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.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Shabbat 15
שְׁלֹמֹה גְּזַר לְקׇדָשִׁים, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ וּגְזוּר אַף לִתְרוּמָה.
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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר גָּזְרוּ וּבִשְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר נֶחְלְקוּ. וְהָתַנְיָא הוּשְׁווּ! בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם נֶחְלְקוּ, וּלְמָחָר הוּשְׁווּ.
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’t 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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת נֶחְלְקוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: מִקַּב חַלָּה. וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: מִקַּבַּיִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא קַב וּמֶחֱצָה חַיָּיב בַּחַלָּה. מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּילוּ הַמִּדּוֹת, אָמְרוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח חַיָּיבִין בַּחַלָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשָּׁה פְּטוּרִין, חֲמִשָּׁה וְעוֹד חַיָּיבִין.
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 ḥalla, the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate ḥalla, as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating ḥalla. And Hillel says: One must separate ḥalla 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 ḥalla. 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 ḥalla. Rabbi Yosei says: Five quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more is one obligated to separate ḥalla.
וְאִידַּךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: מְלֹא הִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה — שֶׁחַיָּיב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה. עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנֵי גַרְדִּיִּים מִשַּׁעַר הָאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהֵעִידוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן שֶׁשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, וְקִיְּימוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם.
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’a 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’a, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, hin, because, when quoting one’s 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.
וְאִידַּךְ, שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן. וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְיָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֵט עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֵט עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
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.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ, וְשַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. כִּי קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבְּווֹתָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And are there no more disputes between them? Isn’t 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.
וְהָאִיכָּא הַבּוֹצֵר לַגַּת — שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשַׁר. בַּר מִינֵּיהּ דְּהַהִיא, דְּהָתָם קָא שָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי.
The Gemara asks further: Isn’t 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.
יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם גָּזְרוּ טוּמְאָה עַל אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וְעַל כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית. וְהָא רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר! דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: כְּשֶׁחָלָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, שָׁלְחוּ לוֹ: רַבִּי, אֱמוֹר לָנוּ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלוֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לָנוּ מִשּׁוּם אָבִיךָ.
Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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’t 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.
שָׁלַח לָהֶם, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: מֵאָה וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב הַבַּיִת, פָּשְׁטָה מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. שְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב הַבַּיִת גָּזְרוּ טוּמְאָה עַל אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וְעַל כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית. אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב הַבַּיִת גָּלְתָה לָהּ סַנְהֶדְרִין וְיָשְׁבָה לָהּ בַּחֲנוּיוֹת. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא דָּנוּ דִּינֵי קְנָסוֹת. דִּינֵי קְנָסוֹת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שֶׁלֹּא דָּנוּ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת!
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 Yitzḥak 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).
וְכִי תֵימָא בִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה נָמֵי אִינְהוּ הֲווֹ, וְהָתַנְיָא: הִלֵּל וְשִׁמְעוֹן, גַּמְלִיאֵל וְשִׁמְעוֹן, נָהֲגוּ נְשִׂיאוּתָן לִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת מֵאָה שָׁנָה. וְאִילּוּ יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן הֲווֹ קָדְמִי טוּבָא!
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’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were also there during those eighty years, wasn’t 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’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were much earlier than Hillel?
אֶלָּא: אֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִשְׂרוֹף וְאַאֲוִירָא וְלֹא כְלוּם, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר אַאֲוִירָא לִתְלוֹת.
Rather, this decree was issued in stages. First, Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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.
לְמֵימְרָא דַּחֲדָא גְּזֵירְתָא הֲוָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה? וְהָאָמַר אִילְפָא: יָדַיִם תְּחִלַּת גְּזֵירָתָן לִשְׂרֵיפָה! יָדַיִם הוּא דִּתְחִלַּת גְּזֵירָתָן לִשְׂרֵיפָה, הָא מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that there was one decree issued immediately to subject teruma to burning? Didn’t 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.
אֶלָּא: אֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִתְלוֹת וְאַאֲוִירָא וְלֹא כְלוּם, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִשְׂרוֹף וְאַאֲוִירָא לִתְלוֹת.
