Shabbat 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

And he served Torah scholars extensively -

why did he die in the middle of his life ?!

And no one would return an answer to her.

And Elijah said:

Once I was a guest at her home, and she recounted the entire incident.

And I said to her: During the days of your menstruation,

which are the seven days from the first sighting of menstrual blood -

how was he toward you

[how did he conduct himself toward you]?

She said to me: Heaven forbid -

he did not touch me even with his little finger!

I continued questioning her:

During your days of purification,

which are the seven clean days without blood that a zava [a woman who saw blood for three consecutive days

not during “the time of her menstruation”]

must count after the end of her last sighting, and during which she must wear white garments in order to examine herself, lest the counting be interrupted by seeing blood -

how was he toward you

during those days?

She said to me: During those days,

he ate with me, drank with me, and slept with me with bodily contact.

But

it did not enter his mind

to do to me

anything else

[marital relations].

And I said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent who killed him!

Because

your husband did not show deference

to

the Torah .

For the Torah says: “And you shall not approach a woman during the impurity of her menstruation”

[and this prohibition also includes a woman impure with ziva]; even bodily contact alone is prohibited.

For as long as she had not immersed, she was still in her state of impurity, and she was forbidden to him by Torah law. And as we expound from “She shall remain in her menstruation”: She shall remain in her state until she enters the water [Rashi]. Therefore, it says about him, “He did not show deference to the Torah,” to teach this exposition. [Maharsha].

When Rav Dimi came, he said:

The reason that this pious man was lenient in this matter was that

the bed

[was] wide

.

Since they were not in bodily contact, he held that it was permitted to do so.

In the West they said, Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef said:

He slept with her while

an apron

which she was girded with

separated between him and her.

That was why he was lenient with himself.

Mishna:

And these

laws stated in this chapter are

among

the laws that the Sages stated

at the upper chamber of Hanania ben Hizkiah ben Garon, when they went up to visit him.

The Gemara will explain to which Mishna this refers.

There they counted, standing to determine who were the majority and who were the minority,

and they counted

there to determine who were the majority and who were the minority,

and

it was found that

the students of the House of Shammai outnumbered

the students of

the House of Shammai over

the students of

the House of Hillel

in the tally. Therefore, the halakha was established in accordance with them in these laws.

And they decreed eighteen matters on that day.

Gemara:

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

How did we learn in the Mishna -

Is it

“These

are among the laws that they stated at the upper chamber of Hanania ben Hizkiah ben Garon”

we learned

without the conjunction “and”?

Or

perhaps

“And these

are among the laws”

we learned?

Abaye explains the uncertainty:

Is it

“And these we learned”

with the conjunction “and,” and does our Mishna refer to

these

laws

that we stated

in the previous Mishna - namely, that the laws “One may not inspect his garments” and “One may not read by candlelight” were stated at Hanania’s upper chamber?

Or did we learn “These”

without the conjunction “and”? According to this, the Mishna refers to the laws

that we are going to state

in the Mishna

below.

Only those were stated there.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: One may not inspect by candlelight, and one may not read by candlelight -

and these are among the laws stated at the upper chamber of Hanania ben Hizkiah ben Garon!

It follows that the laws of the previous Mishna are among the eighteen matters, and not the laws of the Mishna below. If so,

infer from this

that

“And these we learned.”

And we conclude:

Infer from this!

Until the time of Rabbi, the teachings of the Oral Torah were not written down. It was forbidden to write all the Mishnayot and beraitot, because of the verse: “You may not put matters transmitted orally into writing.” This continued until Rabbi permitted writing them because of “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have nullified Your Torah.”

The exception was the “Scroll of Fasts,” in which they wrote down, as a record on a scroll, all the days on which a miracle had occurred for them and they had been saved from their troubles, so that they would know that on those days it was forbidden to fast.

The Sages taught: Who wrote

the

“Scroll of Fasts”?

They said: Hanania ben Hizkiah and his colleagues

wrote it. Because

they cherished the troubles.

The miracle through which they had been saved from the troubles was dear to them, and they wished to mention it and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, for it. They wrote down these days in order to make them holidays and so that people would not fast on them.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: We too cherish troubles. But what can we do?

If we were to write

all the troubles and miracles

we would not be able to do so!

Since they occur continually, we would have to make every day a holiday.

Alternatively:

The reason we did not write down these days is that

a fool does not suffer injury.

That is, a fool does not sense the harmful blows that come upon him. So too, we do not sense the troubles, and consequently we do not recognize the miracle of being saved from them.

Alternatively: The flesh of the dead does not feel the scalpel,

the knife that cuts it. This is a metaphor for someone who is accustomed to troubles and therefore no longer feels them.

And we raise an objection: Is that so? Does the dead not feel?

But didn’t Rabbi Yitzhak say: The worm’s bite is painful

the worm that bites

the dead -

like a needle in the flesh of the living?

As it is stated: “For his flesh shall pain him, and his soul shall mourn over him.”

And we answer:

Say instead: The flesh of the dead

[flesh that has dried]

that

is found

in

a living person’s body

feels the scalpel.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Indeed, that man should be remembered for good, and Hanania ben Hizkiah was his name,

for had it not been for him,

the

Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden.

