Shabbat 29

Chapter 29

א שלמה גזר לקדשים ואתו אינהו וגזור אף לתרומה
1 — Solomon came and decreed in respect of holy things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the hands must be washed before eating e.g., flesh of sacrifices. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> while they came and instituted [it] in respect of <i>terumah</i>.
ב גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י"ח גזרו ובי"ח נחלקו והתניא הושוו בו ביום נחלקו ולמחר הושוו
2 [To revert to] the main text: 'Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They enacted eighteen measures, and differed in eighteen 'But it was taught: They were in agreement? — On that day they differed and [only] on the morrow were they in agreement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Halevi, Doroth, 1, p. 600 for a discussion of a variant which he considers correct. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> [To revert to] the main text: R. Huna said: In three places Shammai and Hillel differed: Shammai said: <i>Hallah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג גופא אמר רב הונא בג' 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 ר' יוסי אומר ה' פטורין ה' ועוד חייבין
3 is due from a <i>kab</i> [of flour]; Hillel said: From two <i>kabs</i>: but the Sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a <i>kab</i> and a half is liable to <i>hallah</i>. When the measures were enlarged, they said, Five quarters of flour are liable to <i>hallah</i>. R. Jose said: [Exactly] five are exempt; just over five are liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 1 kab = four logs = 2197.4 cu. cm. The controversy centres on the interpretation of 'your dough' in Num. XV, 20. The Talmud does not state when the measures were enlarged, but the enlargement was by one fifth, i.e., one 'Sepphoric' log (which was the name of the new measure) = one and one fifth Jerusalem log, as the old one was called; v. 'Ed., Sonc. ed., p. 2, n. 3. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> And the second? — Hillel said: A <i>hin</i> full of drawn water renders a mikweh unfit. (For one must state [a dictum] in his teacher's phraseology. Shammai maintained: nine <i>kabs</i>). But the Sages ruled neither as one nor as the other, until two weavers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Halevi, op. cit., p. 122, n. 59. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד 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 ב' גרדיים משער האשפה שבירושלים והעידו משום שמעיה ואבטליון ששלשה לוגין מים שאובין פוסלים את המקוה וקיימו חכמים את דבריהם
4 came from the dung gate of Jerusalem and testified on the authority of Shemaiah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water render a mikweh unfit, and the Sages ratified their words.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mikweh (v. Glos.) must be filled with 'living' water, as opposed to 'drawn' water, i.e., water drawn in vessels, and it must contain not less then forty se'ahs. The controversy refers to the quantity of drawn water which, if poured into the mikweh before it contains forty se'ahs of 'living' water, renders it unfit. The hin is a Biblical measure, equal to twelve logs. The passage 'for one must state (a dictum) in his teacher's phraseology' is difficult, and various interpretations have been advanced. They are discussed by Halevi in Doroth, 1, 3, 95-7, who explains it thus: The teachers referred to are not Shemaiah and Abtalion, Hillel's masters in Palestine, but his Babylonian teachers (unnamed). Now hin is not the usual Mishnaic term but Biblical. This, however, was sometimes preferred to Babylonian because it was constant, whereas the Babylonian measure varied in different places (cf. J. E. XIII, 488 s.v. Cab.). Thus Hillel said a hin full instead of twelve logs, in order to be faithful to his teacher's phraseology. V. 'Ed., Sonc. ed., p. 2 notes. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> And the third? — Shammai said: All women, their time suffices them; Hillel maintained: From examination to examination; but the Sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a full day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from time to time', the technical phrase for a twenty-four hour day. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה 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 ע"י מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעט על יד מעת לעת
5 reduces [the time] between examination and examination, and [the time] between examination and examination reduces a full day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A menstruous woman defiles whatever food she touches. Shammai maintains that this is only from when she discovers her discharge, but not retrospectively. Hillel holds that since her discharge may have been earlier, though she has only now observed it, her uncleanness is retrospective to when she last examined and found herself clean. Thus Shammai said, Their time, sc. when they actually find that they are unclean, suffices them and it has no retrospective effects; whilst Hillel rules, They are retrospectively unclean from the present examination to the last. The Sages make a compromise: she is retrospectively unclean for twenty-four hours or from the last examination, whichever is less. V. 'Ed., Sonc. ed., p. 1 notes. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> And are there no more? But there is [this]: Hillel said: One shall lay [hands]; while Shammai ruled that one must not lay [hands]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a man brings a freewill-offering, part of the ritual consists in his laying hands upon the head of the animal (v. Lev. I, 4; III, 2, 8). The dispute refers to festivals. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ו ותו ליכא והאיכא הלל אומר לסמוך ושמאי אומר שלא לסמוך כי קאמר רב הונא היכא דליכא פלוגתא דרבוותא בהדייהו
