Shabbat 15a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

and

decreed

concerning the impurity of the hands

with regard to sacrificial food.

For whoever touches sacrificial food with hands that have not been immersed, renders it impure.

And they came [the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel]

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel]

and decreed

that they should disqualify it

even with regard to teruma.

The essential matter: Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Eighteen

things

they decreed.

And

in those

eighteen

things

the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai disagreed,

and the halakha was decided according to the School of Shammai.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught: They agreed

the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai in these eighteen matters.

And we answer:

On that day they disagreed

the School of Hillel with the School of Shammai,

but on the following day they agreed

and conceded to them.

The essential matter: Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel themselves disagreed in three places

.

And these are they: a. The measure of dough that is obligated in ḥalla —

Shammai says:

Dough that contains the measure of

a kav

or more is obligated

to

separate

the ḥalla.

Because it is written: “From the first of your kneading-troughs you shall give a portion as a ḥalla.” And we measure according to the amount of the dough of the wilderness. This is the manna, of which an omer per head descended. And there it is stated: “And the omer—it is a tenth of an eifa.”

And the eifa is three se’a. And the se’a is six kav. It follows that an eifa contains eighteen kav.

And we measure the tenth of an eifa from the outside. That is to say, after the tenth is separated, eighteen kav remain in the eifa. Therefore, two kav must be added to the calculation of the eifa, so that together with the addition there are twenty kav. And from them one calculates a tenth, namely, two kav.

And he holds that they separated from that omer twice, for they made from it two meals, one in the morning and one in the evening [and the Raavad, in his commentary to Tractate Eduyot, added that this is implied by the verse “your kneading-troughs,” which implies two kneading-troughs]. It follows that there is an obligation to separate ḥalla for every kav. Tosafot.

And Hillel says:

Only dough measuring

two kav

or more is obligated in ḥalla. And he too holds that a tenth of an eifa is two kav. However, he does not find it implied that they separated from the omer twice; rather, there was only one obligation to separate ḥalla from it.

And the Sages say: Not according to the words of this one and not according to the words of that one. Rather, a kav and a half is obligated in ḥalla.

For they hold like Hillel, that there was only one measure of the obligation of ḥalla in the omer. However, we do not measure the tenth from the outside, which is two kav out of twenty kav, but from the inside, which is a tenth of the eighteen kav that are in the eifa itself. It follows that a tenth of an eifa contains one kav and four-fifths of a kav, [according to the calculation: 18/10 = 1.8], which are forty-three and one-fifth eggs.

And this was the measure in the wilderness measures. But when they entered the Land, they increased the measures by one-sixth. It follows that in one kav and four-fifths according to the wilderness measure, there are one and a half kav according to the Jerusalem measure, which equals six log. And this is the measure of dough obligated in ḥalla.

And in Sepphoris they again increased the measures by one-sixth, for five Sepphoris log fit into six Jerusalem log. Therefore,

When they enlarged the measures, they said: Five quarters

of a kav

of flour [namely, one kav and a quarter]

are obligated in ḥalla.

For they equal one and a half Jerusalem kav, and one kav and four-fifths according to the wilderness measure.

Rabbi Yose says: Five

quarters of a kav are still

exempt

from ḥalla. And specifically

five

quarters

and

something

are obligated.

For he holds that the eggs of the wilderness measure were larger than our eggs by one-twentieth for each egg.

b.

And the other

dispute is concerning that which we hold: A ritual bath that does not contain forty se’a, if drawn water falls into it, disqualifies it. And even if they add to it until there are forty se’a of rainwater in it, it remains disqualified [but if it contains forty se’a of rainwater, even if a thousand se’a of drawn water fall into it, it is fit].

And Hillel and Shammai disagree concerning the measure of drawn water that disqualifies the ritual bath.

Hillel says: A full hin of drawn water —

disqualifies the ritual bath,

if it fell into it while it was lacking forty se’a, and this is twelve log. And the reason he used the term “hin,” which is the language of the Torah, and did not use “twelve log,” which is the language of the Mishna everywhere, is because this is how he heard it from Shemaya and Avtalion, his teachers.

