Shabbat 16b — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said: In truth,

glass vessels

are entirely likened to earthenware vessels

completely . And they were not made like metal vessels at all.

And as for what is difficult for you, “Let them not become impure from their outside”

like an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure only from its inside—that is not difficult.

Since

the glass vessel is transparent,

and its inside is visible

from the outside, through its walls,

as

that which is visible

within it [

its exterior]—its back is not considered a “back,” but rather an “inside.”

We learned above:

“Shimon ben Shetach enacted a marriage contract for a woman, and decreed impurity upon metal vessels!”

And we raised an objection concerning it: But the impurity of

metal vessels—

is it not

from the Torah!?

As

it is written

with regard to the impurity of the vessels of Midian:

“Only the gold and the silver”—

“only through the water of sprinkling shall it be purified”; and it is not because of an enactment.

And we answered:

It was necessary

for Shimon ben Shetach’s enactment

only concerning former impurity.

For if they became impure and were broken, and one again made vessels from them, they return to their former impurity.

For Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: There was an incident involving the vessels of Queen Zion

[Shelomzion]

who made a banquet for her son.

And all her vessels became impure.

And she broke them, gave them to a smith, and he melted them and made new vessels from them.

And the Sages said

at that time:

“Let them return to their former impurity!”

And the incident occurred in the days of Shimon ben Shetach, for Queen Shelomzion was his sister. And he was head of the court at that time.

And we raised an objection:

What is the reason

the Sages decreed concerning former impurity?

And we answered:

They touched upon it because of a safeguard for the water of the purification offering.

For if breaking them were effective for them, no person would wait seven days for a vessel that became impure through a corpse, until they sprinkled upon it from the water of the purification offering on the third and seventh days and it became pure. Rather, he would break it and repair it immediately in order to purify it. And the law of the water of the purification offering would be forgotten. Therefore, they decreed that breaking it should not benefit it when he later repairs it.

And we raised another objection:

This works well according to the one who says, “They did not say this concerning all

impurities,”

that former impurity should return,

but said it only concerning impurity from a corpse

so [and this is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in Kelim, chapter 11. Tosafot. And Rashi wrote: “I do not know where”],

it is well

that this reason applies: Since the time required for impurity from a corpse is long, and one must wait seven days for it, we are concerned that no person will wait, but will break the impure vessel and repair it.

But according to the one who says

[according to the Sages there] that

they said this concerning all impurities

that former impurity should return—

what can be said?

But there is no water of the purification offering in their case; immersion and sunset alone suffice, and one need not wait. If so, why did they decree?

Abaye said:

The vessel does not leave the status of impurity unless it is perforated with the measure “large enough for a pomegranate to emerge” [so that a pomegranate could pass through that hole]. But with less than this measure, the status of a vessel is not annulled from it.

And therefore they enacted that breaking it should not benefit it after he repairs it,

as a decree lest he not perforate it according to

the measure of its purification,

but make in it a hole smaller than “large enough for a pomegranate,” while it is still impure according to the strict law.

Rava said:

A vessel does not rise from its impurity with regard to teruma and sacred things through immersion until sunset. But if they broke it, it leaves its impurity immediately. Therefore, they enacted that even if they broke it and then repaired it, it should not leave its impurity.

A decree lest

they see people using a vessel that became impure that very day, and not know that it had been broken and repaired . Rather, they will think that it became pure through immersion,

and they will say: “Immersion on the same day is effective for it.”

And they will come to purify a vessel that is immersed for the day, before its sunset, immediately after its immersion.

And we raised an objection:

What is the difference between them

between Abaye and Rava?

And we answered:

There is a difference between them

where

they shattered them completely

[they broke the vessel entirely]!

For according to Abaye’s reason, that we are concerned “lest he not perforate it according to the measure of its purification,” there is also reason to decree in this case. For if it becomes pure through breaking, they will purify it even through a small breaking that is insufficient to annul the status of a vessel.

But according to Rava’s reason, that we are concerned that after they repair it they will not recognize that it was broken, where they shattered it completely there is no concern about this. For it is recognizable in it that it has been renewed.

We learned in the Mishna: And they decreed eighteen matters on that day!

Until now, eleven matters have been counted: the two matters of the Mishna above, and nine matters brought in the Mishna of Taharot.

And we raised an objection:

And the other one,

the tenth decree—

what is it?

And we answered: It is a decree that they decreed concerning the water of a ritual bath. For we hold: Drawn water is unfit for a ritual bath. And it is considered drawn water only when it fell into the vessel through a person’s intention. But if it fell on its own, and he did not reveal his intention that he wanted it, it is not considered drawn water.

And

we learned: “One who places vessels beneath the gutter,

which is a drain fixed in a wall,

to receive rainwater

in them

of the rains, [

And the gutter itself is not considered a vessel with regard to disqualifying the water passing through it as drawn water, since only after he fixed the gutter in the wall did he hollow out its receptacle, and it is impossible to apply the status of a vessel to something whose first existence as a vessel is while attached to a building. Therefore, the water inside it does not become drawn water ].

