significant enough to combine. And from where do we know that there is a distinction between blood that comes from a whole creeping animal and blood that comes from only part of one? As it is taught: blood spilled on a sloped floor so that it kept trickling — meaning a quarter-log of blood from a corpse spilled on a slope and did not stay in one place, but spread out a little here and a little there — if one overshadowed part of it, he remains pure, since he did not overshadow the entire quarter-log; if he overshadowed all of it — meaning he overshadowed every place where the blood had spread, such as by passing his hand over it — he becomes impure, since he then overshadowed the full quarter-log, for the baraita holds that blood in one place combines with blood in another place.
  4. But didn't Rabbi Yochanan say: a quarter-log of blood that one stirred is pure — Explanation: If one stirs the blood with a spoon or a reed, he remains pure, because it is impossible that the reed did not absorb some of it, so that a full quarter-log no longer remains intact. But why should he be pure? Didn't we say that if one overshadows even part of the blood he becomes impure, even though he did not overshadow the whole quarter-log in one place, but only part here and part there? [One might answer that] the ruling that overshadowing part makes one impure applies only when the blood came from a whole corpse, whereas Rabbi Yochanan's ruling of 'pure' applies when it came from only part of a corpse. But this explanation is difficult: since [the Gemara] established the case as 'while it is still within it,' meaning the blood is still in the flesh of the creeping animal, what need is there for 'joining' at all? It is already considered flesh of the creeping animal, since it never separated. Furthermore, it is difficult to see why there should be a distinction between a whole and a partial corpse at all — since there is a full quarter-log either way, what difference does it make whether it came from a whole or an incomplete corpse? Therefore, it appears, as Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon explained, that the text should read: Rav Chanin said in the name of Rav Zeira, etc. — meaning, Rav Zeira said that the blood must come from the same creeping animal as the flesh from which it separated; but the blood of one creeping animal does not join with the flesh of another. Against this, [Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Chanina] objects from the baraita, which explicitly states that they do join even when coming from two different creeping animals. And [the Gemara] answers: here it speaks of the whole amount, there of a partial amount — meaning, the baraita's ruling that they join even when from two different creeping animals refers to a case where one touched the complete amount of both blood and flesh; while Rav Zeira's ruling, that it must be from one creeping animal and not two, refers to a case where one touched only part — either of the blood or of the flesh. Thus he held that when they come from a single creeping animal they join, since it is as though the blood and flesh were joined together as one; but when they come from two different creeping animals, each is considered separate. And from where do we know that there is room for such a distinction between touching the whole and touching only part? From the baraita: 'spilled...if he overshadowed part, he is pure' — this shows a distinction between overshadowing all of it and overshadowing only part, and the same distinction applies regarding touching. And if you ask: if so, why does the Gemara then bring the further proof, 'But didn't Rabbi Yochanan say, a quarter-log of blood...'? The Rash of Coucy explains: were it not for Rabbi Yochanan's statement, one might have said that the ruling 'if he overshadowed part he is pure' applies only when there is not a full quarter-log present; therefore the Gemara cites Rabbi Yochanan's ruling, which deals with a case where a full quarter-log is indeed present, and nevertheless the person remains pure because he touched only part of it.
  5. As it is written: 'And these are impure for you' — this is derived either from the extra letter vav in the word 'vezeh,' or from the letter heh in the word 'hatame.'
  6. Ben Yochai outwitted him — meaning, Rabbi Shimon devised a clever solution for himself.
  7. And he cut his hair in the Roman style — He did this to disguise himself, so that people would not recognize him as a Jew, since Jews did not wear their hair cut in that Roman fashion.
  8. They said: It is good — meaning, the plan was correct and good to carry out in order to annul the decree.
Rashi on Meilah 17b, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. Lemma — He is accustomed to miracles, for miracles had been performed for him in the cave, as is taught in tractate Shabbat (33b).
  2. Lemma — Abba Ḥalafta, the father of Rabbi Yosei.
  3. Lemma — This is phrased as a rhetorical question: Could you have said to him, 'Give your son to be killed'? Meaning: just as you could not say this to him, you cannot say it to me now regarding my son.
  4. Lemma — Rabbi Yosei said to the Sages: I am afraid lest Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai punish my son; I fear this more than I fear enemies, worried he may become angry with him over some matter and punish him.
  5. Lemma — Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai accepted upon himself not to punish him; nevertheless he did punish him, as stated below, where he said to him, 'May the son not return,' etc.
  6. Lemma — Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei did not speak in his usual loud manner but twisted his mouth differently from his normal way of speaking and answered in a whisper, so that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would not notice that he was ruling halakha in his presence. Nevertheless Rabbi Shimon noticed and said to him: 'From the twisting of your lips you are recognizable' — I see that you gave an answer, proving you are wise, since you knew how to respond; but since you ruled in my presence, 'may the son not return,' etc. — meaning he punished him. The rest is explained in the aggada, describing how the incident unfolded: Rabbi Elazar's soul was about to depart, until Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai remembered that he had promised his father to bring him back safely, and prayed for mercy on his behalf; how he was healed is explained there.
  7. Lemma — A demon called 'Nutiyon' [in Old French].
  8. Lemma — The maidservant of my father's house was Hagar; three angels were made available to her, for the word 'angel' is written three times in that passage (Genesis 16).
  9. Lemma — He entered the emperor's daughter, and she went mad, crying out constantly, 'Bring me Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai!' The rest is fully explained there [in the aggada].
