Shabbat 17
אֲקַפֵּחַ אֶת בָּנַי שֶׁזּוֹ הֲלָכָה מְקוּפַּחַת, שֶׁשָּׁמַע הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ, וְטָעָה: הָאִיכָּר עוֹבֵר וּמַרְדְּעוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְאִיהֵל צִדּוֹ אֶחָד עַל הַקֶּבֶר — טִימְּאוּ אוֹתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם כֵּלִים הַמַּאֲהִילִים עַל הַמֵּת.
I will bury my sons if this is not a truncated halakha, i.e., that the one who heard it, heard a halakhic ruling concerning a different situation and erred. He thought this halakha was established with regard to the following: Movable objects with the thickness of an ox goad transmit impurity to another vessel when the movable object is over both the source of impurity and the vessel at the same time. However, the original halakha is as follows: If the farmer was passing and his ox goad was on his shoulder and one side of the ox goad covered the grave, the Sages deemed the ox goad itself impure due to the impurity of vessels that cover a corpse. Any object located over a grave becomes impure. However, just because the ox goad itself became impure, this does not necessarily mean that it transmits impurity to other objects.
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲנִי אֲתַקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים קַיָּימִים: שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִים מְבִיאִין אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה עַל הָאָדָם שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא אוֹתָן בְּעוֹבִי הַמַּרְדֵּעַ, וְעַל עַצְמָן בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן. וְעַל שְׁאָר אָדָם וְכֵלִים — בְּפוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח.
Rabbi Akiva said: I will correct and explain the halakha so that the statements of the Sages will be upheld as they were originally said, and this halakha will be explained as follows: All movable objects transmit impurity to the person carrying them if the objects are at least as thick as an ox goad. As will be explained below, there is room to decree that a round object with the circumference of an ox goad should have the legal status of a tent over a corpse. Something that serves as a covering over a corpse not only becomes impure itself, but also transmits impurity, as it is written: “Anything that is in the tent will become impure for seven days” (Numbers 19:14). Therefore, even the person carrying the ox goad becomes impure due to the ox goad. And, however, movable objects that covered the corpse bring impurity upon themselves by means of this makeshift tent at any size, and there is no minimum measure. And, however, those objects that cover the corpse do not transmit impurity to other people who are not carrying them. And the same is true with regard to vessels, unless the width of these vessels is at least one handbreadth.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: וּמַרְדֵּעַ שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵין בְּעׇבְיוֹ טֶפַח וְיֵשׁ בְּהֶיקֵּפוֹ טֶפַח — וְגָזְרוּ עַל הֶיקֵּפוֹ מִשּׁוּם עׇבְיוֹ.
And Rabbi Yannai said: And the ox goad that they mentioned is specifically one in which its width is not a handbreadth and, however, its circumference is a handbreadth, and they, the Sages, issued a decree on its circumference due to its width. If its width was a handbreadth it would transmit impurity as a tent by Torah law. Therefore, they issued a rabbinic decree with regard to an object whose circumference is a handbreadth. This is another of the eighteen decrees.
וּלְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן דְּאָמַר אֲקַפֵּחַ אֶת בָּנַי שֶׁהֲלָכָה זוֹ מְקוּפַּחַת — בָּצְרוּ לְהוּ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אַף בְּנוֹת כּוּתִים נִדּוֹת מֵעֲרִיסָתָן, בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם גָּזְרוּ. וּבְאִידַּךְ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Tarfon, who said: I will bury my son if this is not a truncated halakha, the tally of the decrees is lacking, and there are not eighteen. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The decree that the daughters of the Samaritans are considered to already have the status of menstruating women from their cradle, they issued on that day. And in the other matter of drawn water, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and thereby the tally of the decrees is complete.
וְאִידַּךְ — הַבּוֹצֵר לַגַּת, שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשַׁר. אָמַר לוֹ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי: מִפְּנֵי מַה בּוֹצְרִין בְּטָהֳרָה וְאֵין מוֹסְקִין בְּטָהֳרָה?
