שבת טז

שבת טז

לָא לִיטַּמּוּ מִגַּבָּן. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: כְּלֵי חֶרֶס וּכְלֵי נֶתֶר טוּמְאָתָן שָׁוָה: מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין מֵאֲוִירֵיהֶן, וּמִיטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן וְאֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבֵּיהֶן, וּשְׁבִירָתָן מְטַהַרְתָּן. כְּלֵי נֶתֶר וּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הוּא דְּטוּמְאָתָן שָׁוָה אֲבָל מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא! אָמְרִי, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה, שַׁוִּינְהוּ כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת.

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.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יַחְזְרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן יְשָׁנָה כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת? דִּתְנַן: כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן וּמְקַבְּלֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין. נִשְׁבְּרוּ — טָהָרוּ. חָזַר וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן כֵּלִים — חָזְרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן יְשָׁנָה. וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית תְּנַן: כְּלֵי עֵץ וּכְלֵי עוֹר וּכְלֵי עֶצֶם וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְהוֹרִין וּמְקַבְּלֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין. נִשְׁבְּרוּ — טָהָרוּ. חָזַר וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן כֵּלִים — מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא. מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא אִין, לְמַפְרֵעַ — לָא!

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.

טוּמְאַת כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית דְּרַבָּנַן, וְטוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה דְּרַבָּנַן. בְּטוּמְאָה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא — אַחִיתוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן טוּמְאָה, בְּטוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא אַחִיתוּ לַהּ רַבָּנַן טוּמְאָה.

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.

פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן מִיהָא לִיטַּמּוּ, דְּהָא פְּשׁוּטֵי כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ? עָבְדִי בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן הֶכֵּירָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִשְׂרוֹף עֲלַיְיהוּ תְּרוּמָה וְקׇדָשִׁים.

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’t 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.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לִכְלֵי חֶרֶס דָּמוּ, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ לָא לִיטַּמּוּ מִגַּבָּן? — הוֹאִיל וְנִרְאֶה תּוֹכוֹ כְּבָרוֹ.

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.

שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח תִּיקֵּן כְּתוּבָה לָאִשָּׁה וְגָזַר טוּמְאָה עַל כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ! דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ אֶת הַזָּהָב וְאֶת הַכָּסֶף וְגוֹ׳״. לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְטוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשֶׁל צִיּוֹן הַמַּלְכָּה שֶׁעָשְׁתָה מִשְׁתֶּה לִבְנָהּ וְנִטְמְאוּ כׇּל כֵּלֶיהָ, וְשִׁבְּרָתַן וּנְתָנָתַן לְצוֹרֵף וְרִיתְּכָן וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יַחְזְרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן יְשָׁנָה.

We learned that Shimon ben Shataḥ instituted the formula of the marriage contract for a woman and decreed impurity upon metal vessels. The Gemara asks: Aren’t metal vessels impure by Torah law, as it is written: “But 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” (Numbers 31:22–23)? The Gemara answers: This ordinance of Shimon ben Shataḥ 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 Shataḥ’s 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.

מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם גֶּדֶר מֵי חַטָּאת נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

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: “He 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” (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.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא לְכׇל הַטּוּמְאוֹת אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא לְטוּמְאַת הַמֵּת בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ — שַׁפִּיר.

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.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְכׇל הַטּוּמְאוֹת אָמְרוּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִקֳּבֶנּוּ בִּכְדֵי טׇהֳרָתוֹ.

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 Shataḥ 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 Shataḥ’s concern was that one who values the vessel will not break it sufficiently to render it ritually pure.

רָבָא אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ טְבִילָה בַּת יוֹמָא עוֹלָה לָהּ. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַצְפִינְהוּ מִרְצָף.

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.

וְאִידַּךְ מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: הַמַּנִּיחַ כֵּלִים תַּחַת הַצִּינּוֹר לְקַבֵּל בָּהֶן מֵי גְּשָׁמִים — אֶחָד כֵּלִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאֶחָד כֵּלִים קְטַנִּים, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים וּכְלֵי אֲדָמָה וּכְלֵי גְלָלִים — פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. אֶחָד הַמַּנִּיחַ וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין בַּשּׁוֹכֵחַ. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: נִמְנוּ וְרַבּוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עַל בֵּית הִלֵּל. וּמוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי בַּשּׁוֹכֵחַ בֶּחָצֵר, שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: עֲדַיִין מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת.

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’a, 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 Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya 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.

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: דְּבֵי רַב אָמְרִי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים כְּשֶׁהִנִּיחָם בִּשְׁעַת קִישּׁוּר עָבִים, טְמֵאִים. בִּשְׁעַת פִּיזּוּר עָבִים — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טְהוֹרִין. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהִנִּיחָם בִּשְׁעַת קִישּׁוּר עָבִים, וְנִתְפַּזְּרוּ, וְחָזְרוּ וְנִתְקַשְּׁרוּ. מָר סָבַר בָּטְלָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ, וּמָר סָבַר לֹא בָּטְלָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ.

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.

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר מַחֲלוֹקֶת עֲדַיִין בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת, בָּצְרִי לְהוּ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אַף בְּנוֹת כּוּתִים נִדּוֹת מֵעֲרִיסָתָן — בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם גָּזְרוּ.

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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

וְאִידַּךְ מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מְבִיאִין אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה בְּעוֹבִי הַמַּרְדֵּעַ. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן:

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: