Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

March 21, 2020 | 讻状讛 讘讗讚专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 15

What are the three cases in which Hillel and Shamai disagreed? Are there no other cases? Who exactly instituted the decree regarding the impurity of other countries? There are varying sources that attribute it to different time periods. How can all these sources be reconciled? Why did they institute that glass vessels can become impure.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

砖诇诪讛 讙讝专 诇拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛


Solomon and decreed impurity on hands to prohibit contact with consecrated items, and Shammai, Hillel, and their disciples came and decreed impurity on hands even to prohibit contact with teruma.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讙讝专讜 讜讘砖诪谞讛 注砖专 谞讞诇拽讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜砖讜讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讞诇拽讜 讜诇诪讞专 讛讜砖讜讜


As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that they reached a consensus in their opinions with regard to the eighteen decrees? They answer: On that day they disagreed, and the following day, after the matter was decided in a vote, they reached a consensus in their opinions.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞讞诇拽讜 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪拽讘 讞诇讛 讜讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪拽讘讬讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讗诇讗 拽讘 讜诪讞爪讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 诪砖讛讙讚讬诇讜 讛诪讚讜转 讗诪专讜 讞诪砖转 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讞诪砖讛 讜注讜讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉


As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in three places. The Gemara cites the disputes. One, Shammai says: From a kav of dough, one is required to separate 岣lla, the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate 岣lla, as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: 鈥淭he first of your dough鈥 (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating 岣lla. And Hillel says: One must separate 岣lla only from two kav. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one, who is stringent, nor in accordance with the statement of that one, who is lenient. Rather, one and a half kav is the measure from which one is obligated to separate 岣lla. Once the measures increased and the Sages recalculated the volume of a kav to be greater, they said that based on the measure of the new kav, five quarters of a kav of flour is the measure from which one is obligated to separate 岣lla. Rabbi Yosei says: Five quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more is one obligated to separate 岣lla.


讜讗讬讚讱 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪诇讗 讛讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 专讘讜 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 注讚 砖讘讗讜 砖谞讬 讙专讚讬讬诐 诪砖注专 讛讗砖驻讛 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛注讬讚讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 砖砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 驻讜住诇讬诐 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讚讘专讬讛诐


And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Hillel says: A full hin, twelve log, of drawn water poured into a ritual bath in which there was not yet a full measure of forty se鈥檃 disqualifies the water of the ritual bath and accords even the water that had been there previously the status of drawn water. Even if water fit for a ritual bath is subsequently added to complete the measure of forty se鈥檃, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, hin, because, when quoting one鈥檚 teacher, a person must speak employing the language of his teacher. Shammai says: Nine kav of water is enough to disqualify the ritual bath. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one. The Sages did not determine a measure for the water disqualifying a ritual bath until two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three log of drawn water disqualify the ritual bath, and the Rabbis upheld their statement against the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai. The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to underscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah.


讜讗讬讚讱 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讜讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪诪注讟 注诇 讬讚 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诪诪注讟 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转


And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Shammai says: All women, their time is sufficient, i.e., a woman who notices that she saw blood of menstruation but did not feel the flow beforehand, need not worry that perhaps the flow of blood began before she saw it, and it is sufficient if she assumes ritual impurity status beginning at that moment. Hillel says: From examination to examination, i.e., a woman who saw blood, if she does not know when the menstrual flow began, she is considered impure retroactive to the last time she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure, and even if the examination took place several days earlier. Anything that she touched in the interim becomes ritually impure. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one; rather, the principle is: A full day, twenty-four hours, reduces the time from examination to examination, i.e., if her final self-examination took place a long time before, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four hour period prior to noticing the blood. And from examination to examination reduces the time from a full day, i.e., if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination.


讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇住诪讜讱 讜砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 诇住诪讜讱 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讜讜转讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: And are there no more disputes between them? Isn鈥檛 there what we learned that Hillel says that it is permitted to lay hands on the heads of offerings sacrificed on a Festival, and one performs no prohibited labor and does not desecrate the Festival by doing so; and Shammai says not to lay hands? The Gemara answers: When Rav Huna said his statement, he was referring to disputes where there is no dispute between the great Sages who predated them concomitant with theirs. The dispute with regard to laying hands on the Festival is ancient, and their predecessors, Sages dating back to the beginning of the era of the pairs, already disputed it.


讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛讘讜爪专 诇讙转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 讜讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚讛转诐 拽讗 砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬:


The Gemara asks further: Isn鈥檛 there also the dispute with regard to one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the press and stomp them as to whether or not the liquid that seeps out of the grapes is considered as having seeped out willfully and renders the grapes susceptible to impurity? Shammai says: It has become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible. The Gemara rejects this: Except for that one, as there, although they originally disagreed, ultimately Hillel was silent and did not respond to Shammai and ultimately accepted his opinion.


讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 讜讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬砖 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转: 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻砖讞诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诪讜专 诇谞讜 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇讜砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转 (诇谞讜) 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讱


Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yo岣nan of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels. The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages, who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these decrees? Wasn鈥檛 it the Sages who lived in the final eighty years of the Second Temple period who issued these decrees? As Rav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, the Sages sent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that you once told us in the name of your father.


砖诇讞 诇讛诐 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪讗讛 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讛讘讬转 驻砖讟讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讙诇转讛 诇讛 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜讬砖讘讛 诇讛 讘讞谞讜讬讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转


He sent to them: This is what my father said: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the evil kingdom of Rome invaded Israel. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, they decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stones and sat in the stores on the Temple Mount. With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What are the halakhic ramifications of this statement? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said: To say that they no longer judged cases of fines. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind that they no longer judged cases of fines? Even several generations after the Temple was destroyed they continued to judge cases of fines in Eretz Yisrael. Rather, emend and say: That they no longer judged capital cases. The authority to impose the death penalty was stripped from the Sanhedrin, and therefore they willingly left the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Since the Sanhedrin no longer convenes in its designated place, the halakha is that it no longer has the authority to judge capital cases (Tosafot).


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讜讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诇诇 讜砖诪注讜谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜砖诪注讜谉 谞讛讙讜 谞砖讬讗讜转谉 (诇驻谞讬) 讛讘讬转 诪讗讛 砖谞讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 讜讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讜 拽讚诪讬 讟讜讘讗


In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations. And if you say that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan were also there during those eighty years, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Hillel, and his son Shimon, and his grandson Gamliel, and his great-grandson Shimon filled their position of Nasi before the House, while the Temple was standing, for a hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yo岣nan were much earlier than Hillel?


讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇砖专讜祝 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讗讗讜讬专讗 诇转诇讜转


Rather, this decree was issued in stages. First, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan came and issued a decree that teruma that comes into contact with a clump of earth of the land of the nations is to be burned, and they decreed nothing with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations. The Sages of the final eighty years prior to the destruction of the Temple came and issued a decree with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations that its legal status is in abeyance, and it is not burned.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞讚讗 讙讝讬专转讗 讛讜讛 诇砖专讬驻讛 讜讛讗诪专 讗讬诇驻讗 讬讚讬诐 转讞诇转 讙讝讬专转谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讬讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚转讞诇转 讙讝讬专转谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讛讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that there was one decree issued immediately to subject teruma to burning? Didn鈥檛 Ilfa say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? The Gemara infers from this that, with regard to hands alone, the beginning of their decree was to render teruma that came into contact with them impure to the point of burning; however, with regard to other matters, they did not immediately issue so severe a decree.


讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇转诇讜转 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇砖专讜祝 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 诇转诇讜转


Rather, the stages of the decree were as follows: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan came and decreed that any item that came into contact with a clump of earth is to be in abeyance, and they decreed nothing with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations. The Sages of the last eighty years came and were stringent by one more level; they decreed that teruma that came into contact with a clump of earth of the land of the nations is to be burned, and, with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations, its legal status is in abeyance.


