Shabbat 32

רב אשי אמר לעולם לכלי חרס דמו ודקא קשיא לך לא ליטמו מגבן הואיל ונראה תוכו כברו

R. Ashi said: After all, it is similar to earthen utensils, and as for your difficulty, 'let them not become unclean through their [flat or convex] backs', [the reply] is because its inside is as visible as its outside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From without; hence it is all regarded as the inside. ');">¹</span> 'Simeon b. Shetah instituted a woman's marriage settlement and imposed uncleanness upon metal utensils.' But [the uncleanness of] metal utensils is Biblical, for it is written, howbeit the gold, and the silver [… etc.]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 22. The text continues: everything that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation. ');">²</span> — This [the Rabbinical law] was necessary only in respect of former uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, supra a. ');">³</span>

שמעון בן שטח תיקן כתובה לאשה וגזר טומאה על כלי מתכות כלי מתכות דאורייתא נינהו דכתיב (במדבר לא, כב) אך את הזהב ואת הכסף וגו' לא נצרכה אלא לטומאה ישנה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה בשל ציון המלכה שעשתה משתה לבנה ונטמאו כל כליה ושברתן ונתנתן לצורף וריתכן ועשה מהן כלים חדשים ואמרו חכמים יחזרו לטומאתן ישנה

For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: It once happened that Queen Shalzion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' i.e., Salome Alexandra, wife and successor of Alexander Jannai and according to the Talmud, sister of Simeon b. Shetah. ');">⁴</span> made a banquet for her son and all her utensils were defiled. Thereupon she broke them and gave them to the goldsmith, who melted them down and manufactured new utensils of them. But the Sages declared, They revert to their previous uncleanness. What is the reason? — They were concerned there to provide<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">⁵</span> a fence against the water of separation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2.; i.e., they were anxious to safeguard this law, which would fall into disuse if the expedient of melting and refashioning were widely adopted. ');">⁶</span>

מ"ט משום גדר מי חטאת נגעו בה

Now, that is well on the view that they [the Sages] did not rule thus in respect of all forms of defilement but only in respect of the defilement of the dead:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then is the former uncleanness revived.-The verse quoted in n. 2. refers to such. ');">⁷</span> then it is correct. But on the view that they ruled thus for all forms of uncleanness, what can be said? — Abaye answered: As a preventive measure lest he might not perforate it to the standard of purification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hole which removes its status of a utensil must be of a certain size, — large enough to permit a pomegranate to fall through. ');">⁸</span> Raba said: As a preventive measure lest it be said that tebillah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁹</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר לא לכל הטומאות אמרו אלא לטומאת המת בלבד אמרו שפיר

of that very day is effective for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is purified by means of tebillah it may not be used until the evening; but making a hole and repairing it permits its immediate use. One seeing this vessel thus used on the same day may think that it underwent tebillah, and that the latter too releases it for immediate use. ');">¹⁰</span> Wherein do they differ? — They differ where a smith refashioned it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye's reason still holds good, for one may think that a small note too would have sufficed. But Raba's reason does not operate, for it is plainly evident that this was newly remade. ');">¹¹</span> And what is another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the eighteen enactments. ');">¹²</span>

אלא למאן דאמר לכל הטומאות אמרו מאי איכא למימר אמר אביי גזירה שמא לא יקבנו בכדי טהרתו

For we learnt: If one places vessels under a spout to catch rain water therein, whether they are large vessels or small, or even vessels [made] of stone, earth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Roughly manufactured, without being kneaded and baked. ');">¹³</span> or dung, they render the mikweh unfit. It is all one whether he places or forgets them [there]: that is Beth Shammai's view; but Beth Hillel declare it clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the mikweh retains its powers of purification. ');">¹⁴</span> if he forgets them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 61, n. 3. The spout was fixed in the earth before it was actually a spout, and after fixing it was made hollow to act as a water duct to the mikweh. In that case the water that passes through it is regarded as 'living water'. When, however, the water falls from the spout into vessels, it becomes 'drawn water', which renders the mikweh unfit. This holds good whether they are very large vessels, too big to be susceptible to uncleanness, e.g., a tub more than forty se'ahs in capacity, or very small, so that I might think of disregarding them altogether; also, even if of dung, when they are not regarded as vessels at all in respect to uncleanness. If they are merely forgotten there, Beth Hillel maintain that the water is not 'drawn', since it was unintentional. ');">¹⁵</span>

