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

December 4, 2021 | ל׳ בכסלו תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Taanit 22 - Shabbat December 4

Today's Daf Yomi

March 21, 2020 | כ״ה באדר תש״פ

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.

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

שלמה גזר לקדשים ואתו אינהו וגזור אף לתרומה

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.

גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שמנה עשר גזרו ובשמנה עשר נחלקו והתניא הושוו בו ביום נחלקו ולמחר הושוו

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.

גופא אמר רב הונא בשלשה מקומות נחלקו שמאי והלל שמאי אומר מקב חלה והלל אומר מקביים וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה משהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים קמח חייבין בחלה רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין חמשה ועוד חייבין

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.

ואידך הלל אומר מלא הין מים שאובים פוסלים את המקוה שחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו שמאי אומר תשעה קבין וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה עד שבאו שני גרדיים משער האשפה שבירושלים והעידו משום שמעיה ואבטליון ששלשה לוגין מים שאובין פוסלים את המקוה וקיימו חכמים את דבריהם

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.

ואידך שמאי אומר כל הנשים דיין שעתן והלל אומר מפקידה לפקידה ואפילו לימים הרבה וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא מעת לעת ממעט על יד מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעט על יד מעת לעת

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.

ותו ליכא והאיכא הלל אומר לסמוך ושמאי אומר שלא לסמוך כי קאמר רב הונא היכא דליכא פלוגתא דרבוותא בהדייהו

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.

והאיכא הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר הוכשר והלל אומר לא הוכשר בר מיניה דההיא דהתם קא שתיק ליה הלל לשמאי:

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.

יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית: והא רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור דאמר רב כהנא כשחלה רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שלחו לו רבי אמור לנו שנים ושלושה דברים שאמרת (לנו) משום אביך

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.

שלח להם כך אמר אבא מאה ושמנים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית פשטה מלכות הרשעה על ישראל שמנים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית ארבעים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גלתה לה סנהדרין וישבה לה בחנויות למאי הילכתא אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שלא דנו דיני נפשות

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).

וכי תימא בשמנים שנה נמי אינהו הוו והתניא הלל ושמעון גמליאל ושמעון נהגו נשיאותן (לפני) הבית מאה שנה ואילו יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן הוו קדמי טובא

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?

אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור אאוירא לתלות

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.

למימרא דחדא גזירתא הוה לשריפה והאמר אילפא ידים תחלת גזירתן לשריפה ידים הוא דתחלת גזירתן לשריפה הא מידי אחרינא לא

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.

אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לתלות ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא לתלות

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.

ואכתי באושא גזור דתנן על ששה ספקות שורפין את התרומה על ספק בית הפרס ועל ספק עפר הבא מארץ העמים ועל ספק בגדי עם הארץ ועל ספק כלים הנמצאין ועל ספק הרוקין ועל ספק מי רגלי אדם שכנגד מי רגלי בהמה על ודאי מגען (ועל) ספק טומאתן שורפין את התרומה

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.

רבי יוסי אומר אף על ספק מגען ברשות היחיד שורפין וחכמים אומרים ברשות היחיד תולין ברשות הרבים טהורין

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.

ואמר עולא אלו ששה ספיקות באושא התקינו אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לתלות ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור אידי ואידי לתלות ואתו באושא גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא כדקאי קאי:

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.

כלי זכוכית מאי טעמא גזור בהו רבנן טומאה אמר רבי יוחנן אמר ריש לקיש הואיל ותחלת ברייתן מן החול שוינהו רבנן ככלי חרס אלא מעתה לא תהא להן טהרה במקוה אלמה תנן ואלו חוצצין בכלים הזפת והמור בכלי זכוכית

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.

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שניקבו והטיף לתוכן אבר ורבי מאיר היא דאמר הכל הולך אחר המעמיד דתניא כלי זכוכית שנקבו והטיף לתוכן אבר אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל רבי מאיר מטמא וחכמים מטהרין

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.

