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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 22, 2020 | 讻状讜 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shabbat 16

Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of the soldier, Yaakov Proyev ben Rachel Victoria z”l聽 by Yael Asher and by Valerie Adler in memory of her baby Simona Michaela chasya Bluma bat Zahava z”l.

The rabbis determined that glass utensils would be susceptible to impurities because of their similarity to earthenware vessels since they are made from sand. However, if that is the case, why are all the laws not the same? Is it because they are also similar to metal utensils that if broken, they can be melted down and welded back together? If so, why are certain laws of metal utensils not true for glass utensils? A story is brought regarding Shlomtzion the queen at her son’s wedding when all the utensils became inpure due to impurity of a dead body and she broke them all and had them fixed but the rabbis forbade their use lest people come to forget laws of purification of vessels. Another of the 18 ordinances was that water collecte din a utensils left by a gutter, even if unintentionally left there is considered water that is collected in a utensil that can disqualify a mikveh that doesn’t yet have 40 seah of water. Rabbi Yossi doesn’t think this is one of the ordinances and instead adds that even from birth, Kutim (Shomronim) are considered to be in nidda.

Short video on “The Story of Ancient Glass in Israel”

 

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜 诪讙讘谉 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 讜讻诇讬 谞转专 讟讜诪讗转谉 砖讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪讗讜讬专讬讛谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诪讗讞讜专讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诪讙讘讬讛谉 讜砖讘讬专转谉 诪讟讛专转谉 讻诇讬 谞转专 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讛讜讗 讚讟讜诪讗转谉 砖讜讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 谞砖转讘专讜 讬砖 诇讛诐 转拽谞讛 砖讜讬谞讛讜 讻讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转

they should not become impure from their outer side. Why, then, did we learn this in a mishna? With regard to earthenware vessels and vessels made from natron [neter], the halakhot of their impurity are equal in that they become impure if a primary source of impurity enters their airspace, and, once impure, they render food that enters their airspace impure from their air space. And they become impure from behind, i.e., if a primary source of impurity enters into the bottom of the vessel, where there is an empty space and a receptacle, the vessel becomes impure. However, earthenware vessels do not become impure from their outer side, i.e., if a primary source of impurity came into contact with the outer side of the vessel, the inside of the vessel does not become impure. And the breaking of earthenware vessels renders them pure. By inference, specifically natron vessels and earthenware vessels are those whose halakhot of impurity are equal, as is their status. However, with regard to other matters that is not the case. Why, then, were glass vessels not listed together with those vessels? The Gemara answers: Since if the glass vessels broke they have the capacity to be repaired, as the glass can be liquefied and recast into a new vessel, the Sages equated them to metal vessels that can also be liquefied and recast.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 讬砖谞讛 讻讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 讜诪拽讘诇讬讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞砖讘专讜 讟讛专讜 讞讝专 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻诇讬诐 讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 讬砖谞讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 转谞谉 讻诇讬 注抓 讜讻诇讬 注讜专 讜讻诇讬 注爪诐 讜讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜诪拽讘诇讬讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞砖讘专讜 讟讛专讜 讞讝专 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻诇讬诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讗讬谉 诇诪驻专注 诇讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, if glass vessels were truly equated with metal vessels, then broken glass vessels that were liquefied and recast should reassume their previous impurity, like metal vessels. As we learned in a mishna: Metal vessels, both their flat vessels, which have no airspace, and their receptacles, which have airspace, are all impure if they came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. If they broke, they thereby became purified. However, if one remade the broken vessels into new vessels, they reassume their previous impurity. While, with regard to glass vessels, we learned in a mishna: Wooden vessels and leather vessels and bone vessels and glass vessels, their flat vessels are pure when they come into contact with impurity, and only their receptacles are impure. If they broke, they thereby became purified. However, if he remade the broken vessels into new vessels, they can become impure from that point, when they were recast, forward. By inference: From that point forward, yes, they become impure; retroactively, no, they do not reassume their previous impurity. Apparently, there is no halakha of previous impurity as far as glass vessels are concerned.