For a person is obligated to state

the teaching

in the language of his teacher.

Shammai says: Nine kav

of drawn water [which are thirty-six log] disqualify the ritual bath.

And the Sages say: Not according to the words of this one and not according to the words of that one

is the measure.

Until they saw two wool-carders [

weavers]

from the Dung Gate

in Jerusalem, and they testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalion that three log of drawn water disqualify the ritual bath.

And the Sages upheld their words.

c.

And the other

dispute is that which we learned:

The issuing of menstrual blood from the source of the woman’s blood renders her impure with menstrual impurity even before the blood has exited her body. From the moment the blood leaves the womb for the passage that leads the blood from the womb outside her body [which is called in the language of the Sages the “corridor,”] she is impure.

And Shammai and Hillel disagreed concerning a woman who saw blood that emerged from her body, whether one must be concerned that the blood had previously emerged into the corridor and rendered her impure, and only after remaining there did it emerge outside.

And the question concerns pure things that the woman touched before the time of the sighting, whether there is reason to render them impure retroactively.

Shammai says: All women

who see menstrual blood and become impure with menstrual impurity need not be concerned that the blood emerged earlier and remained in the corridor. Rather,

their time is sufficient for them!

For it is sufficient for us to say that the blood began to emerge at the time when she saw it emerging from her body.

And for this reason, as long as it is not known to them that they are impure, all the pure things that they touched retain the status of presumed purity. For this is the rule: when there is doubt, one does not remove a thing from its presumption until it becomes clearly known to us that its original status has changed.

And Hillel says:

They are retroactively impure,

from examination to examination,

even for many days. If she examined herself once and found herself pure, and after a week examined herself again and was found impure, she is doubtfully impure from the time of her first examination. And all the pure things that she touched during that week between the first examination and the second are doubtfully impure. For we are concerned that immediately after the first examination the blood emerged from her and remained in the corridor. And although everywhere we follow the presumption, here they decreed with regard to pure things as a safeguard.

And the Sages say: Not according to the words of this one,

Shammai, who was excessively lenient,

and not according to the words of that one,

Hillel, who was excessively stringent,

but

she is never retroactively impure for more than a twenty-four-hour period [twenty-four hours] from her sighting.

And this is the halakha according to the Sages:

a twenty-four-hour period —

is reduced by an examination to an examination.

If the time that elapsed between one examination and the other is longer than a twenty-four-hour period, she is impure only for twenty-four hours, for beyond this we are not concerned with retroactive impurity.

And

if the time that elapsed

from the examination

the first [at which she was found pure]

to the examination

the second [at which she was found impure] is less than a twenty-four-hour period [that is, she examined herself within the day preceding her sighting — then the time of her first examination

reduces [

from] the time of

the twenty-four-hour period!

For she is not retroactively impure for all these twenty-four hours, but only from the time of her first examination, since certainly she did not become impure before then, for at the first examination she was found pure.

It follows that two times determine the period for rendering her retroactively impure: either the time of the previous examination or the twenty-four hours preceding her present sighting. And we always follow the more lenient of the two.

And we raise an objection:

And

when

there is no longer

any dispute between Shammai and Hillel besides these three?

But there is

that which we learned: One who brings a peace-offering on a Festival —

Hillel says:

He must

lean

on his offering, as it is written: “And he shall lean his hand upon the head of his offering.”

And Shammai says: He should not lean

on his offering on a Festival, because of shevut, since he leans upon the animal; rather, he leans on the eve of the Festival. For it is forbidden to make use of animals on Shabbat and on a Festival, as we learned: “One may not ride upon an animal.” And leaning is likewise considered making use of an animal, since one must lean with all his strength.

[And in Beitza 20a it is explained that according to Hillel we require “immediately after leaning, slaughter.” Therefore, leaning may not be prohibited on a Festival because of shevut, for it is impossible to lean on the eve of the Festival. But according to the School of Shammai, we do not require immediately after leaning, slaughter. Therefore, it is possible to decree against leaning on a Festival, since it can be performed on the eve of the Festival.]

