Shabbat 13

מיתיבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר התינוקות של בית רבן היו מסדרין פרשיות וקורין לאור הנר אי בעית אימא ראשי פרשיותיו ואי בעית אימא שאני תינוקות הואיל ואימת רבן עליהן לא אתי לאצלויי:

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The schoolchildren would organize the sections and read the book by candlelight. Apparently, it is permitted to read by candlelight on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the Tosefta is only referring to the beginning of the sections. And if you wish, say instead that children are different in this regard. Since the fear of their teacher is upon them, they will not come to adjust the wick. Even on a weekday, fear of their teacher will prevent them from tending to the lamp during their study.

כיוצא בו לא יאכל הזב: תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בוא וראה עד היכן פרצה טהרה בישראל שלא שנינו לא יאכל הטהור עם הטמאה אלא לא יאכל הזב עם הזבה מפני הרגל עבירה כיוצא בו לא יאכל זב פרוש עם זב עם הארץ שמא ירגילנו אצלו

We learned in the mishna: Similar to this decree of Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree that the zav may not eat with his wife, the zava, even though they are both ritually impure, because by eating together they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed to sin. It was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Come and see to what extent ritual purity was widespread in Israel, as we did not learn: The ritually pure may not eat with the ritually impure woman; but rather, the zav may not eat with the zava, although they are both ritually impure, lest he become accustomed to sin. Needless to say, a pure and an impure person certainly would not eat together, as everyone was careful with regard to ritual purity. On a similar note, the Sages said: A zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity, eats ritually pure food, and is careful about separating tithes, may not eat with a zav who is an am ha’aretz, who does not distance himself from ritual impurity and is not careful about separating tithes, due to the concern lest the am ha’aretz accustom him to frequently spend time with him, by means of a shared meal.

וכי מרגילו אצלו מאי הוי אלא אימא שמא יאכילנו דברים טמאין אטו זב פרוש לאו דברים טמאין אכיל אמר אביי גזירה שמא יאכילנו דברים שאינן מתוקנין ורבא אמר רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הן אלא שמא יהא רגיל אצלו ויאכילנו דברים טמאין בימי טהרתו

The Gemara wonders: And if he accustoms him to be with him, what of it, what is the problem? Rather, say: Lest he feed him impure items. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity does not eat impure things? In his impure state, everything he touches automatically becomes impure, so why would he be concerned with regard to impure items? Abaye said: This prohibition is due to a decree issued by the Sages lest the am ha’aretz feed him food items that are not tithed. Rava said: He needn’t worry about items that are not tithed. Even if his friend was an am ha’aretz, there is a general principle in effect that most amei ha’aretz tithe their fruits. Rather, the Sages were concerned lest he become accustomed to spending time with the am ha’aretz even after the period of his impurity and he feed him impure items even during the days of his purity.

איבעיא להו נדה מהו שתישן עם בעלה היא בבגדה והוא בבגדו אמר רב יוסף תא שמע העוף עולה עם הגבינה על השלחן ואינו נאכל דברי בית שמאי בית הלל אומר לא עולה ולא נאכל שאני התם דליכא דיעות

An additional dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the requirement to distance oneself from prohibition and impurity: What is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman? May she sleep with her husband in one bed while she is in her clothes and he is in his clothes? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna: The fowl is permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, although it may not be eaten with cheese. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: The fowl is neither permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, nor may it be eaten with it. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is the halakha, not only must one distance himself from the sin itself, but one must also make certain that items that are prohibited together are not placed together. The Gemara rejects this: There it is different as there are not several consciousnesses. When the fowl and the cheese are on one person’s table, he is liable to err and eat them both, as there is only one consciousness there, his. That is not the case when there are two people in one bed. In that case, there are two consciousnesses and there is no concern that they will both forget the prohibition.