And another of those decrees is the matter of one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the press. Shammai says: It has become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible. Hillel said to Shammai: If so, for what purpose do they harvest grapes in purity, i.e., utilizing pure vessels, as in your opinion, since the grapes are susceptible to impurity by means of the juice that seeps from them, care must be taken to avoid impurity while gathering; and, however, they do not harvest olives in purity? According to your opinion that liquid that seeps out renders the fruit susceptible to impurity, why is there not a similar concern with regard to the liquid that seeps out of olives?
אָמַר לוֹ: אִם תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, גּוֹזְרַנִי טוּמְאָה אַף עַל הַמְּסִיקָה. נָעֲצוּ חֶרֶב בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, אָמְרוּ: הַנִּכְנָס — יִכָּנֵס, וְהַיּוֹצֵא — אַל יֵצֵא. וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הָיָה הִלֵּל כָּפוּף וְיוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי שַׁמַּאי כְּאֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים. וְהָיָה קָשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בּוֹ הָעֵגֶל. וּגְזוּר שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל וְלָא קַבִּלוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, וַאֲתוֹ תַּלְמִידַיְיהוּ גְּזוּר וְקַבִּלוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ.
Shammai said to him: If you provoke me and insist that there is no difference between gathering olives and grapes, then, in order not to contradict this, I will decree impurity on the gathering of olives as well. They related that since the dispute was so intense, they stuck a sword in the study hall, and they said: One who seeks to enter the study hall, let him enter, and one who seeks to leave may not leave, so that all of the Sages will be assembled to determine the halakha. That day Hillel was bowed and was sitting before Shammai like one of the students. The Gemara said: And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, as Hillel, who was the Nasi, was forced to sit in submission before Shammai, and the opinion of Beit Shammai prevailed in the vote conducted that day. And Shammai and Hillel issued the decree, and the people did not accept it from them. And their students came and issued the decree, and the people accepted it from them.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִבְצְרֶנּוּ בְּקוּפּוֹת טְמֵאוֹת.
As to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: What is the reason they decreed that liquids that seeped from the grapes unintentionally render the grapes susceptible to impurity? Rabbi Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Sages issued a decree due to concern lest he gather the grapes in impure baskets. The impurity of the vessel would accord the liquid in it the status of a liquid that renders food items susceptible to impurity.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּלִי טָמֵא חוֹשֵׁב מַשְׁקִין — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין כְּלִי טָמֵא חוֹשֵׁב מַשְׁקִין — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִבְצְרֶנּוּ בְּקוּפּוֹת מְזוּפָּפוֹת.
The Gemara asks: This works out well, according to the one who said that an impure vessel accords liquids in it the halakhic status as if they were placed there willfully, and they render foods susceptible to impurity even if he did not want the liquids in the vessel. However, according to the one who said that an impure vessel does not accord liquids that status, what can be said in explanation of the decree? Rather, Rabbi Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ḥanina said the following: The reason is not as we suggested; rather, this is a decree instituted by the Sages lest he gather them in pitched baskets, which are sealed. Since liquids that seep out of the grapes do not spill out of the baskets, it is opportune for him to have the liquids seep out of the grapes as he thereby accelerates the production of wine in the press. Because the seeping of the liquid is opportune, it renders the grapes susceptible to impurity.
רָבָא אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם הַנּוֹשְׁכוֹת. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם הוֹלֵךְ לְכַרְמוֹ לֵידַע אִם הִגִּיעוּ עֲנָבִים לִבְצִירָה אוֹ לֹא, וְנוֹטֵל אֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים לְסוֹחֳטוֹ, וּמְזַלֵּף עַל גַּבֵּי עֲנָבִים — וּבִשְׁעַת בְּצִירָה עֲדַיִין מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ עֲלֵיהֶם.
