Shabbat 30

אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דפ' שנה גזור אאוירא לתלות

Rather say they came and decreed in respect to a clod, that it be burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. terumah which came into contact with a clod of earth from the 'land of the heathens', as something definitely unclean. ');">¹</span> but nothing at all in respect to the atmosphere;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When terumah enters the atmosphere of the 'land of the heathen' with nothing intervening between it and the ground. ');">²</span>

למימרא דחדא גזירתא הוה לשריפה והאמר אילפא ידים תחלת גזירתן לשריפה ידים הוא דתחלת גזירתן לשריפה הא מידי אחרינא לא

while the Rabbis of the eighty years came and decreed in respect to the atmosphere that it [<i>terumah</i>] be suspended.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On 'suspended' v. p. 60, n. 2 ');">³</span> Shall we say that the original enactment was for burning? Surely Ilfa said: The original decree concerning hands was for burning. Thus, only concerning hands was the original decree for burning, but concerning nothing else? — Rather say they came and decreed in respect to a clod, that it be suspended, and nothing at all in respect to the atmosphere; and then the Rabbis of these eighty years came and decreed in respect to a clod that it be burnt and in respect to the atmosphere that it be suspended. Yet still, that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The enactment of burning in respect to a clod. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לתלות ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דפ' שנה גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא לתלות

was decreed in Usha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A city in Galilee, near Sepphoris and Tiberias, and the scene of an important Rabbinical synod or synods about the time of the Hadrianic persecution in the middle of the second century C.E. V. J.E. 'Synod of Usha'. ');">⁵</span> For we learnt: <i>Terumah</i> is burnt on account of six doubtful cases [of uncleanness]: — [i] The doubt of Beth ha-Peras;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A field one square peras (peras half the length of a furrow — fifty cubits) in area, declared unclean because a grave was ploughed in it and the crushed bones scattered over the field, so that their exact position is not known, If terumah enters its atmosphere it must be burnt, though it is doubtful whether it was actually over the crushed bones. ');">⁶</span>

ואכתי באושא גזור דתנן על ו' ספקות שורפין את התרומה על ספק בית הפרס ועל ספק עפר הבא מארץ העמים ועל ספק בגדי עם הארץ ועל ספק כלים הנמצאין ועל ספק הרוקין ועל ספק מי רגלי אדם שכנגד מי רגלי בהמה על ודאי מגען (ועל) ספק טומאתן שורפין את התרומה

[ii] The doubt of earth which comes from the land of the heathens;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any earth which comes thence. ');">⁷</span> [iii] The doubt attached to the garments of an 'am ha-arez;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. P. 51, n. 1. His garments are doubtful, because his wife may have sat upon them while a menstruant; v. Hag. 18b. ');">⁸</span>

ר' יוסי אומר אף על ספק מגען ברה"י שורפין וחכ"א ברה"י תולין ברה"ר טהורין

[iv] the doubt of vessels which are found;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is unknown whether they are clean or not. ');">⁹</span> [v] doubtful saliva;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All saliva found is suspected of uncleanness, as it may be of a zab; v. p. 58, n. 10. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמר עולא אלו ו' ספיקות באושא התקינו אלא אתו אינהו גזור אגושא לתלות ואאוירא ולא כלום ואתו רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור אידי ואידי לתלות ואתו באושא גזור אגושא לשרוף ואאוירא כדקאי קאי:

and [vi] the doubtful human urine near cattle urine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not the same as the preceding, where the substances themselves were not in doubt; e.g., the object was definitely a utensil, or saliva. Here, however, there is a double doubt; it may not be human urine at all, but cattle urine; and even if it is, it may not be a zab's (only his defiles). Yet the Rabbis ruled it definitely unclean, even when found near cattle urine, so that it might be supposed that this is the same. ');">¹¹</span> On account of their certain contact, which is doubtful defilement, <i>terumah</i> is burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If terumah comes definitely into contact (or as explained in n. 2) with these, which renders it doubtfully unclean, it is burnt. ');">¹²</span>

כלי זכוכית מ"ט גזור בהו רבנן טומאה א"ר יוחנן אמר ר"ל הואיל ותחלת ברייתן מן החול שוינהו רבנן ככלי חרס אלא מעתה לא תהא להן טהרה במקוה אלמה תנן ואלו חוצצין בכלים הזפת והמור בכלי זכוכית

R. Jose said: It is burnt even on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 20, n. 5. ');">¹³</span> But the Sages maintain: [If there is doubtful contact] in a private domain we suspend it; in public ground, it [the <i>terumah</i>] is clean. Now 'Ulla observed, These six cases of doubt were enacted at Usha!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difficulty arises from ii. ');">¹⁴</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שניקבו והטיף לתוכן אבר ור"מ היא דאמר הכל הולך אחר המעמיד דתניא כלי זכוכית שנקבו והטיף לתוכן אבר אמר רבן שמעון ב"ג ר"מ מטמא וחכמים מטהרין

— Rather say they [Jose b. Jo'ezer and Jose b. Johanan] came and decreed suspense in respect of a clod and nothing at all in respect of atmosphere; then the Rabbis of the eighty years came and decreed suspense in both cases; then they came at Usha and decreed burning in respect of a clod, and as to the atmosphere they left it in status quo. Why did the Rabbis impose uncleanness upon glassware? — Said R. Johanan in the name of Resh Lakish, Since it is manufactured from<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the beginning of its making'. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא מעתה

sand, the Rabbis declared it the same as earthenware.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Other edd. omit 'R. Johanan said in the name of', reading simply Resh Lakish. It is certainly unlikely that R. Johanan, who, as head of the Academy at Tiberias enjoyed a superiority over Resh Lakish, his contemporary, would report his statement. ');">¹⁶</span> If so, let them be incapable of purification in a mikweh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as earthenware. ');">¹⁷</span> Why then did we learn, And the following interpose in utensils: pitch and myrrh gum in the case of glass vessels?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. IX, 5. When a utensil is purified in a mikweh, nothing must interpose between it and the water; if it does, the immersion is ineffective: pitch and gum on the side of a glass vessel constitute an interposition. ');">¹⁸</span> — The circumstances here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Mik. IX, 5. ');">¹⁹</span> are e.g., they were perforated, and molten lead was poured into them, this agreeing with R. Meir, who maintained, Everything depends on the support.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The perforated glass vessel is supported by the lead, i.e., it can be used only through the lead. Hence, according to R. Meir, it is a metal, not a glass vessel. ');">²⁰</span> For it was taught: If glass vessels are perforated and [molten] lead is poured into them, — said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: R. Meir declares them unclean, while the Sages declare them clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi in R.H. 19a offers two explanations: (i) When an unclean vessel is perforated, it becomes clean, since it can no longer be used as a vessel. Now, if a metal utensil is thus broken and then repaired, it reverts to its former state, but not so a glass vessel (infra 16a). R. Meir maintains that a glass vessel supported by metal is treated as metal; while the Rabbis hold that it is still regarded as a glass vessel. (ii) A clean glass vessel supported by metal becomes Biblically unclean, according to R. Meir, as a metal utensil, while the Rabbis hold that it is Biblically clean, as a glass vessel, and is subject to defilement only on account of the Rabbinical enactment; the reasoning being the same as before. Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H] is inclined to agree with the second interpretation. ');">²¹</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are treated as earthenware vessels. ');">²²</span>