רבא אמר גזירה שמא יאמרו טבילה בת יומא עולה לה מאי בינייהו. א"ב דרצפינהו מרצף:

Said R. Meir: They took a count, and Beth Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel. Yet Beth Shammai admit it that if he forgets [the utensils] in a courtyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not under the spout, and they are filled with the rain water which flows thence into the mikweh. ');">¹⁶</span> it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 3. Because he had no intention at all of filling it, since he did not place it under the spout. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Jose said: The controversy still stands in its place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they differ here too. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואידך מאי היא דתנן המניח כלים תחת הצינור לקבל בהן מי גשמים אחד כלים גדולים ואחד כלים קטנים ואפילו כלי אבנים וכלי אדמה וכלי גללים פוסלין את המקוה אחד המניח ואחד השוכח דברי ב"ש וב"ה מטהרין בשוכח אמר ר' מאיר נמנו ורבו ב"ש על ב"ה ומודים ב"ש בשוכח בחצר שהוא טהור אמר רבי יוסי עדיין מחלוקת במקומה עומדת

R. Mesharsheya said: The scholars of Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term debe Rab means either the disciples of the Academy founded by Rab or scholars in general; Weiss, Dor, III, 158 (Ed. 1924). ');">¹⁹</span> said: All agree that, if he places them [under the spout] when clouds are massing, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Utensils purified in the mikweh. ');">²⁰</span> are unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the mikweh was rendered unfit, as above. For he showed that he desired the water to flow into the utensils, and though he had forgotten them by the time the rain descended, his original intention was fulfilled, and the water is regarded as drawn. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רב משרשיא דבי רב אמרי הכל מודים כשהניחם בשעת קישור עבים טמאים בשעת פיזור עבים ד"ה טהורין לא נחלקו אלא שהניחם בשעת קישור עבים ונתפזרו וחזרו ונתקשרו מר סבר בטלה מחשבתו ומר סבר לא בטלה מחשבתו

[if he places them there] when the clouds are dispersed, all agree that they are clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there were no clouds, his placing the utensils there was not with the intention of filling them. ');">²²</span> They differ only if he places them there when the clouds were massing, but they then dispersed, and subsequently massed together again:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by then he has forgotten them. ');">²³</span> one Master [Beth Hillel] holds that his intention was nullified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the dispersal of the clouds; hence the subsequent filling does not render the water drawn. ');">²⁴</span>

ולר' יוסי דאמר מחלוקת עדיין במקומה עומדת בצרי להו א"ר נחמן בר יצחק אף בנות כותים נדות מעריסתן בו ביום גזרו:

while the other Master holds that his intention was not nullified. Now, according to R. Jose, who maintained, The controversy still stands in its place, they are less [than eighteen]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is a controversy, the halachah agrees with Beth Hillel, that the mikweh is fit. ');">²⁵</span> — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: On that same day they also enacted that the daughters of Cutheans<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Cutheans were the descendants of the heathens who settled in Samaria after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. They accepted a form of Judaism, and the Rabbis' attitude towards them varied. At times they were regarded as Jews, but they were subsequently declared non-Jews. The present enactment treats them as Jews, who, however, are looked upon with disfavour. ');">²⁶</span>

ואידך מאי היא דתנן כל המטלטלי' מביאין את הטומאה בעובי המרדע אמר רבי טרפון

are niddoth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of niddah, a menstruant woman. ');">²⁷</span> from their cradles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from birth they are treated as unclean, like a niddah. The purpose of this enactment was to discourage intermarriage with them (Tosaf.). ');">²⁸</span> And what is another? For we learnt: All movable objects induce uncleanness by the thickness of an ox-goad.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the defilement caused by a dead person, not by contact but through the fact that both the dead person and the object defiled are under the same covering, e.g., the roof of a house or an overhead awning (cf. Num. XIX, 14f), which induces uncleanness to the object defiled. The width of the covering object must not be less than the thickness of an ox-goad, for which v. infra 17a. ');">²⁹</span> Said R. Tarfon,