הכי נמי מסתברא דהיכא דאיכא דיעות שאני דקתני סיפא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שני אכסניים אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה אוכל בשר וזה אוכל גבינה ואין חוששין ולאו אתמר עלה אמר רב חנין בר אמי אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שאין מכירין זה את זה אבל מכירין זה את זה אסורים והני נמי מכירין זה את זה נינהו הכי השתא התם דיעות איכא שינוי ליכא הכא איכא דיעות ואיכא שינוי

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that where there are two or more consciousnesses it is different, as it was taught in the latter clause of that mishna, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests in one house may eat on one table this one eating meat and this one eating cheese, and they need not be concerned. The Gemara rejects this: That is not a proof. Was it not said with regard to this halakha that Rabbi Ḥanin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife, are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not keep appropriate distance, and therefore they may not sleep together in one bed even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare these two cases? There, in the case of meat and milk, there are two consciousnesses; however, there is no noticeable change from the norm, as the meat and the cheese are on the table without any obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While, here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change from the norm, as it is unusual for people to sleep in their clothes. The fact that they are both dressed constitutes a change.

איכא דאמרי תא שמע רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שני אכסניים אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה בשר וזה גבינה ואתמר עלה אמר רב חנין בר אמי אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שאין מכירין זה את זה אבל מכירין זה את זה אסור והני נמי מכירין זה את זה נינהו התם דיעות איכא שינוי ליכא הכא איכא דיעות ואיכא שינוי

Others cite the previous passage as proof for Rav Yosef’s opinion and then reject it and say: Come and hear, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests may eat on one table, this one eating meat and this one eating cheese. And it was stated with regard to this halakha that Rabbi Ḥanin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not act with the appropriate separation, and therefore they cannot sleep together in one bed, even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: There, in the case of meat and cheese, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change. The meat and the cheese are on the table with no obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change.

תא שמע לא יאכל הזב עם הזבה משום הרגל עבירה הכא נמי דיעות איכא שינוי ליכא

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in our mishna: The zav may not eat with the zava due to concern that excessive intimacy will lead them to become accustomed to sin. Even eating together is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Here, too, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change.

תא שמע אל ההרים לא אכל ועיניו לא נשא אל גלולי בית ישראל ואת אשת רעהו לא טמא ואל אשה נדה לא יקרב מקיש אשה נדה לאשת רעהו מה אשת רעהו הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה אסור אף אשתו נדה הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה אסור שמע מינה

Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in a baraita: It is stated: “And he has not eaten upon the mountains, neither has he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither has he defiled his neighbor’s wife, neither has he come near to a woman in her impurity” (Ezekiel 18:6). This verse juxtaposes a menstruating woman to his neighbor’s wife. Just as lying together with his neighbor’s wife, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited, so too, lying with his wife when she is menstruating, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited.

ופליגא דרבי פדת דאמר רבי פדת לא אסרה תורה אלא קורבה של גלוי עריות בלבד שנאמר איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה

The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat, as Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah only prohibited intimacy that involves engaging in prohibited sexual relations, as it is stated: “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6). The prohibition of intimacy in the Torah applies exclusively to relations, and all other kinds of intimacy that do not include actual relations are not included in the prohibition. When there is separation, they did not issue a decree.

עולא כי הוי אתי מבי רב הוה מנשק להו לאחוותיה אבי חדייהו ואמרי לה אבי ידייהו ופליגא דידיה אדידיה דאמר עולא אפילו שום קורבה אסור משום לך לך אמרי נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב:

The Gemara relates that Ulla, when he would come from the house of his teacher, would kiss his sisters on their chests. And some say: On their hands. Ulla was not concerned about violating the prohibition of displaying affection toward a relative forbidden to him, as his intention was not to have relations with them. The Gemara adds that his action was in contradiction to a saying of his, as Ulla said: Even any intimacy is prohibited with a woman with whom he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations due to the reason formulated as an adage: Go around, go around, and do not approach the vineyard, they say to the nazirite. They advise the nazirite, who is forbidden to consume any product of a vine, that he should not even approach the vineyard. The same is true with regard to the prohibition of forbidden relations. According to Ulla, one must distance himself from them to whatever degree possible.

