Shabbat 15a:9שבת ט״ו א:ט
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shabbat 15a:9'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
15aט״ו א

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?