Shabbat 28

Chapter 28

א כיון דהך גזור ברישא הא תו למה לי אלא הך גזור ברישא והדר גזור בכולהו ידים
1 But since this was first enacted, why was the other too needed? — Rather the latter was first decreed, and then it was enacted in respect of all hands. 'And a tebul yom.' But the law of tebul yom is Biblical, for it is written, and when the sun is down, he shall be clean; [and afterwards he shall eat of the holy things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 7. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> i.e., <i>terumah</i>]? — Delete tebul yom from here.
ב וטבול יום טבול יום דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ז) ובא השמש וטהר סמי מכאן טבול יום
2 'And food which was defiled through liquid'. Through liquid of which [uncleanness]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how did this liquid itself become unclean? ');"><sup>2</sup></span> Shall we say, through liquid which was defiled by a [dead] reptile:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which come on account of a reptile'. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> then its law is Biblical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that this food disqualifies terumah. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג והאוכלין שנטמאו במשקין במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ דאוריי' נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לד) וכל משקה אשר ישתה אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת ידים וגזירה משום משקין הבאין מחמת שרץ
3 for it is written, and all drink that may be drunk [in every such vessel shall be unclean]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XI, 34. Though that refers to a liquid defiled through an earthenware vessel, the Talmud deduces in Pes. 18b that the same holds good if it is defiled by a reptile. Now, the latter is original ('father of') uncleanness; the fluid is first degree, and the food is second degree, and therefore it renders terumah the third degree, i.e., unfit (v. p. 55, n. 6), and all this is Biblical law, not a Rabbinical enactment. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> _ Rather it means through liquid defiled by the hands, and it is a preventive measure on account of liquid defiled by a reptile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter is Biblical; but if the former were not declared unclean, it would be thought that the latter is not unclean either. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> 'And vessels which were defiled by liquid'. Vessels which were defiled by liquid of which [uncleanness]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How did the liquid itself become unclean? ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד והכלים שנטמאו במשקין כלים דאיטמאו במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין דזב דאוריי' נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ח) וכי ירוק הזב בטהור מה שביד טהור טמאתי לך אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ וגזירה משום משקין דזב
4 Shall we say, By the liquid of a <i>zab</i>? But that is Biblical, for it is written, and if the <i>zab</i> spit upon him that is clean; [then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lbid. XV, 8. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> [meaning] what is in the clean man's hand have I declared unclean unto thee!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This interpretation is not really germane to the difficulty which arises directly from the verse; v. Rashi. Since the clothes are to be washed etc., the saliva must rank as original ('father of') uncleanness, for only such defiles garments and man. The vessels therefore defiled by the saliva (or any fluid emanating from a zab) are unclean in the first degree, and defile terumah by Biblical law. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> Rather it refers to liquid defiled by a reptile, and it is a preventive measure on account of the fluid of a <i>zab</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former is unclean in the first degree, and by Biblical law does not (defile vessels (v. previous note); nevertheless the Rabbis enacted that it shall defile vessels, which in turn render terumah unfit, lest it might be confused with the fluid of a zab, which will also be held incapable of defiling vessels. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ה וידים תלמידי שמאי והלל גזור שמאי והלל גזור דתניא יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית שמעון בן שטח תיקן כתובה לאשה וגזר טומאה על כלי מתכות שמאי והלל גזרו טומאה על הידים
5 'And the hands'. Did then the disciples of Shammai and Hillel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is implied by the terms Beth Shammai, Beth Hillel. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> decree this: [Surely] Shammai and Hillel [themselves] decreed it! For it was taught, Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in Persia; Neub. Geogr. p. 275. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two Rabbis of the early Maccabean period (second century B.C.E.); together they formed the beginning of the Zugoth (duumvirate) which governed Jewish religious life until Hillel and Shammai. It may be observed that the title 'Rabbi' is not prefixed to their names: the famous letter of Sherira Gaon to Jacob b. Nissim, quoted by Nathan b. Jehiel in the Aruk (s.v. [H]) declares that this title dates from the time of R. Johanan b. Zakkai only. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ו וכ"ת שמאי וסיעתו והלל וסיעתו והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י"ח דבר גזרו ובי"ח נחלקו ואילו הלל ושמאי לא נחלקו אלא בג' מקומות דא"ר הונא בג' מקומות נחלקו ותו לא וכ"ת אתו אינהו גזור לתלות ואתו תלמידייהו וגזרו לשרוף והאמר אילפא ידים תחלת גזירתן לשריפה אלא אתו אינהו גזור ולא קבלו מינייהו ואתו תלמידייהו גזרו וקבלו מינייהו
6 decreed uncleanness in respect of the country of the heathens and glassware.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former, to stem the emigration of Jews from Palestine consequent upon the troublous times of the Maccabees; and the latter probably because glassware was manufactured in those countries, or because they learnt at that time that its manufacture was similar to that of earthenware; Weiss, Dor. 1, 105 ');"><sup>14</sup></span> Simeon b. Shetah instituted the woman's marriage settlement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a woman married, she brought a dowry to her husband, which was returnable if he divorced her. Originally the security for the return of the dowry was deposited with her father. This went through a number of changes until Simeon b. Shetah enacted that the husband should trade with the dowry and mortgage all his effects for its repayment, the purpose being to make divorce more difficult. This is the meaning of the present passage, not that he actually instituted the marriage settlement itself, J, Keth. end of chapter VIII, and Weiss, Dor. 1, 144 and note a.l. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> and imposed uncleanness upon metal utensils.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed below. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ז ואכתי שלמה גזר דא"ר יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שתיקן שלמה עירובין ונטילת ידים יצתה בת קול ואמרה (משלי כג, טו) בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני (משלי כז, יא) חכם בני ושמח לבי ואשיבה חורפי דבר אתא
7 Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness for the hands. And should you answer, [It means] Shammai and his band and Hillel and his band [of scholars];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., enacted the eighteen measures. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> surely Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They enacted eighteen measures, and they differed on eighteen measures,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., these eighteen measures which they enacted jointly were originally subjects of controversy between them (Rashi). ');"><sup>18</sup></span> whereas Hillel and Shammai differed only in three places; for R. Huna said, in three places they differed, and no more! And should you answer, They [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed that it be suspended,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the hands are only suspected of uncleanness, and if they touch terumah it is 'suspended', and may neither be eaten, as clean, nor burnt as unclean. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> while their disciples came and decreed that it be burnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ruling that the hands are definitely unclean, not merely suspected. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> surely Ilia said: The original decree concerning hands was for burning? — Rather, they [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed it, yet it was not accepted from them; then their disciples came and decreed, and it was accepted from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The need for renewing some of the early Rabbinical enactments, to which reference is made in the present discussion, arose through the interdict which the Sadducees laid upon their observance; Weiss, Dor, I, 143f; cf. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 584 seq. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> But still, Solomon decreed it? For Raba Judah said in Samuel's name, When Solomon instituted 'erubin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, Glos. and p. 18, n. 7. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> and the washing of the hands, a Heavenly Echo came forth and declared, 'My son, if thine heart be wise; My heart shall be glad, even mine';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXIII, 15. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> and 'My son, be wise, and make my heart glad, That I may answer him that reproacheth me'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII, 11. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>