Because

its words

in the Book of Ezekiel

contradicted

the

words of the Torah

[for example: “Every carcass and animal torn by a wild beast, whether of birds or animals, the priests shall not eat.” This seemingly implies that Israelites are permitted to eat them. And, for example, the sin offering mentioned there in connection with a priest who became impure through contact with the dead, which he brings when he becomes pure after seven days, although there is no allusion to it in the Torah]. Therefore, the Sages sought to hide it.

What did

Hanania ben Hizkiah

do

in his upper chamber?

They brought him three hundred jugs of oil,

for lighting and provisions throughout the entire period of his stay there.

And he sat in the upper chamber and expounded them

for all the verses that appeared to contradict the words of the Torah, until he resolved all the contradictions [for example, regarding an animal carcass or an animal torn by a wild beast: they are certainly forbidden to Israelites as well. Rather, since the act of melika is permitted to priests for eating in the case of a bird sin offering, it was necessary to warn them concerning the melika of unconsecrated birds, which renders them carcasses].

We learned in the Mishna:

And they decreed eighteen matters

on that day.

What are the eighteen matters?

Nine of them are matters concerning which they decreed that, by rabbinic law, they disqualify teruma, prohibiting it from being eaten like impure teruma.

As we learned: These disqualify teruma

through contact with them: A. A person

who eats

an amount equivalent to half a pras of

food

that is

first

in degree of impurity.

By Torah law, a person becomes impure through eating an impure substance only when he eats the carcass of a kosher bird, and only while he is eating it. All the more so, a person who eats food that is first in degree of impurity does not become impure through it. The Rabbis decreed that a person who eats food that is first in degree of impurity becomes second in degree of impurity. Although a second in degree of impurity does not impart impurity to ordinary food, it disqualifies teruma.

B.

And

a person

who eats

half a pras of

food

that is

second

in degree of impurity - they decreed that he becomes second in degree of impurity, and he disqualifies teruma through contact with it .

C.

And

likewise,

one who drinks

a quarter-log of

impure liquids -

although by Torah law he does not become impure, by rabbinic law he becomes second in degree of impurity and disqualifies teruma.

D. Likewise, an impure person who immersed and became pure from his impurity, and on that same day [even after sunset, when he has already become permitted to eat teruma. Tosafot]

immersed his head and the majority of his body in drawn water -

they decreed that through the drawn water he again becomes second in degree of impurity and disqualifies teruma.

E.

And

even one who had been

entirely pure

beforehand,

upon whose head and the majority of whose body three log of drawn water fell

they decreed impurity upon him, and he disqualifies teruma.

F.

And likewise they decreed that

when

a scroll

which is one of the twenty-four books of the Holy Writings of Torah, Prophets, and Writings is touched, it disqualifies teruma, like a second-degree source of impurity that touches teruma. [Did they decree that the scroll itself should be considered second-degree impure, or did they merely decree that teruma touching it should be disqualified? See Tosafot, s.v. “The tanna.” And the Rash in tractate Yadayim wrote: Why would one think that the scroll should become impure?!].

G.

And likewise

the

hands,

before they are washed, are second-degree impure and disqualify teruma.

And one who immersed during the day

[who has already immersed to purify himself from his impurity, but sunset has not yet occurred] disqualifies teruma through contact with it. However, it is not included among the eighteen matters, since by Torah law it disqualifies teruma, and not because of a decree.

H.

And the foods

that became impure through impure liquids are second-degree impure. This will be explained below .

I.

And vessels that became impure through liquids

are impure, become second-degree in impurity, and disqualify teruma. This will be explained below.

And the Gemara proceeds to explain each of these nine matters.

There are three distinctions in the order of impurity.

A. With regard to ordinary food, we find that each of the primary sources of impurity renders everything that becomes impure through it first-degree impure. That first-degree impurity renders everything that becomes impure through it second-degree impure. But a second degree does not render anything after it third-degree impure.

B. With regard to teruma, it is an additional principle that even a second-degree impurity disqualifies from eating the teruma that touches it [and this is derived from one who immersed during the day, who resembles a second degree in that he is forbidden to eat teruma, and he disqualifies teruma].

C. With regard to consecrated offerings, it is an additional principle that even a third-degree impurity disqualifies consecrated offerings that it touches. [This is derived from one lacking atonement, who resembles a third degree in that he is permitted to eat teruma but is forbidden only to eat consecrated offerings, and he disqualifies consecrated offerings].

Now the Gemara discusses what we learned: “These disqualify teruma [through contact with them: a person] who eats first-degree food, and one who eats second-degree food”!

From the fact that it says “disqualify teruma,” it follows that through contact with them the teruma becomes merely “disqualified” for eating, but does not become “impure” in the sense that it could disqualify other teruma through contact.

And we consider the matter:

Who

is this

tanna

who holds that

one who eats first-degree food, and one who eats second-degree food -

does disqualify

teruma, but

does not render impure

render it impure

so that it itself becomes impure and capable of disqualifying other teruma?