6 — R. Huna spoke only of those concerning which there is no dispute of their teachers in addition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This matter was disputed by Shammai and Hillel's predecessors too; v. Hag. 16a. For the importance of this particular question v. Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, p. 44; Weiss, Dor. I, 104. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> But there is also [this:] When one vintages [grapes] for the vat [i.e., to manufacture wine], Shammai maintains: It is made fit [to become unclean]; while Hillel ruled: It is not made fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. P. 45, nn. 1, 4; the same applies to grapes. Now, if the grapes are to be eaten, the liquid they exude whilst being gathered does not subject them to uncleanness, since their owner is displeased therewith. But when they are vintaged for wine they differ; V. infra 17a for the full discussion. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז והאיכא הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר הוכשר והלל אומר לא הוכשר בר מיניה דההיא דהתם קא שתיק ליה הלל לשמאי:
7 — That is excepted, for there Hillel was silenced by Shammai'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he was unable to refute his proofs and accepted Shammai's ruling. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> 'Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness in respect of the country of the heathens and glassware.' But the Rabbis of the 'eighty years' decreed this? For R. Kahana said, When R. Ishmael son of R. Jose fell sick, they [the Rabbis] sent [word] to him, 'Rabbi, Tell us the two or three things which you stated [formerly] on your father's authority.' He sent back, 'Thus did my father say: One hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple the wicked State [sc. Rome] spread over Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judea appears to have entered into official relations with Rome for the first time in 161 B.C.E. at the instance of Judas Maccabeus; Margolis and Marx, Jewish History, p. 145. But the first step which laid Judea under subjection of Rome was the quarrel of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II over the throne, when both brothers appealed to Pompey (e. 66 C.E). A date midway between these two is given here (110 B.C.E.) which may be assumed as merely approximate. This corresponds roughly to the death of Hyrcanus I in 106 B.C.E. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומא' על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית: והא רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור דאמר רב כהנא כשחלה ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי שלחו לו ר' אמור לנו ב' וג' דברים שאמרת (לנו) משום אביך
8 Eighty years before the destruction of the Temple uncleanness was imposed in respect of the country of heathens and glassware. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin went into exile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they forsook their locale in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> and took its seat in the trade Halls.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A place on the Temple Mount Hannuth, v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 267, n. 11. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט שלח להם כך אמר אבא ק"פ שנה עד שלא חרב הבית פשטה מלכות הרשעה על ישראל פ' שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית מ' שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גלתה לה סנהדרין וישבה לה בחנויות למאי הילכתא א"ר יצחק בר אבדימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות ס"ד אלא אימא שלא דנו דיני נפשות
9 (in respect to what law [is this stated]? — Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi, To teach that they did not adjudicate in laws of fines.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the fine for seduction, Deut. XXII, 29. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> 'The laws of fines' can you think so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any court in Palestine consisting of ordained judges was competent to adjudicate in laws of fine, whatever its locale. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
י וכי תימא בפ' 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
10 But say: They did not adjudicate in capital cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 23f. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> ) And should you answer, They [Jose b. Jo'ezer and Jose b. Johanan] flourished during these eighty years too: surely it was taught: Hillel and Simeon [his son], Gamaliel and Simeon wielded their Patriarchate during one hundred years of the Temple's existence;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Hillel commenced his Patriarchate a hundred years before the destruction of the Temple, and he was followed by Simeon, Gamaliel and Simeon, his direct descendants, the four spreading over that century. V, Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 706 seq. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> whereas Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan were much earlier!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. P. 59, n. 4. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>