  10. Lemma — They found that document in which were written the decrees mentioned above.
  11. Lemma — I saw it [the Curtain] in the city of Rome, among the emperor's [treasures] — he saw it in the emperor's palace, and on it were several drops of blood from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that had been sprinkled on it, though not evenly, for the drops were not placed one beside another.
  12. Lemma — This means that less than a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal does not combine to complete an olive-bulk of animal carcass, since that is the lenient of the two [requiring the greater measure]; and certainly animal-carcass flesh does not combine with less than a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, the stricter measure. Likewise, half an olive-bulk of a corpse does not combine with half an olive-bulk of animal-carcass flesh, even to render one impure only until evening [the lightest impurity].
  13. Lemma — The teaching that piggul and notar do not combine [even for half an olive-bulk] applies only to the impurity of the hands, which is a rabbinic enactment, as stated in tractate Pesachim (120b): the Sages decreed that notar and piggul render the hands impure, due to suspicion of the priests or due to lazy priests. Since this is a rabbinic decree, piggul and notar do not combine for impurity of the hands, for the Sages did not make 'an enactment upon an enactment'; since it is rabbinic, if they were said to combine, it would be 'a decree upon a decree.'
  14. Lemma — But with regard to eating, piggul and notar do combine: if there is piggul and notar, each less than an olive-bulk, but together they complete an olive-bulk, one who eats it is liable for piggul; and likewise, if most of it is notar and the rest piggul, one who eats it is liable for notar. Rabbi Eliezer said to him that if there is half an olive-bulk of each, they combine with each other to make him liable for both notar and piggul.
  15. Lemma — This phrase implies that both [piggul and notar] combine with respect to eating; the prohibition against eating disqualified sacred food itself is derived from 'it shall not be eaten,' and 'for it is sacred' teaches that any sacred item that has been disqualified, such as notar or piggul, is included in that prohibition.
  16. Lemma — The mishnah teaches: food that became impure through a primary source of impurity (a first-degree derivative), and food that became impure through a second-degree derivative, combine with each other to transmit impurity according to the more lenient of the two, i.e., the second-degree, thereby together producing a third-degree impurity, just as the second-degree alone would. However, they do not combine to produce a second-degree impurity as the first-degree alone would, since that would be the stricter of the two.
  17. Lemma — It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said, why do first-degree and second-degree derivatives combine? Because it is possible for a second-degree derivative to become a first-degree.
  18. Lemma — But is this not impossible? For we find no type of impurity that behaves this way — even a second-degree derivative never becomes a first-degree, and certainly a first-degree never arises from it. Rather, the reason they combine is that what caused the second-degree impurity to arise in the first place was the first-degree; since its impurity comes through the power of the first-degree, it is considered as if it were the first-degree, and therefore they combine.
  19. Lemma — They are 'from one house,' meaning that both the first-degree and second-degree derivatives are derived from the same verses [regarding the eight creeping animals], since the second-degree arises through the power of the first-degree. Therefore it is said that they are equivalent, meaning they combine with each other according to the more lenient of the two, to produce a third-degree impurity. Between Rava and Rav Ashi there is no difference except in wording, since Rav Ashi adds the phrase, 'they are from one house.'
Tosafot on Meilah 17b, in English Tab translation (9)
  1. If Abba Ḥalafta were alive — Could you say 'give your son to be killed,' just as you say to me to send my son with Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who is hot-tempered, and I fear lest he punish him? Rabbi Shimon understood that Rabbi Yosei was not really saying this because of Rabbi Elazar himself but out of fear of the Roman government, lest he be endangered on the journey. Therefore Rabbi Shimon said: If Yoḥai my father were alive, etc. Rabbi Yosei then answered: I will go; I fear that Rabbi Shimon might punish my son, since he is young and quick to answer, and Rabbi Shimon is quick to anger and strict even about a minor matter — this happened while they were walking on the road, etc. In any event, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei did go, as the Jerusalem Talmud explains, because Rabbi Shimon vowed to him that he would not punish him.
  2. He twisted his mouth — meaning he hurried to answer.
  3. Let the son not return to his father — The Jerusalem Talmud explains that he was struck with a throat illness (croup), and when Rabbi Shimon remembered that he had stipulated to bring him back to his father, he went back and prayed for him, and he was healed.
  4. Ben Temalyon went out to meet him — This is the demon called 'lamatoch' in the vernacular (Old French); he resembles a small child and is accustomed to playing tricks among women.
  5. He said: Do you wish that I come with you — meaning that through him a miracle would occur.
  6. Rabbi Shimon wept and said: A maidservant of my father's house had an angel appear to her three times — This was said about Hagar, as it is written (Genesis 16) 'the angel of the Lord' three times, teaching that she saw three different angels. [But] I do not merit even one such appearance — meaning, I am not worthy that an angel appear to me even once; let the miracle come in any case — meaning, let the miracle come about even through this lowly being [the demon]. He went ahead of them and entered the body of the emperor's daughter before they arrived. When Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar reached there, they said to him: Ben Temalyon, go out gently — they said this to him quietly, so that others would not notice and would instead think it was through prayer that this was happening.
  7. They said to them: If... etc. — meaning, this is what the members of the king's household said.
  8. To that letter — the letter containing the government's decree.
  9. And this is the background for what Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei said: I saw it in the city of Rome — He said this about the Curtain (Parochet), referring to that very time when he was there [in Rome], for we have no other record of his being in the city of Rome except on this occasion, when he was in the king's treasury and saw it there.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Me'ilah, Meila 17.