And we answer:

When Rav Huna said

that they disagreed in only three places, that was

where there was no dispute of other great authorities

alongside them

with them,

the Hillel and Shammai, but they alone disagreed about it. But concerning leaning on a Festival, all the pairs who preceded Hillel and Shammai had already disagreed. They were Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yoḥanan, and Yehoshua ben Peraḥya and Nittai the Arbelite, and Yehuda ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetaḥ, and Shemaya and Avtalion. One of each pair said to lean, and one said not to lean.

And we raise another objection:

And

indeed, besides these three places,

there is

another dispute of Shammai and Hillel.

For it was taught:

One who harvests

grapes enough

to

tread them in a

winepress —

Shammai says: They have been rendered fit

to receive impurity [for food does not receive impurity until it has been rendered fit by liquids] through the liquid that issues from them at the time of harvesting.

And although liquids render food fit only when the owners are pleased with their being placed upon the food, and with this wine that issues from them at the time of harvesting he is not pleased, for it is being lost, nevertheless they decreed that they are rendered fit through this. A decree lest he harvest them in pitch-coated baskets. For then the liquid that drips from them does not go to waste, but remains in the pitch-coated basket, and he is pleased with the liquid that remains.

And Hillel says: They have not been rendered fit

by this liquid, since he is not pleased with this. And he does not accept Shammai’s decree.

And we answer: That which Rav Huna said, that they disagreed in three places —

apart [

outside]

from that dispute

he said. It is not to be counted among their disputes,

for

indeed

there Hillel remained silent to Shammai

and conceded to him.

We learned above:

Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah, and Yose

ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem, decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels.

And we considered it: Did they decree impurity upon the land of the nations?

But the Sages had

been

eighty years

before the Destruction

decreed

so.

For

indeed

Rav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yose became ill, they sent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three things that you said in the name of your father,

Rabbi Yose.

He sent to them: So my father said:

a.

One hundred eighty years before [

before]

the Temple was destroyed, the kingdom

of wicked

Rome spread over Israel.

b.

Eighty years before

before

the Temple was destroyed —

they decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels

that they should receive impurity.

c.

Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled

from the Chamber of Hewn Stone,

and settled in the Shops [

the name of a place that was on the Temple Mount].

And we considered it:

For what halakhic purpose

does he say that the Sanhedrin was exiled, and what practical difference is there?

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: To say that they did not judge cases of fines

during those years in which the Sanhedrin did not sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

And we are astonished:

Cases of fines, does it enter your mind

that they did not judge? But for fines we do not require a Sanhedrin; rather, a court of three expert judges is sufficient.

And we answer:

Rather, say: They did not judge capital cases

when the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone. For capital cases are not judged by the lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three in each city unless the Great Sanhedrin is sitting in its fixed place in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. For it is written: “And you shall do according to the matter that they declare to you, from that place.” This teaches that the place [the Chamber of Hewn Stone, where the great court sits] causes the accused to be sentenced to death. And this verse speaks of capital cases concerning a rebellious elder.

And the reason that the Sanhedrin moved from its place was that they saw that the murderers had multiplied, and they could not judge them. They said: It is better that we move from place to place, so that they will not become liable! Avoda Zara 8b.

In any event, it is taught that the Sages who were eighty years before the Destruction decreed upon the land of the nations, and not Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yoḥanan.

And if you would say

that

in the eighty years

before the Destruction,

they too were

among the Sages of that generation —

This cannot be said.

For it was taught: Hillel, and Shimon

his son,

and

Rabban

Gamliel

the Elder, son of Shimon,

and

Rabban

Shimon

son of Rabban Gamliel the Elder —

conducted their presidencies while the Temple still stood,

during the

one hundred

final

years

at the end of the period before the Destruction.

It follows that Hillel, who was the head of the dynasty, began serving as nasi one hundred years before the Destruction.

Whereas Yose ben Yo'ezer, man of Zeredah, and Yose ben Yohanan

man of Jerusalem,

were much earlier,

several generations before Hillel. For they were the first of the pairs, whereas Hillel and Shammai were the last among the pairs.