讜讗讻转讬 讘讗讜砖讗 讙讝讜专 讚转谞谉 注诇 砖砖讛 住驻拽讜转 砖讜专驻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 注诇 住驻拽 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜注诇 住驻拽 注驻专 讛讘讗 诪讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 住驻拽 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜注诇 住驻拽 讻诇讬诐 讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讜注诇 住驻拽 讛专讜拽讬谉 讜注诇 住驻拽 诪讬 专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 砖讻谞讙讚 诪讬 专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讜讚讗讬 诪讙注谉 (讜注诇) 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗转谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛


The Gemara asked further: And still is the matter clear? Didn鈥檛 the Sages issue this decree in Usha, many years after the destruction of the Temple? As we learned in a mishna: For six cases of uncertain impurity one burns the teruma which came into contact with them:
For the uncertain case of beit haperas, meaning teruma that entered a field where a grave was plowed and the location of the bones of the corpse is unknown, and it is uncertain whether or not the teruma became impure;
And for the uncertain case of earth that comes from the land of the nations, whose impurity itself has the status of uncertain impurity. Therefore, teruma that came into contact with it also has the status of uncertain impurity;
And for the uncertain case of the clothes of an am ha鈥檃retz. Since an am ha鈥檃retz is not careful with regard to purity, we are concerned lest a menstruating woman touch his clothes. Due to that uncertainty, his clothes are considered impure with a severe degree of impurity. If teruma came into contact with them there is uncertainty with regard to whether or not they became impure;
And for the uncertain case of vessels that are not his that are found. Since he does not know whether or not those vessels are impure, if teruma came into contact with them, there is uncertainty whether or not they are impure;
And for the uncertain case of spittle, as perhaps it is the spittle of a zav and transmits impurity by Torah law. If teruma came into contact with it there is uncertainty whether or not it is impure;
And for the uncertain case of a person鈥檚 urine, even though it was adjacent to the urine of an animal, there is room for concern that perhaps it is the urine of a zav, and impure by Torah law. If teruma came into contact with it, there is uncertainty whether or not it is impure.
In all of these cases, the Sages established that for their definite contact, when it is clear that these came into contact with teruma, and although there is uncertainty with regard to their essential impurity, i.e., it is uncertain whether or not these items are impure, one burns the teruma that came into contact with them.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 住驻拽 诪讙注谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 砖讜专驻讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 转讜诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉


Rabbi Yosei says: Even in a case of uncertain contact; if it was in the private domain one burns teruma that came into contact with it, as with regard to impurity by Torah law an uncertainty that developed in a private domain is also ruled impure. According to Rabbi Yosei, these decrees, even though they are fundamentally cases of uncertainty, are sufficiently stringent that the Sages applied Torah law to them. And the Rabbis say: Since these cases are only impure by rabbinic decree, in a case of uncertain contact in the private domain, one does not burn the teruma but rather places it in abeyance. While in the public domain, they are ritually pure.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诇讜 砖砖讛 住驻讬拽讜转 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇转诇讜转 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇转诇讜转 讜讗转讜 讘讗讜砖讗 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇砖专讜祝 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讻讚拽讗讬 拽讗讬:


And Ulla said with regard to these six uncertain cases: In Usha they instituted how one must act in terms of practical halakha. If so, a clump of earth from the land of the nations transmits impurity from the time of the Usha ordinances and not from eighty years prior to the destruction of the Temple. Rather, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan came and decreed that if teruma came into contact with a clump of earth from the land of the nations, its legal status is in abeyance and one does not burn it, and upon teruma that entered the air space of the land of the nations they decreed nothing. And the Sages of the last eighty years of the Temple came along and issued a decree upon this, earth, and upon that, air, that in both cases the teruma is in abeyance. And the Sages of the city of Usha came along and decreed that teruma that came into contact with a clump of earth from the land of the nations is burned. And teruma that entered the air space of the land of the nations, as it stood, it continues to stand in abeyance. They did not impose any greater stringency in this matter.


讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讜专 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转谉 诪谉 讛讞讜诇 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讻诇讬 讞专住 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 转讛讗 诇讛谉 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讛讝驻转 讜讛诪讜专 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转


One of the matters mentioned above was the decree of impurity on glass vessels. With regard to glass vessels, what is the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon them? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Reish Lakish said: Since the beginning of the manufacture of glass vessels is from sand, the Sages equated them to earthenware vessels. The Gemara asks: But if what you say is so, if the Sages truly equated the impurity of glass vessels to the impurity of earthenware vessels, there should not be purification in the ritual bath for glass vessels, just as there is no purification for earthenware vessels. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna with regard to the halakhot of immersing vessels: And these materials interpose in vessels, i.e., if they were stuck to the vessel when it was immersed the vessel is not purified: The pitch and the myrrh that were stuck on glass vessels obstruct their immersion. Apparently, glass vessels are purified in a ritual bath.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讬拽讘讜 讜讛讟讬祝 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪注诪讬讚 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 砖谞拽讘讜 讜讛讟讬祝 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉


The Gemara answers that glass cannot usually be purified in a ritual bath. However, with what are we dealing here? With a special case where the glass vessels were perforated and he dripped molten lead into them to seal the hole. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Everything follows the nature of the facilitator, i.e., if an object that is not fit for use on its own is reinforced with a different material that facilitates its use, the entire object assumes the legal status of that material. Therefore, since the substance that sealed the holes in these glass vessels is lead, which can be purified through immersion like other metals, these glass vessels can also be purified in a ritual bath. As it was taught in a baraita: Glass vessels that were perforated and one dripped lead into them; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that Rabbi Meir deems them ritually impure and the Rabbis deem them ritually pure.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛


The Gemara asks further: But if that is so, and glass vessels are equated with earthenware vessels,


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One week at a Time -Shabbat 12-18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz6ZWYxaTc   This week we will learn key concepts from Daf 12-18 including the Laws of Purity and...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 15: When Rabbinic Decrees Create Stability

Impure land - who said, and when? Six decrees out of Usha (Who's Who and What's What). What's the purpose...
Ilana Kurshan

Daf Yomi in the Time of Corona- Vayakhel-Pekudei

I began learning Masechet Shabbat against the backdrop of the Corona Crisis, as I gradually realized that people all over...

Shabbat 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 15

砖诇诪讛 讙讝专 诇拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛


Solomon and decreed impurity on hands to prohibit contact with consecrated items, and Shammai, Hillel, and their disciples came and decreed impurity on hands even to prohibit contact with teruma.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讙讝专讜 讜讘砖诪谞讛 注砖专 谞讞诇拽讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜砖讜讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 谞讞诇拽讜 讜诇诪讞专 讛讜砖讜讜


As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that they reached a consensus in their opinions with regard to the eighteen decrees? They answer: On that day they disagreed, and the following day, after the matter was decided in a vote, they reached a consensus in their opinions.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞讞诇拽讜 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪拽讘 讞诇讛 讜讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪拽讘讬讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讗诇讗 拽讘 讜诪讞爪讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 诪砖讛讙讚讬诇讜 讛诪讚讜转 讗诪专讜 讞诪砖转 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讞诪砖讛 讜注讜讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉


As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in three places. The Gemara cites the disputes. One, Shammai says: From a kav of dough, one is required to separate 岣lla, the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate 岣lla, as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: 鈥淭he first of your dough鈥 (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating 岣lla. And Hillel says: One must separate 岣lla only from two kav. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one, who is stringent, nor in accordance with the statement of that one, who is lenient. Rather, one and a half kav is the measure from which one is obligated to separate 岣lla. Once the measures increased and the Sages recalculated the volume of a kav to be greater, they said that based on the measure of the new kav, five quarters of a kav of flour is the measure from which one is obligated to separate 岣lla. Rabbi Yosei says: Five quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more is one obligated to separate 岣lla.