讟讜诪讗转 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讚专讘谞谉 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讞讬转讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讞讬转讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: The entire impurity of glass vessels is by rabbinic decree, and previous impurity, which takes effect on recast metal vessels, is by rabbinic decree. With regard to impurity by Torah law, the Sages imposed a decree of previous impurity. With regard to impurity by rabbinic law, the Sages did not impose a decree of previous impurity. The Sages did not impose the decree of previous impurity, which is by rabbinic decree, on glass vessels whose fundamental impurity is itself only by rabbinic decree.

驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 诪讬讛讗 诇讬讟诪讗 讚讛讗 驻砖讜讟讬 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讬 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讬专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇砖专讜祝 注诇讬讬讛讜 转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks further: Their flat vessels should in any case become impure. Since the impurity of flat metal vessels is by Torah law, isn鈥檛 it appropriate, therefore, to decree this impurity on flat glass vessels by rabbinic decree? The Gemara answers: The Sages made a distinction with regard to glass vessels, in order to prevent burning teruma and consecrated items for coming into contact with them. Through this distinction between glass vessels and metal vessels, everyone will understand that the impurity of glass vessels is not by Torah law. They will not come to burn teruma and consecrated items that came into contact with impure glass vessels; rather, their legal status will remain in abeyance.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讻诇讬 讞专住 讚诪讜 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜 诪讙讘谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞专讗讛 转讜讻讜 讻讘专讜

Rav Ashi said: There was never a need to equate glass vessels and metal vessels. Actually, glass vessels are likened to earthenware vessels in every sense. And that which was difficult for you, that if so, glass vessels, like other earthenware vessels, should not become impure from contact of their outer side with a source of ritual impurity; since in glass vessels its inner side looks like its outer side, the legal status of the outer side was equated with that of the inner side, as there is no visible separation between them.

砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转讬拽谉 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗砖讛 讜讙讝专 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讜讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讙讜壮 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘砖诇 爪讬讜谉 讛诪诇讻讛 砖注砖转讛 诪砖转讛 诇讘谞讛 讜谞讟诪讗讜 讻诇 讻诇讬讛 讜砖讘专转谉 讜谞转谞转谉 诇爪讜专祝 讜专讬转讻谉 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 讬砖谞讛

We learned that Shimon ben Shata岣 instituted the formula of the marriage contract for a woman and decreed impurity upon metal vessels. The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 metal vessels impure by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淏ut the gold, and silver, and the bronze, and the iron, and the tin, and the lead. Anything that came in fire, make it pass through fire and it will be pure, but with the water of sprinkling it will be purified and anything that did not come in fire make it pass through water鈥 (Numbers 31:22鈥23)? The Gemara answers: This ordinance of Shimon ben Shata岣 with regard to the impurity of metal vessels in general was only needed with regard to previous impurity reassumed by metal vessels after they are recast. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving Shimon ben Shata岣モ檚 sister, Shel Tziyyon the queen, who made a wedding feast for her son. All of her vessels became impure, and she broke them and gave them to the smith, and he welded the broken vessels together and made new vessels. And the Sages said: What she did was ineffective, as all the vessels will reassume their previous impurity.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讚专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 谞讙注讜 讘讛

With regard to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: What is the reason that they imposed a decree of previous impurity on metal vessels? The Gemara answers: Due to a fence constructed to maintain the integrity of the water of a purification offering, the Sages touched upon it. In order to purify a vessel that came into contact with a corpse, one is required to have the water of a purification offering sprinkled on the vessel on the third day and the seventh day after it became impure, as it is written: 鈥淗e should be purified with it on the third day and on the seventh day he will become pure, and if he is not purified with it on the third day and on the seventh day he will not become pure鈥 (Numbers 19:20). This involves a significant inconvenience. If people will prefer to break or damage impure metal vessels in order to purify them more easily, the use of water of a purification offering will become obsolete. As a result, the Sages decreed that metal vessels will remain impure until they undergo the purification process.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诇讻诇 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 砖驻讬专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that they did not say the decree of previous impurity on metal vessels with regard to all forms of impurity; rather, they only said the decree with regard to the impurity caused by contact with a corpse, it works out well. In the case of impurity caused by contact with a corpse, the Sages issued this decree because its purification process is demanding. It requires immersion and sprinkling of the water of a purification offering on the third and the seventh days. However, with regard to other forms of impurity, whose purification is accomplished by means of immersion alone, a person will not break a vessel in order to avoid immersion. Consequently, there is no need to institute a decree in those cases.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讻诇 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讗诪专讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬拽讘谞讜 讘讻讚讬 讟讛专转讜