Rava said: The reason for the decree is due to the case of liquid that squirted out when one separated clusters of grapes that were stuck together. Since he did so by his own hand, consciously and willfully, the liquid that seeps out renders the grapes susceptible to impurity. Just as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Sometimes a person goes to his vineyard in order to ascertain whether or not the grapes have reached the time for gathering, and he takes a cluster of grapes to squeeze it, and he sprays the juice onto the grapes. Based on the quality of the juice, he determines whether or not the grapes are sufficiently ripe. If so, this grape juice was squeezed by his own hand willfully and it renders the grapes susceptible to impurity, as even at the time of gathering it is conceivable that the liquid is still moist upon the grapes.
וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר
Since all eighteen decrees decreed that day have not yet been enumerated, the Gemara asks: And what is the other? Said
טָבִי רִישְׁבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַף גִּידּוּלֵי תְרוּמָה תְּרוּמָה, בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם גָּזְרוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Tavi the bird hunter [rishba] that Shmuel said: The decree that growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from teruma that was planted in the ground, are considered teruma, the Sages also issued on that day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this decree? Rabbi Ḥanina said: A decree due to pure teruma in the hand of a non–priest Israelite. One who seeks to avoid giving teruma to a priest would plant it in the ground and thereby negate its teruma status. To prevent him from doing so, the Sages decreed that that which grows from the teruma is also considered teruma. Consequently, one would gain nothing by replanting the teruma.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי דַּחֲשִׁידִי לְהָכִי, אַפְרוֹשֵׁי נָמֵי לָא לַיפְרְשׁוּ! (אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל) כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְמֶעְבַּד חִטָּה אַחַת כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל וְלָא קָעָבֵיד, הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנֵי. אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, דִילְמָא מַשְׁהֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּיהּ וְאָתֵי לִידֵי תַקָּלָה.
Rava said: If they are suspected of that, let them refrain from separating teruma altogether. Rather, Rava said: We know that with regard to an Israelite, as opposed to a Levite, fundamentally it is possible to perform the mitzva of teruma by separating merely one grain of wheat, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that by Torah law there is no fixed measure for teruma. By separating one grain of wheat as teruma for all the wheat on the threshing floor, one fulfills his obligation. Since he nevertheless did not take advantage of that possibility to exempt himself from the obligation of separating teruma, he is trustworthy, and there is no reason to suspect that he will seek to avoid giving teruma to the priest by planting it. Rather, the reason for the decree is due to impure teruma in the hand of a priest. A priest is forbidden to eat impure teruma and he is required to burn it. However, the priest is permitted to derive benefit from its burning. The Sages were concerned lest he keep the impure teruma with him until the season of sowing and sow his field with it, and, as a result, he encounter a stumbling-block because over time he is liable to forget that the teruma is impure and eat it.
וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: אַף מִי שֶׁהֶחֱשִׁיךְ לוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ נוֹתֵן כִּיסוֹ לְגוֹי — בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם גָּזְרוּ.
With regard to the total of eighteen decrees, the Gemara asks: And what is the other decree? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: In a case of one who was carrying a purse with money in it on Shabbat eve, and it got dark for him on the way, the Torah law permitted him to carry the purse in increments, each of which is less than four cubits. However, the Sages issued the following decree: It is prohibited to carry in increments; he should give his purse to a gentile accompanying him. This decree was also issued on that day.
וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר בָּאלִי אָמַר אֲבִימִי סִנְוְותָאָה: פִּתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן וְיֵינָן וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶן — כּוּלָּן מִשְּׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר הֵן. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי שִׁבְסְרֵי הָוְיָין! אִיכָּא הָא דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: גָּזְרוּ עַל פִּתָּן מִשּׁוּם שַׁמְנָן, וְעַל שַׁמְנָן מִשּׁוּם יֵינָן.
And the other decree: The Sage Bali said that Avimi of Sanvata said: The decrees with regard to gentiles that prohibit their bread, and their oil, and their wine, and their daughters are all one decree of the eighteen matters. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, as according to his opinion the Gemara already enumerated eighteen decrees. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the dispute remains with regard to the matter of vessels in the courtyard, they are only seventeen. The Gemara answers: There is also that statement of Rav Aḥa bar Adda, as Rav Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Sages issued a decree prohibiting eating their bread due to their oil. And they issued a decree prohibiting their oil due to their wine. Consequently, there are two separate decrees.