讜讗讬讚讱 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪诇讗 讛讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 专讘讜 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 注讚 砖讘讗讜 砖谞讬 讙专讚讬讬诐 诪砖注专 讛讗砖驻讛 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛注讬讚讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 砖砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 驻讜住诇讬诐 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讚讘专讬讛诐


And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Hillel says: A full hin, twelve log, of drawn water poured into a ritual bath in which there was not yet a full measure of forty se鈥檃 disqualifies the water of the ritual bath and accords even the water that had been there previously the status of drawn water. Even if water fit for a ritual bath is subsequently added to complete the measure of forty se鈥檃, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, hin, because, when quoting one鈥檚 teacher, a person must speak employing the language of his teacher. Shammai says: Nine kav of water is enough to disqualify the ritual bath. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one. The Sages did not determine a measure for the water disqualifying a ritual bath until two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three log of drawn water disqualify the ritual bath, and the Rabbis upheld their statement against the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai. The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to underscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah.


讜讗讬讚讱 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讜讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪诪注讟 注诇 讬讚 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诪诪注讟 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转


And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Shammai says: All women, their time is sufficient, i.e., a woman who notices that she saw blood of menstruation but did not feel the flow beforehand, need not worry that perhaps the flow of blood began before she saw it, and it is sufficient if she assumes ritual impurity status beginning at that moment. Hillel says: From examination to examination, i.e., a woman who saw blood, if she does not know when the menstrual flow began, she is considered impure retroactive to the last time she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure, and even if the examination took place several days earlier. Anything that she touched in the interim becomes ritually impure. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one; rather, the principle is: A full day, twenty-four hours, reduces the time from examination to examination, i.e., if her final self-examination took place a long time before, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four hour period prior to noticing the blood. And from examination to examination reduces the time from a full day, i.e., if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination.


讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇住诪讜讱 讜砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 诇住诪讜讱 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讜讜转讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: And are there no more disputes between them? Isn鈥檛 there what we learned that Hillel says that it is permitted to lay hands on the heads of offerings sacrificed on a Festival, and one performs no prohibited labor and does not desecrate the Festival by doing so; and Shammai says not to lay hands? The Gemara answers: When Rav Huna said his statement, he was referring to disputes where there is no dispute between the great Sages who predated them concomitant with theirs. The dispute with regard to laying hands on the Festival is ancient, and their predecessors, Sages dating back to the beginning of the era of the pairs, already disputed it.


讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛讘讜爪专 诇讙转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 讜讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚讛转诐 拽讗 砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬:


The Gemara asks further: Isn鈥檛 there also the dispute with regard to one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the press and stomp them as to whether or not the liquid that seeps out of the grapes is considered as having seeped out willfully and renders the grapes susceptible to impurity? Shammai says: It has become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible. The Gemara rejects this: Except for that one, as there, although they originally disagreed, ultimately Hillel was silent and did not respond to Shammai and ultimately accepted his opinion.


讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 讜讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬砖 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转: 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻砖讞诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诪讜专 诇谞讜 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇讜砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转 (诇谞讜) 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讱


Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yo岣nan of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels. The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages, who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these decrees? Wasn鈥檛 it the Sages who lived in the final eighty years of the Second Temple period who issued these decrees? As Rav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, the Sages sent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that you once told us in the name of your father.


砖诇讞 诇讛诐 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪讗讛 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讛讘讬转 驻砖讟讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讙诇转讛 诇讛 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜讬砖讘讛 诇讛 讘讞谞讜讬讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转


He sent to them: This is what my father said: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the evil kingdom of Rome invaded Israel. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, they decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stones and sat in the stores on the Temple Mount. With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What are the halakhic ramifications of this statement? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said: To say that they no longer judged cases of fines. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind that they no longer judged cases of fines? Even several generations after the Temple was destroyed they continued to judge cases of fines in Eretz Yisrael. Rather, emend and say: That they no longer judged capital cases. The authority to impose the death penalty was stripped from the Sanhedrin, and therefore they willingly left the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Since the Sanhedrin no longer convenes in its designated place, the halakha is that it no longer has the authority to judge capital cases (Tosafot).