However, according to the one who said that they said the decree of previous impurity in metal vessels with regard to all forms of impurity, which includes those forms of impurity that do not require sprinkling of the water of a purification offering for their purification, what is there to say as a rationale for the decree? Abaye said: Shimon ben Shata岣 instituted a decree due to the concern that perhaps he would not perforate that vessel with a hole large enough to render it ritually pure. To purify a vessel by breaking it, one must make a hole large enough to ensure that the vessel will no longer be able to hold the contents that it was designed to hold. Abaye explained that Shimon ben Shata岣モ檚 concern was that one who values the vessel will not break it sufficiently to render it ritually pure.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 注讜诇讛 诇讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专爪驻讬谞讛讜 诪专爪祝:

Rava said: It is a decree lest they say that immersion on the same day is sufficient for this vessel to be purified. People will be unaware of the manner in which the metal vessel became pure, and they will assume that its purity was achieved by means of immersion and not by means of breaking. That will lead them to the conclusion that any vessel becomes pure immediately upon immersion, and there is no need to wait for sunset, contrary to Torah law. Therefore, the Sages decreed that repaired vessels retain previous impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the reasons of Abaye and Rava? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is found in a case where he broke the vessel completely. If there was concern that perhaps he will not perforate it sufficiently, there is no longer room for concern. However, if there was concern lest people say that immersion is effective on that day, there remains room for concern.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪谞讬讞 讻诇讬诐 转讞转 讛爪讬谞讜专 诇拽讘诇 讘讛谉 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讻诇讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 讜讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讗讞讚 讛诪谞讬讞 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讻讞 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟讛专讬谉 讘砖讜讻讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞诪谞讜 讜专讘讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘砖讜讻讞 讘讞爪专 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚讬讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

To this point, several, but not all, of the eighteen decrees were enumerated. The Gemara asks: And what is the other decree? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna in tractate Mikvaot: One who places vessels under the drain pipe in order to collect rainwater, the water collected in the vessels is considered drawn water. This is true both in the case of large vessels which, due to their size, do not become impure, and in the case of small vessels. And even if they were stone vessels and earth vessels and dung vessels, made from dry cattle dung, which are not considered vessels in terms of ritual impurity and do not become impure at all, this ruling applies. The water in the vessels is considered drawn water in all respects. If it leaked from those vessels and flowed into a ritual bath that had not yet reached its full measure, forty se鈥檃, and filled it, the water invalidates the ritual bath. The Gemara adds that this halakha applies both in a case where one places the vessels beneath the drainpipe with premeditated intent to collect the water flowing through it as well as in a case where one forgets the vessels there and they are filled unintentionally; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel deem the ritual bath pure, i.e., fit to complete the full measure of the ritual bath, in a case where one forgets the vessels. Rabbi Meir said: They were counted in the attic of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya and Beit Shammai outnumbered Beit Hillel. And Rabbi Meir said that Beit Shammai agree with Beit Hillel that in a case where one forgets vessels in the courtyard and they fill with rainwater, the water is pure. Rabbi Yosei said: The dispute still remains in place, and Beit Shammai did not agree with Beit Hillel at all.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讻砖讛谞讬讞诐 讘砖注转 拽讬砖讜专 注讘讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讘砖注转 驻讬讝讜专 注讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 砖讛谞讬讞诐 讘砖注转 拽讬砖讜专 注讘讬诐 讜谞转驻讝专讜 讜讞讝专讜 讜谞转拽砖专讜 诪专 住讘专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 诪讞砖讘转讜