Rather, the stages of the decree were as follows: Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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.
וְאַכַּתִּי, בְּאוּשָׁא גְּזוּר! דִּתְנַן: עַל שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵקוֹת שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה: עַל סְפֵק בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְעַל סְפֵק עָפָר הַבָּא מֵאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וְעַל סְפֵק בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְעַל סְפֵק כֵּלִים הַנִּמְצָאִין, וְעַל סְפֵק הָרוּקִּין, וְעַל סְפֵק מֵי רַגְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד מֵי רַגְלֵי בְּהֵמָה — עַל וַדַּאי מַגָּעָן וְעַל סְפֵק טוּמְאָתָן שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה.
The Gemara asked further: And still is the matter clear? Didn’t 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’aretz. Since an am ha’aretz 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’s 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.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל סְפֵק מַגָּעָן בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — שׂוֹרְפִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד תּוֹלִין, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — טְהוֹרִין.
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.
וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵלּוּ שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵיקוֹת בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ! אֶלָּא אֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִתְלוֹת וְאַאֲוִירָא וְלֹא כְלוּם, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לִתְלוֹת, וַאֲתוֹ בְּאוּשָׁא גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִשְׂרוֹף, וְאַאֲוִירָא — כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי.
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’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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.
כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית — מַאי טַעְמָא גְּזוּר בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן טוּמְאָה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּתְחִלַּת בְּרִיָּיתָן מִן הַחוֹל שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן כִּכְלֵי חֶרֶס. אֶלָּא, מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְּהֵא לָהֶן טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: וְאֵלּוּ חוֹצְצִין בְּכֵלִים — הַזֶּפֶת וְהַמּוֹר בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית!
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 Yoḥanan 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.
הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ וְהִטִּיף לְתוֹכָן אֲבָר. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּעֲמִיד. דְּתַנְיָא: כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ וְהִטִּיף לְתוֹכָן אֲבָר, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין.
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.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה
The Gemara asks further: But if that is so, and glass vessels are equated with earthenware vessels,
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
Shabbat 15
שְׁלֹמֹה גְּזַר לְקׇדָשִׁים, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ וּגְזוּר אַף לִתְרוּמָה.
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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר גָּזְרוּ וּבִשְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר נֶחְלְקוּ. וְהָתַנְיָא הוּשְׁווּ! בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם נֶחְלְקוּ, וּלְמָחָר הוּשְׁווּ.
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’t 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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת נֶחְלְקוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: מִקַּב חַלָּה. וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: מִקַּבַּיִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא קַב וּמֶחֱצָה חַיָּיב בַּחַלָּה. מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּילוּ הַמִּדּוֹת, אָמְרוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח חַיָּיבִין בַּחַלָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשָּׁה פְּטוּרִין, חֲמִשָּׁה וְעוֹד חַיָּיבִין.
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 ḥalla, the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate ḥalla, as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating ḥalla. And Hillel says: One must separate ḥalla 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 ḥalla. 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 ḥalla. Rabbi Yosei says: Five quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more is one obligated to separate ḥalla.
וְאִידַּךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: מְלֹא הִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה — שֶׁחַיָּיב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה. עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנֵי גַרְדִּיִּים מִשַּׁעַר הָאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהֵעִידוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן שֶׁשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, וְקִיְּימוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם.
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’a 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’a, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, hin, because, when quoting one’s 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.
וְאִידַּךְ, שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן. וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְיָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֵט עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֵט עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
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.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ, וְשַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. כִּי קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבְּווֹתָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And are there no more disputes between them? Isn’t 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.
וְהָאִיכָּא הַבּוֹצֵר לַגַּת — שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשַׁר. בַּר מִינֵּיהּ דְּהַהִיא, דְּהָתָם קָא שָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי.
The Gemara asks further: Isn’t 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.
יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם גָּזְרוּ טוּמְאָה עַל אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וְעַל כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית. וְהָא רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר! דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: כְּשֶׁחָלָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, שָׁלְחוּ לוֹ: רַבִּי, אֱמוֹר לָנוּ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלוֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לָנוּ מִשּׁוּם אָבִיךָ.
Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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’t 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.
שָׁלַח לָהֶם, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: מֵאָה וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב הַבַּיִת, פָּשְׁטָה מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. שְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב הַבַּיִת גָּזְרוּ טוּמְאָה עַל אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וְעַל כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית. אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב הַבַּיִת גָּלְתָה לָהּ סַנְהֶדְרִין וְיָשְׁבָה לָהּ בַּחֲנוּיוֹת. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא דָּנוּ דִּינֵי קְנָסוֹת. דִּינֵי קְנָסוֹת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שֶׁלֹּא דָּנוּ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת!
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 Yitzḥak 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).
וְכִי תֵימָא בִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה נָמֵי אִינְהוּ הֲווֹ, וְהָתַנְיָא: הִלֵּל וְשִׁמְעוֹן, גַּמְלִיאֵל וְשִׁמְעוֹן, נָהֲגוּ נְשִׂיאוּתָן לִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת מֵאָה שָׁנָה. וְאִילּוּ יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן הֲווֹ קָדְמִי טוּבָא!
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’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were also there during those eighty years, wasn’t 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’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were much earlier than Hillel?
אֶלָּא: אֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִשְׂרוֹף וְאַאֲוִירָא וְלֹא כְלוּם, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר אַאֲוִירָא לִתְלוֹת.
Rather, this decree was issued in stages. First, Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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.
לְמֵימְרָא דַּחֲדָא גְּזֵירְתָא הֲוָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה? וְהָאָמַר אִילְפָא: יָדַיִם תְּחִלַּת גְּזֵירָתָן לִשְׂרֵיפָה! יָדַיִם הוּא דִּתְחִלַּת גְּזֵירָתָן לִשְׂרֵיפָה, הָא מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that there was one decree issued immediately to subject teruma to burning? Didn’t 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.
אֶלָּא: אֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִתְלוֹת וְאַאֲוִירָא וְלֹא כְלוּם, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִשְׂרוֹף וְאַאֲוִירָא לִתְלוֹת.
Rather, the stages of the decree were as follows: Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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.
וְאַכַּתִּי, בְּאוּשָׁא גְּזוּר! דִּתְנַן: עַל שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵקוֹת שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה: עַל סְפֵק בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְעַל סְפֵק עָפָר הַבָּא מֵאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וְעַל סְפֵק בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְעַל סְפֵק כֵּלִים הַנִּמְצָאִין, וְעַל סְפֵק הָרוּקִּין, וְעַל סְפֵק מֵי רַגְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד מֵי רַגְלֵי בְּהֵמָה — עַל וַדַּאי מַגָּעָן וְעַל סְפֵק טוּמְאָתָן שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה.
The Gemara asked further: And still is the matter clear? Didn’t 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’aretz. Since an am ha’aretz 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’s 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.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל סְפֵק מַגָּעָן בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — שׂוֹרְפִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד תּוֹלִין, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — טְהוֹרִין.
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.
וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵלּוּ שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵיקוֹת בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ! אֶלָּא אֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִתְלוֹת וְאַאֲוִירָא וְלֹא כְלוּם, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה גְּזוּר אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לִתְלוֹת, וַאֲתוֹ בְּאוּשָׁא גְּזוּר אַגּוּשָּׁא לִשְׂרוֹף, וְאַאֲוִירָא — כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי.
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’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan 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.
כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית — מַאי טַעְמָא גְּזוּר בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן טוּמְאָה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּתְחִלַּת בְּרִיָּיתָן מִן הַחוֹל שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן כִּכְלֵי חֶרֶס. אֶלָּא, מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְּהֵא לָהֶן טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: וְאֵלּוּ חוֹצְצִין בְּכֵלִים — הַזֶּפֶת וְהַמּוֹר בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית!
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 Yoḥanan 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.
הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ וְהִטִּיף לְתוֹכָן אֲבָר. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּעֲמִיד. דְּתַנְיָא: כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ וְהִטִּיף לְתוֹכָן אֲבָר, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין.
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.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה
The Gemara asks further: But if that is so, and glass vessels are equated with earthenware vessels,
Follow