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讜讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诇诇 讜砖诪注讜谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜砖诪注讜谉 谞讛讙讜 谞砖讬讗讜转谉 (诇驻谞讬) 讛讘讬转 诪讗讛 砖谞讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 讜讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讜 拽讚诪讬 讟讜讘讗


In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations. And if you say that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan were also there during those eighty years, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Hillel, and his son Shimon, and his grandson Gamliel, and his great-grandson Shimon filled their position of Nasi before the House, while the Temple was standing, for a hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yo岣nan were much earlier than Hillel?


讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇砖专讜祝 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讗讗讜讬专讗 诇转诇讜转


Rather, this decree was issued in stages. First, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan came and issued a decree that teruma that comes into contact with a clump of earth of the land of the nations is to be burned, and they decreed nothing with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations. The Sages of the final eighty years prior to the destruction of the Temple came and issued a decree with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations that its legal status is in abeyance, and it is not burned.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞讚讗 讙讝讬专转讗 讛讜讛 诇砖专讬驻讛 讜讛讗诪专 讗讬诇驻讗 讬讚讬诐 转讞诇转 讙讝讬专转谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讬讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚转讞诇转 讙讝讬专转谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讛讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that there was one decree issued immediately to subject teruma to burning? Didn鈥檛 Ilfa say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? The Gemara infers from this that, with regard to hands alone, the beginning of their decree was to render teruma that came into contact with them impure to the point of burning; however, with regard to other matters, they did not immediately issue so severe a decree.


讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇转诇讜转 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇砖专讜祝 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 诇转诇讜转


Rather, the stages of the decree were as follows: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan came and decreed that any item that came into contact with a clump of earth is to be in abeyance, and they decreed nothing with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations. The Sages of the last eighty years came and were stringent by one more level; they decreed that teruma that came into contact with a clump of earth of the land of the nations is to be burned, and, with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the nations, its legal status is in abeyance.


讜讗讻转讬 讘讗讜砖讗 讙讝讜专 讚转谞谉 注诇 砖砖讛 住驻拽讜转 砖讜专驻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 注诇 住驻拽 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜注诇 住驻拽 注驻专 讛讘讗 诪讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讜注诇 住驻拽 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讜注诇 住驻拽 讻诇讬诐 讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讜注诇 住驻拽 讛专讜拽讬谉 讜注诇 住驻拽 诪讬 专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 砖讻谞讙讚 诪讬 专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讜讚讗讬 诪讙注谉 (讜注诇) 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗转谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛


The Gemara asked further: And still is the matter clear? Didn鈥檛 the Sages issue this decree in Usha, many years after the destruction of the Temple? As we learned in a mishna: For six cases of uncertain impurity one burns the teruma which came into contact with them:
For the uncertain case of beit haperas, meaning teruma that entered a field where a grave was plowed and the location of the bones of the corpse is unknown, and it is uncertain whether or not the teruma became impure;
And for the uncertain case of earth that comes from the land of the nations, whose impurity itself has the status of uncertain impurity. Therefore, teruma that came into contact with it also has the status of uncertain impurity;
And for the uncertain case of the clothes of an am ha鈥檃retz. Since an am ha鈥檃retz is not careful with regard to purity, we are concerned lest a menstruating woman touch his clothes. Due to that uncertainty, his clothes are considered impure with a severe degree of impurity. If teruma came into contact with them there is uncertainty with regard to whether or not they became impure;
And for the uncertain case of vessels that are not his that are found. Since he does not know whether or not those vessels are impure, if teruma came into contact with them, there is uncertainty whether or not they are impure;
And for the uncertain case of spittle, as perhaps it is the spittle of a zav and transmits impurity by Torah law. If teruma came into contact with it there is uncertainty whether or not it is impure;
And for the uncertain case of a person鈥檚 urine, even though it was adjacent to the urine of an animal, there is room for concern that perhaps it is the urine of a zav, and impure by Torah law. If teruma came into contact with it, there is uncertainty whether or not it is impure.
In all of these cases, the Sages established that for their definite contact, when it is clear that these came into contact with teruma, and although there is uncertainty with regard to their essential impurity, i.e., it is uncertain whether or not these items are impure, one burns the teruma that came into contact with them.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 住驻拽 诪讙注谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 砖讜专驻讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 转讜诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉


Rabbi Yosei says: Even in a case of uncertain contact; if it was in the private domain one burns teruma that came into contact with it, as with regard to impurity by Torah law an uncertainty that developed in a private domain is also ruled impure. According to Rabbi Yosei, these decrees, even though they are fundamentally cases of uncertainty, are sufficiently stringent that the Sages applied Torah law to them. And the Rabbis say: Since these cases are only impure by rabbinic decree, in a case of uncertain contact in the private domain, one does not burn the teruma but rather places it in abeyance. While in the public domain, they are ritually pure.


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诇讜 砖砖讛 住驻讬拽讜转 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇转诇讜转 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚砖诪谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讙讝讜专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇转诇讜转 讜讗转讜 讘讗讜砖讗 讙讝讜专 讗讙讜砖讗 诇砖专讜祝 讜讗讗讜讬专讗 讻讚拽讗讬 拽讗讬:


And Ulla said with regard to these six uncertain cases: In Usha they instituted how one must act in terms of practical halakha. If so, a clump of earth from the land of the nations transmits impurity from the time of the Usha ordinances and not from eighty years prior to the destruction of the Temple. Rather, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and Yosei ben Yo岣nan came and decreed that if teruma came into contact with a clump of earth from the land of the nations, its legal status is in abeyance and one does not burn it, and upon teruma that entered the air space of the land of the nations they decreed nothing. And the Sages of the last eighty years of the Temple came along and issued a decree upon this, earth, and upon that, air, that in both cases the teruma is in abeyance. And the Sages of the city of Usha came along and decreed that teruma that came into contact with a clump of earth from the land of the nations is burned. And teruma that entered the air space of the land of the nations, as it stood, it continues to stand in abeyance. They did not impose any greater stringency in this matter.


讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讜专 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转谉 诪谉 讛讞讜诇 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讻诇讬 讞专住 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 转讛讗 诇讛谉 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讛讝驻转 讜讛诪讜专 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转


One of the matters mentioned above was the decree of impurity on glass vessels. With regard to glass vessels, what is the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon them? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Reish Lakish said: Since the beginning of the manufacture of glass vessels is from sand, the Sages equated them to earthenware vessels. The Gemara asks: But if what you say is so, if the Sages truly equated the impurity of glass vessels to the impurity of earthenware vessels, there should not be purification in the ritual bath for glass vessels, just as there is no purification for earthenware vessels. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna with regard to the halakhot of immersing vessels: And these materials interpose in vessels, i.e., if they were stuck to the vessel when it was immersed the vessel is not purified: The pitch and the myrrh that were stuck on glass vessels obstruct their immersion. Apparently, glass vessels are purified in a ritual bath.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讬拽讘讜 讜讛讟讬祝 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪注诪讬讚 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 砖谞拽讘讜 讜讛讟讬祝 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉


The Gemara answers that glass cannot usually be purified in a ritual bath. However, with what are we dealing here? With a special case where the glass vessels were perforated and he dripped molten lead into them to seal the hole. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Everything follows the nature of the facilitator, i.e., if an object that is not fit for use on its own is reinforced with a different material that facilitates its use, the entire object assumes the legal status of that material. Therefore, since the substance that sealed the holes in these glass vessels is lead, which can be purified through immersion like other metals, these glass vessels can also be purified in a ritual bath. As it was taught in a baraita: Glass vessels that were perforated and one dripped lead into them; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that Rabbi Meir deems them ritually impure and the Rabbis deem them ritually pure.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛


The Gemara asks further: But if that is so, and glass vessels are equated with earthenware vessels,


Scroll To Top