Rav Mesharshiya said: The Sages of the school of Rav say: Everyone agrees that if he placed the vessels in the courtyard at the time of the massing of the clouds, a sign that it is about to rain, just before it began to rain, then the water in the vessels is impure, unfit, as he certainly intended that the water fill the vessels. If one placed the vessels at the time of the dispersal of the clouds, and then the clouds massed together, and then rain fell and the vessels filled with the rainwater, everyone agrees that the water is pure. It is fit to fill the ritual bath to its capacity because at the time that he placed the vessels under the drainpipe his intention was not that they fill with rainwater. They only disagreed in a case where he placed them at the time of the massing of the clouds, and the clouds dispersed, and rain did not fall then, and only later the clouds massed again, and rain fell and filled the vessels. In that case, this Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that because the clouds dispersed after he placed the vessels, his thought to fill the vessels with water was negated. The vessels remained in the courtyard due to his forgetfulness, and when they filled afterward it was not his intention that they fill. And this Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that his thought was not negated, as his original intention was ultimately fulfilled despite the delay in its fulfillment.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 注讚讬讬谉 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转 讘爪专讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讘谞讜转 讻讜转讬诐 谞讚讜转 诪注专讬住转谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讙讝专讜:

The Gemara wonders: Indeed, according to Rabbi Meir, another decree was added to the total. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who said that in this case the dispute still remains in place, the tally of eighteen decrees is lacking. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The decree that the daughters of the Samaritans [kutim] are considered to already have the status of menstruating women from their cradle, their birth, they issued on that day. The halakha is that any female who sees blood of menstruation is impure, regardless of her age, even if she is a day old. The Samaritans did not accept that halakha. Consequently, it is possible that there were girls among them who saw blood of menstruation before their coming-of-age, and the Samaritans ignored their impurity. Therefore, due to this uncertainty, the Sages decreed impurity on all daughters of the Samaritans from birth.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜讘讬 讛诪专讚注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: And what is the other decree? The Gemara answers that another decree is as we learned a halakhic tradition in a mishna that all movable objects with the width of an ox goad, a long stick for prodding and directing a plowing animal, transmit impurity. If one side of the object was over a corpse and the other side of the object was over vessels, the vessels become impure due to the impurity of a tent over a corpse. Rabbi Tarfon said:

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Rina Basser

History Matters- Cutim

Cutim (called Samaritans today) This group was mentioned, currently on our Daf Cycle, on Daf 16 and 17, Masechet Shabbat....
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...
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...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 16: When All of the Vessels in the Palace Were Impure

The oddity of the decree to make vessels made of metal impure. Breaking vessels to renew their pure status. What...

Shabbat 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 16

诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜 诪讙讘谉 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 讜讻诇讬 谞转专 讟讜诪讗转谉 砖讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪讗讜讬专讬讛谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诪讗讞讜专讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诪讙讘讬讛谉 讜砖讘讬专转谉 诪讟讛专转谉 讻诇讬 谞转专 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讛讜讗 讚讟讜诪讗转谉 砖讜讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 谞砖转讘专讜 讬砖 诇讛诐 转拽谞讛 砖讜讬谞讛讜 讻讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转

they should not become impure from their outer side. Why, then, did we learn this in a mishna? With regard to earthenware vessels and vessels made from natron [neter], the halakhot of their impurity are equal in that they become impure if a primary source of impurity enters their airspace, and, once impure, they render food that enters their airspace impure from their air space. And they become impure from behind, i.e., if a primary source of impurity enters into the bottom of the vessel, where there is an empty space and a receptacle, the vessel becomes impure. However, earthenware vessels do not become impure from their outer side, i.e., if a primary source of impurity came into contact with the outer side of the vessel, the inside of the vessel does not become impure. And the breaking of earthenware vessels renders them pure. By inference, specifically natron vessels and earthenware vessels are those whose halakhot of impurity are equal, as is their status. However, with regard to other matters that is not the case. Why, then, were glass vessels not listed together with those vessels? The Gemara answers: Since if the glass vessels broke they have the capacity to be repaired, as the glass can be liquefied and recast into a new vessel, the Sages equated them to metal vessels that can also be liquefied and recast.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 讬砖谞讛 讻讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 讜诪拽讘诇讬讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞砖讘专讜 讟讛专讜 讞讝专 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻诇讬诐 讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 讬砖谞讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 转谞谉 讻诇讬 注抓 讜讻诇讬 注讜专 讜讻诇讬 注爪诐 讜讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜诪拽讘诇讬讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞砖讘专讜 讟讛专讜 讞讝专 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻诇讬诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讗讬谉 诇诪驻专注 诇讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, if glass vessels were truly equated with metal vessels, then broken glass vessels that were liquefied and recast should reassume their previous impurity, like metal vessels. As we learned in a mishna: Metal vessels, both their flat vessels, which have no airspace, and their receptacles, which have airspace, are all impure if they came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. If they broke, they thereby became purified. However, if one remade the broken vessels into new vessels, they reassume their previous impurity. While, with regard to glass vessels, we learned in a mishna: Wooden vessels and leather vessels and bone vessels and glass vessels, their flat vessels are pure when they come into contact with impurity, and only their receptacles are impure. If they broke, they thereby became purified. However, if he remade the broken vessels into new vessels, they can become impure from that point, when they were recast, forward. By inference: From that point forward, yes, they become impure; retroactively, no, they do not reassume their previous impurity. Apparently, there is no halakha of previous impurity as far as glass vessels are concerned.

讟讜诪讗转 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讚专讘谞谉 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讞讬转讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讞讬转讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: The entire impurity of glass vessels is by rabbinic decree, and previous impurity, which takes effect on recast metal vessels, is by rabbinic decree. With regard to impurity by Torah law, the Sages imposed a decree of previous impurity. With regard to impurity by rabbinic law, the Sages did not impose a decree of previous impurity. The Sages did not impose the decree of previous impurity, which is by rabbinic decree, on glass vessels whose fundamental impurity is itself only by rabbinic decree.

驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 诪讬讛讗 诇讬讟诪讗 讚讛讗 驻砖讜讟讬 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讬 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讬专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇砖专讜祝 注诇讬讬讛讜 转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks further: Their flat vessels should in any case become impure. Since the impurity of flat metal vessels is by Torah law, isn鈥檛 it appropriate, therefore, to decree this impurity on flat glass vessels by rabbinic decree? The Gemara answers: The Sages made a distinction with regard to glass vessels, in order to prevent burning teruma and consecrated items for coming into contact with them. Through this distinction between glass vessels and metal vessels, everyone will understand that the impurity of glass vessels is not by Torah law. They will not come to burn teruma and consecrated items that came into contact with impure glass vessels; rather, their legal status will remain in abeyance.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讻诇讬 讞专住 讚诪讜 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜 诪讙讘谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞专讗讛 转讜讻讜 讻讘专讜

Rav Ashi said: There was never a need to equate glass vessels and metal vessels. Actually, glass vessels are likened to earthenware vessels in every sense. And that which was difficult for you, that if so, glass vessels, like other earthenware vessels, should not become impure from contact of their outer side with a source of ritual impurity; since in glass vessels its inner side looks like its outer side, the legal status of the outer side was equated with that of the inner side, as there is no visible separation between them.

砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转讬拽谉 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗砖讛 讜讙讝专 讟讜诪讗讛 注诇 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讜讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讙讜壮 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘砖诇 爪讬讜谉 讛诪诇讻讛 砖注砖转讛 诪砖转讛 诇讘谞讛 讜谞讟诪讗讜 讻诇 讻诇讬讛 讜砖讘专转谉 讜谞转谞转谉 诇爪讜专祝 讜专讬转讻谉 讜注砖讛 诪讛谉 讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 讬砖谞讛