עַל פִּתָּן מִשּׁוּם שַׁמְנָן?! מַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּשֶׁמֶן מִפַּת? אֶלָּא גָּזְרוּ עַל פִּתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן מִשּׁוּם יֵינָן, וְעַל יֵינָן מִשּׁוּם בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן, וְעַל בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְעַל דָּבָר אַחֵר מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר. מַאי דָּבָר אַחֵר? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: גָּזְרוּ עַל תִּינוֹק גּוֹי שֶׁמְטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא תִּינוֹק יִשְׂרָאֵל רָגִיל אֶצְלוֹ בְּמִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר. אִי הָכִי, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי תְּשַׁסְרֵי הָוְיָין! אוֹכָלִין וְכֵלִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּמַשְׁקִין בַּחֲדָא חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ.
The Gemara wonders: They issued a decree on their bread because of their oil. In what way is the prohibition on oil stronger than the prohibition on bread? Rather, say that they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued a decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that it leads to familiarity, and people will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else, idolatry, due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the something else alluded to here? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They issued a decree on a gentile baby, according him the legal status that he transmits impurity as one with the legal status of a great zav, who experienced three emissions, even though he did not experience an emission. This was in order to distance Jewish children from gentile children so that a Jewish boy should not be accustomed to be with a gentile in homosexual relations. The Gemara asks: If so, according to Rabbi Meir it is difficult as well, as they are now nineteen decrees. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir counts the decrees of food items and vessels that became impure through contact with liquids as one. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir, too, there are only eighteen decrees.
מַתְנִי׳ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין שׁוֹרִין דְּיוֹ וְסַמָּנִים וְכַרְשִׁינִין אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשּׁוֹרוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נוֹתְנִין אוּנִּין שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן לְתוֹךְ הַתַּנּוּר אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּהְבִּילוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וְלֹא אֶת הַצֶּמֶר לַיּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְלוֹט הָעַיִן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.
MISHNA: In this mishna there is a fundamental dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai: Must one begin refraining from actions prohibited on Shabbat on Shabbat eve? Or, may one initiate an action prior to Shabbat, even if he knows that it will continue on its own on Shabbat itself? These are the details of that dispute: Beit Shammai say: One may only soak dry ink in water and dry plants, which produce dyes, in water and vetch for animal food to soften them in water on Shabbat eve, adjacent to Shabbat, if there is clearly sufficient time for them to soak for their designated purpose while it is still day, before Shabbat begins, and their continued soaking on Shabbat will have no effect. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may only place bundles of combed flax inside the oven on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time so that they will be heated while it is still day. And one may only place wool into the dyer’s kettle if there is sufficient time for the wool to absorb the dye while it is still day. And Beit Hillel permit doing so.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין פּוֹרְסִין מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּצּוֹדוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מוֹכְרִין לְגוֹי וְאֵין טוֹעֲנִין עִמּוֹ וְאֵין מַגְבִּיהִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְמָקוֹם קָרוֹב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נוֹתְנִין עוֹרוֹת לְעַבְּדָן, וְלֹא כֵּלִים לְכוֹבֵס גּוֹי אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וּבְכוּלָּן בֵּית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין עִם
Beit Shammai say: One may spread traps for an animal and birds and fish only if there is sufficient time remaining in the day for them to be trapped in them while it is still day, and Beit Hillel permit doing so even if there is not sufficient time remaining in the day. Beit Shammai say: One may only sell an item to a gentile on Shabbat eve, and one may only load a burden on his donkey with him, and one may only lift a burden on him if there remains sufficient time for the gentile to arrive to a near place prior to Shabbat, and the Jew will play no role in the performance of a prohibited labor by the gentile on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may not give skins to a gentile tanner, nor clothes to a gentile launderer, unless there is sufficient time for work on them to be completed while it is still day, before Shabbat begins. And in all of them Beit Hillel permit doing so with