אלא מעתה

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...
glass bowls

People Who Live in Glass Houses

Shabbat 15-16 People Who Live in Glass Houses These pages contain a discussion about at which historical point glass vessels...
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

שלמה גזר לקדשים ואתו אינהו וגזור אף לתרומה

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.

גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שמנה עשר גזרו ובשמנה עשר נחלקו והתניא הושוו בו ביום נחלקו ולמחר הושוו

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.

גופא אמר רב הונא בשלשה מקומות נחלקו שמאי והלל שמאי אומר מקב חלה והלל אומר מקביים וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה משהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים קמח חייבין בחלה רבי יוסי אומר חמשה פטורין חמשה ועוד חייבין

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.

ואידך הלל אומר מלא הין מים שאובים פוסלים את המקוה שחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו שמאי אומר תשעה קבין וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה עד שבאו שני גרדיים משער האשפה שבירושלים והעידו משום שמעיה ואבטליון ששלשה לוגין מים שאובין פוסלים את המקוה וקיימו חכמים את דבריהם

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.

ואידך שמאי אומר כל הנשים דיין שעתן והלל אומר מפקידה לפקידה ואפילו לימים הרבה וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא מעת לעת ממעט על יד מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעט על יד מעת לעת

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.

ותו ליכא והאיכא הלל אומר לסמוך ושמאי אומר שלא לסמוך כי קאמר רב הונא היכא דליכא פלוגתא דרבוותא בהדייהו

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.

והאיכא הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר הוכשר והלל אומר לא הוכשר בר מיניה דההיא דהתם קא שתיק ליה הלל לשמאי:

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.

יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית: והא רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור דאמר רב כהנא כשחלה רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שלחו לו רבי אמור לנו שנים ושלושה דברים שאמרת (לנו) משום אביך

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.

שלח להם כך אמר אבא מאה ושמנים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית פשטה מלכות הרשעה על ישראל שמנים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית ארבעים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גלתה לה סנהדרין וישבה לה בחנויות למאי הילכתא אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שלא דנו דיני נפשות

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).

וכי תימא בשמנים שנה נמי אינהו הוו והתניא הלל ושמעון גמליאל ושמעון נהגו נשיאותן (לפני) הבית מאה שנה ואילו יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן הוו קדמי טובא

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?

אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור אאוירא לתלות

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.

למימרא דחדא גזירתא הוה לשריפה והאמר אילפא ידים תחלת גזירתן לשריפה ידים הוא דתחלת גזירתן לשריפה הא מידי אחרינא לא

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.

אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לתלות ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא לתלות

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.

ואכתי באושא גזור דתנן על ששה ספקות שורפין את התרומה על ספק בית הפרס ועל ספק עפר הבא מארץ העמים ועל ספק בגדי עם הארץ ועל ספק כלים הנמצאין ועל ספק הרוקין ועל ספק מי רגלי אדם שכנגד מי רגלי בהמה על ודאי מגען (ועל) ספק טומאתן שורפין את התרומה

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.

רבי יוסי אומר אף על ספק מגען ברשות היחיד שורפין וחכמים אומרים ברשות היחיד תולין ברשות הרבים טהורין

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.

ואמר עולא אלו ששה ספיקות באושא התקינו אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לתלות ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור אידי ואידי לתלות ואתו באושא גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא כדקאי קאי:

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.

כלי זכוכית מאי טעמא גזור בהו רבנן טומאה אמר רבי יוחנן אמר ריש לקיש הואיל ותחלת ברייתן מן החול שוינהו רבנן ככלי חרס אלא מעתה לא תהא להן טהרה במקוה אלמה תנן ואלו חוצצין בכלים הזפת והמור בכלי זכוכית

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.

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שניקבו והטיף לתוכן אבר ורבי מאיר היא דאמר הכל הולך אחר המעמיד דתניא כלי זכוכית שנקבו והטיף לתוכן אבר אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל רבי מאיר מטמא וחכמים מטהרין

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.

אלא מעתה

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

Scroll To Top