We learned that Shimon ben Shata岣 instituted the formula of the marriage contract for a woman and decreed impurity upon metal vessels. The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 metal vessels impure by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淏ut the gold, and silver, and the bronze, and the iron, and the tin, and the lead. Anything that came in fire, make it pass through fire and it will be pure, but with the water of sprinkling it will be purified and anything that did not come in fire make it pass through water鈥 (Numbers 31:22鈥23)? The Gemara answers: This ordinance of Shimon ben Shata岣 with regard to the impurity of metal vessels in general was only needed with regard to previous impurity reassumed by metal vessels after they are recast. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving Shimon ben Shata岣モ檚 sister, Shel Tziyyon the queen, who made a wedding feast for her son. All of her vessels became impure, and she broke them and gave them to the smith, and he welded the broken vessels together and made new vessels. And the Sages said: What she did was ineffective, as all the vessels will reassume their previous impurity.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讚专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 谞讙注讜 讘讛

With regard to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: What is the reason that they imposed a decree of previous impurity on metal vessels? The Gemara answers: Due to a fence constructed to maintain the integrity of the water of a purification offering, the Sages touched upon it. In order to purify a vessel that came into contact with a corpse, one is required to have the water of a purification offering sprinkled on the vessel on the third day and the seventh day after it became impure, as it is written: 鈥淗e should be purified with it on the third day and on the seventh day he will become pure, and if he is not purified with it on the third day and on the seventh day he will not become pure鈥 (Numbers 19:20). This involves a significant inconvenience. If people will prefer to break or damage impure metal vessels in order to purify them more easily, the use of water of a purification offering will become obsolete. As a result, the Sages decreed that metal vessels will remain impure until they undergo the purification process.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诇讻诇 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 砖驻讬专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that they did not say the decree of previous impurity on metal vessels with regard to all forms of impurity; rather, they only said the decree with regard to the impurity caused by contact with a corpse, it works out well. In the case of impurity caused by contact with a corpse, the Sages issued this decree because its purification process is demanding. It requires immersion and sprinkling of the water of a purification offering on the third and the seventh days. However, with regard to other forms of impurity, whose purification is accomplished by means of immersion alone, a person will not break a vessel in order to avoid immersion. Consequently, there is no need to institute a decree in those cases.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讻诇 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讗诪专讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬拽讘谞讜 讘讻讚讬 讟讛专转讜

However, according to the one who said that they said the decree of previous impurity in metal vessels with regard to all forms of impurity, which includes those forms of impurity that do not require sprinkling of the water of a purification offering for their purification, what is there to say as a rationale for the decree? Abaye said: Shimon ben Shata岣 instituted a decree due to the concern that perhaps he would not perforate that vessel with a hole large enough to render it ritually pure. To purify a vessel by breaking it, one must make a hole large enough to ensure that the vessel will no longer be able to hold the contents that it was designed to hold. Abaye explained that Shimon ben Shata岣モ檚 concern was that one who values the vessel will not break it sufficiently to render it ritually pure.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 注讜诇讛 诇讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专爪驻讬谞讛讜 诪专爪祝:

Rava said: It is a decree lest they say that immersion on the same day is sufficient for this vessel to be purified. People will be unaware of the manner in which the metal vessel became pure, and they will assume that its purity was achieved by means of immersion and not by means of breaking. That will lead them to the conclusion that any vessel becomes pure immediately upon immersion, and there is no need to wait for sunset, contrary to Torah law. Therefore, the Sages decreed that repaired vessels retain previous impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the reasons of Abaye and Rava? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is found in a case where he broke the vessel completely. If there was concern that perhaps he will not perforate it sufficiently, there is no longer room for concern. However, if there was concern lest people say that immersion is effective on that day, there remains room for concern.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪谞讬讞 讻诇讬诐 转讞转 讛爪讬谞讜专 诇拽讘诇 讘讛谉 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讻诇讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 讜讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讗讞讚 讛诪谞讬讞 讜讗讞讚 讛砖讜讻讞 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟讛专讬谉 讘砖讜讻讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞诪谞讜 讜专讘讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘砖讜讻讞 讘讞爪专 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚讬讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