תני דבי אליהו מעשה בתלמיד אחד ששנה הרבה וקרא הרבה ושימש תלמידי חכמים הרבה ומת בחצי ימיו והיתה אשתו נוטלת תפיליו ומחזרתם בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ואמרה להם כתיב בתורה כי הוא חייך ואורך ימיך בעלי ששנה הרבה וקרא הרבה

The Sage in the school of Eliyahu taught a baraita that deals with this halakha: There was an incident involving one student who studied much Mishna and read much Bible, and served Torah scholars extensively, studying Torah from them, and, nevertheless, died at half his days, half his life expectancy. His wife in her bitterness would take his phylacteries and go around with them to synagogues and study halls, and she said to the Sages: It is written in the Torah: “For it is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20). If so, my husband who studied much Mishna, and read much Bible,

ושימש תלמידי חכמים הרבה מפני מה מת בחצי ימיו ולא היה אדם מחזירה דבר פעם אחת נתארחתי אצלה והיתה מסיחה כל אותו מאורע ואמרתי לה בתי בימי נדותך מה הוא אצלך אמרה לי חס ושלום אפילו באצבע קטנה לא נגע [בי] בימי לבוניך מהו אצלך אכל עמי ושתה עמי וישן עמי בקירוב בשר ולא עלתה דעתו על דבר אחר ואמרתי לה ברוך המקום שהרגו שלא נשא פנים לתורה שהרי אמרה תורה ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב כי אתא רב דימי אמר מטה חדא הואי במערבא אמרי אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף סינר מפסיק בינו לבינה:

and served Torah scholars extensively, why did he die at half his days? Where is the length of days promised him in the verse? No one would respond to her astonishment at all. Eliyahu said: One time I was a guest in her house, and she was relating that entire event with regard to the death of her husband. And I said to her: My daughter, during the period of your menstruation, how did he act toward you? She said to me: Heaven forbid, he did not touch me even with his little finger. And I asked her: In the days of your white garments, after the menstrual flow ended, and you were just counting clean days, how did he act toward you then? She said to me: He ate with me, and drank with me, and slept with me with bodily contact and, however, it did not enter his mind about something else, i.e., conjugal relations. And I said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent who killed him for this sin, as your husband did not show respect to the Torah. The Torah said: “And to a woman in the separation of her impurity you should not approach” (Leviticus 18:19), even mere affectionate contact is prohibited. The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: That student did not actually sleep with her with bodily contact; rather, it was in one bed that they slept without contact. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say that Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said: When they would sleep together in one bed, she wore a belt [sinar] from the waist down that would separate between him and her. Nevertheless, since the matter is prohibited, that student was punished.

מתני׳ ואלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון שעלו לבקרו נמנו ורבו בית שמאי על בית הלל ושמונה עשר דברים גזרו בו ביום:

MISHNA: And these are among the halakhot that the Sages, who went up to visit him, said in the upper story of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. The precise nature of these halakhot will be explained in the Gemara. These halakhot are considered one unit because they share a distinctive element. Since many Sages were there, among them most of the generation’s Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, they engaged in discussion of various halakhot of the Torah. It turned out that when the people expressing opinions were counted, the students of Beit Shammai outnumbered the students of Beit Hillel, and they issued decrees with regard to eighteen matters on that day in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

גמ׳ אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף אלו תנן או ואלו תנן ואלו תנן הני דאמרן או אלו תנן דבעינן למימר קמן תא שמע אין פולין לאור הנר ואין קורין לאור הנר ואלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון שמע מינה ואלו תנן שמע מינה:

GEMARA: With regard to the language that introduces our mishna, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did we learn in our mishna: These are among the halakhot, or did we learn in our mishna: And these are among the halakhot? The difference is significant. Did we learn: And these, and if so, the reference would be to those that we said earlier, i.e., that those halakhot are included in the decrees? Or did we learn: These, and if so the reference would be to those that we seek to mention below? Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the fact that these matters were taught together in a baraita: One may not shake garments to rid them of lice by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp; and these are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the attic of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. Conclude from this that we learned: And these in the mishna, and the reference is to the decrees mentioned earlier.