To this point, several, but not all, of the eighteen decrees were enumerated. The Gemara asks: And what is the other decree? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna in tractate Mikvaot: One who places vessels under the drain pipe in order to collect rainwater, the water collected in the vessels is considered drawn water. This is true both in the case of large vessels which, due to their size, do not become impure, and in the case of small vessels. And even if they were stone vessels and earth vessels and dung vessels, made from dry cattle dung, which are not considered vessels in terms of ritual impurity and do not become impure at all, this ruling applies. The water in the vessels is considered drawn water in all respects. If it leaked from those vessels and flowed into a ritual bath that had not yet reached its full measure, forty se鈥檃, and filled it, the water invalidates the ritual bath. The Gemara adds that this halakha applies both in a case where one places the vessels beneath the drainpipe with premeditated intent to collect the water flowing through it as well as in a case where one forgets the vessels there and they are filled unintentionally; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel deem the ritual bath pure, i.e., fit to complete the full measure of the ritual bath, in a case where one forgets the vessels. Rabbi Meir said: They were counted in the attic of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya and Beit Shammai outnumbered Beit Hillel. And Rabbi Meir said that Beit Shammai agree with Beit Hillel that in a case where one forgets vessels in the courtyard and they fill with rainwater, the water is pure. Rabbi Yosei said: The dispute still remains in place, and Beit Shammai did not agree with Beit Hillel at all.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讻砖讛谞讬讞诐 讘砖注转 拽讬砖讜专 注讘讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讘砖注转 驻讬讝讜专 注讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 砖讛谞讬讞诐 讘砖注转 拽讬砖讜专 注讘讬诐 讜谞转驻讝专讜 讜讞讝专讜 讜谞转拽砖专讜 诪专 住讘专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 诪讞砖讘转讜

Rav Mesharshiya said: The Sages of the school of Rav say: Everyone agrees that if he placed the vessels in the courtyard at the time of the massing of the clouds, a sign that it is about to rain, just before it began to rain, then the water in the vessels is impure, unfit, as he certainly intended that the water fill the vessels. If one placed the vessels at the time of the dispersal of the clouds, and then the clouds massed together, and then rain fell and the vessels filled with the rainwater, everyone agrees that the water is pure. It is fit to fill the ritual bath to its capacity because at the time that he placed the vessels under the drainpipe his intention was not that they fill with rainwater. They only disagreed in a case where he placed them at the time of the massing of the clouds, and the clouds dispersed, and rain did not fall then, and only later the clouds massed again, and rain fell and filled the vessels. In that case, this Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that because the clouds dispersed after he placed the vessels, his thought to fill the vessels with water was negated. The vessels remained in the courtyard due to his forgetfulness, and when they filled afterward it was not his intention that they fill. And this Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that his thought was not negated, as his original intention was ultimately fulfilled despite the delay in its fulfillment.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 注讚讬讬谉 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转 讘爪专讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讘谞讜转 讻讜转讬诐 谞讚讜转 诪注专讬住转谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讙讝专讜:

The Gemara wonders: Indeed, according to Rabbi Meir, another decree was added to the total. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who said that in this case the dispute still remains in place, the tally of eighteen decrees is lacking. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The decree that the daughters of the Samaritans [kutim] are considered to already have the status of menstruating women from their cradle, their birth, they issued on that day. The halakha is that any female who sees blood of menstruation is impure, regardless of her age, even if she is a day old. The Samaritans did not accept that halakha. Consequently, it is possible that there were girls among them who saw blood of menstruation before their coming-of-age, and the Samaritans ignored their impurity. Therefore, due to this uncertainty, the Sages decreed impurity on all daughters of the Samaritans from birth.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜讘讬 讛诪专讚注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: And what is the other decree? The Gemara answers that another decree is as we learned a halakhic tradition in a mishna that all movable objects with the width of an ox goad, a long stick for prodding and directing a plowing animal, transmit impurity. If one side of the object was over a corpse and the other side of the object was over vessels, the vessels become impure due to the impurity of a tent over a corpse. Rabbi Tarfon said:

Scroll To Top