תנו רבנן מי כתב מגילת תענית אמרו חנניה בן חזקיה וסיעתו שהיו מחבבין את הצרות

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Megillat Ta’anit, which is a list of days of redemption that were established as celebrations for generations: Who wrote Megillat Ta’anit? This scroll was written by Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon and his faction, who held dear the memory of the troubles that befell Israel and their salvation from them.

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אף אנו מחבבין את הצרות אבל מה נעשה שאם באנו לכתוב אין אנו מספיקין

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: We also hold dear the memory of the troubles from which Israel was saved, but what can we do? If we came to write all the days of that kind, we would not manage to do so, as the troubles that Israel experienced in every generation and era are numerous, and on each day there is an event worthy of commemoration.

דבר אחר אין שוטה נפגע

Alternatively: Why do we not record the days of salvation from troubles? Just as a crazy person is not hurt, as he is not aware of the troubles that befall him, so too, we cannot appreciate the magnitude of the calamities that befall us.

דבר אחר אין בשר המת מרגיש באיזמל איני והאמר רב יצחק קשה רימה למת כמחט בבשר החי שנאמר אך בשרו עליו יכאב ונפשו עליו תאבל אימא אין בשר המת שבחי מרגיש באיזמל

Alternatively: The flesh of a dead person does not feel the scalpel [izemel] cutting into him, and we, too, are in such a difficult situation that we no longer feel the pains and troubles. With regard to the last analogy, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak say: The gnawing of maggots is as excruciating to the dead as the stab of a needle is to the flesh of the living, as it is stated with regard to the dead: “But his flesh shall hurt him, and his soul mourns over him” (Job 14:22)? Rather, say and explain the matter: The dead flesh in parts of the body of the living person that are insensitive to pain does not feel the scalpel that cuts him.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ברם זכור אותו האיש לטוב וחנניה בן חזקיה שמו שאלמלא הוא נגנז ספר יחזקאל שהיו דבריו סותרין דברי תורה מה עשה העלו לו שלש מאות גרבי שמן וישב בעלייה ודרשן:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya, as if not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed because its contents, in many details, contradict matters of Torah. The Sages sought to suppress the book and exclude it from the canon. What did he, Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya, do? They brought him three hundred jugs of oil, for light and food, up to his upper story, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed contradictory, and resolved the contradictions.

ושמנה עשר דבר גזרו: מאי נינהו שמנה עשר דבר דתנן אלו פוסלין את התרומה האוכל אוכל ראשון והאוכל אוכל שני והשותה משקין טמאין והבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין וטהור שנפלו על ראשו ורובו שלשה לוגין מים שאובין והספר והידים והטבול יום והאוכלים והכלים שנטמאו במשקין

We learned in the mishna that when the Sages went up to the upper story of the house of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon, they were counted and issued eighteen decrees in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara asks: What are those eighteen matters? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna, a list of the decrees that the Sages issued with regard to items whose level of impurity is such that if they come into contact with teruma they disqualify it. By means of that contact, the teruma itself becomes impure, but it does not transmit impurity to other items. These disqualify teruma: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, e.g., a creeping animal; and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with an item with first degree ritual impurity status; and one who drinks impure liquids of any degree of impurity; and one whose head and most of his body come into drawn water after he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify himself; and a ritually pure person that three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body; and a Torah scroll; and the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the purpose of handling teruma; and one who immersed himself during the day, i.e., one who was impure and immersed himself, and until evening he is not considered completely pure; and foods and vessels that became impure by coming into contact with impure liquids. Contact with any of these disqualifies the teruma. The Gemara seeks to clarify these matters.

מאן תנא האוכל אוכל ראשון והאוכל אוכל שני מפסל פסלי טמויי

The Gemara asks first: Who is the tanna who holds that one who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status, and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status, disqualify the teruma, but