Both large vessels

[which, because of their great size, are not considered vessels and therefore do not receive the impurity of vessels; for example, wooden vessels that are larger than forty seah. Tosafot],

and both small vessels

which are insignificant,

and even stone vessels and earth vessels

[which were not made by kneading, like earthenware vessels]

and vessels of dung

[marble vessels. So Rashi wrote here. And elsewhere he explained that it is a vessel made from cattle droppings], which are not considered important as vessels with regard to receiving impurity — the rainwater that fell into all these vessels becomes drawn water, and

disqualifies the ritual bath.

Both one who places

the vessels there initially with the intention that the water should fall into them, and at the time the water falls into them his intention is for this,

and both one who

places them and afterward

forgets

that he placed them there, and at the time the water falls his mind is not upon them—the water is drawn water,

the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel declare

the water

pure

when he forgot. Since his intention was not upon them at the time of the falling, they are not considered drawn water, and they are fit for a ritual bath. And later the Gemara explains their dispute.

Rabbi Meir said: Beit Shammai were counted and increased over Beit Hillel and the halakha was decided according to Beit Shammai.

And Beit Shammai agree

with

Beit Hillel,

in

one who places the vessels in the courtyard so that the rain should fall directly into them, and not beneath the gutter, and afterward

forgets

them

in the courtyard, which is

[the rain that fell into them]

pure

for a ritual bath. And this will be explained later.

Rabbi Yosei said:

It is not so. Rather,

the dispute still stands in its place,

when he forgets beneath the gutter. In this, Beit Shammai were not counted and increased over Beit Hillel, and the halakha was not decided according to them.

Rav Mesharsheya said

to explain their dispute:

The students of Rav say: Everyone

[Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel]

agrees

that

when he placed them

the vessels beneath the gutter

at the time when the clouds were gathering,

when the rains were about to come but were delayed for the moment, and meanwhile he went to his work and forgot them, the water in the vessels is

impure

like drawn water. For when he placed them, he intended that they should collect the water. His original intention was not nullified by his forgetting. And it is properly called that they fell according to his intention.

And if he placed the vessels

at the time when the clouds were dispersing,

and at the time the water fell he had already forgotten them ,

everyone agrees that

the water is

pure. For he placed them at a time when the rains were not about to fall. And there is no revelation of intention that he placed them for this purpose.

They disagreed only when he placed them at the time when the clouds were gathering. For at that time his intention was to receive the rain in the vessels.

And

afterward

they dispersed,

the clouds,

and

again

they returned,

the clouds,

and gathered,

and by then he had already forgotten the vessels.

One

[Beit Hillel]

holds: Even though initially his intention was concerning the rain, once the clouds dispersed,

his first intention was nullified,

because he removed his mind from it, thinking that no further rain would fall.

And one

[Beit Shammai]

holds: Even after the clouds dispersed,

his first intention was not nullified!

And it is considered as though his original revelation of intention still exists, that he wants the rain to fall into them. [

And through this, that which was taught is also explained: “And Beit Shammai agree when he forgets in the courtyard.” For it is specifically when he places them beneath the gutter, where there is a clear revelation of intention that he wants the rain to fall, that his intention is not nullified through the dispersal of the clouds. But when he places them in the courtyard, where even at the time of placing them his original intention—that he wants the rain to fall into them—is not so evident, therefore his first intention is nullified through the dispersal of the clouds. And since, at the time the clouds gathered again, he had already forgotten, it is not called that the rain fell according to his intention.]].

Even after the clouds dispersed,

his original intention was not nullified. The original indication of his intention is considered to remain in force, namely, that he wants rain to fall into the vessels.

[This also explains what the Mishna teaches: “And Beit Shammai agree when he forgets them in the courtyard.” It is specifically when he places them beneath the gutter, where there is a clear indication that he wants rain to fall into them, that his intention is not nullified by the dispersal of the clouds. But when he places them in the courtyard, where even at the time he placed them it is not so clear that his original intention was for rain to fall into them, his original intention is therefore nullified by the dispersal of the clouds. Since by the time the clouds gathered again he had already forgotten them, the rain is not considered to have fallen according to his intention.]

And this is one of the eighteen matters. For even though, after the dispersal of the clouds, when his initial intention had certainly been nullified as a matter of basic law, they decreed that they be considered drawn water, in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai [Sefat Emet].

And we further inquire into it:

And according to Rabbi Yosei, who says,

that Beit Shammai were not counted and did not become the majority, and

the dispute still remains in its place,

the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, as everywhere. And they did not decree to declare the water invalid even when the clouds dispersed. If so,

they are lacking

from the eighteen matters, and there were only seventeen decrees.

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even

that which we learned:

"The daughters of Cutheans are menstruants from their cradles

[from the day of their birth] "—

on that very day they decreed!

For we hold as follows: It is written in the section concerning the impurity of a menstruant: "a woman." I have only [learned] about a woman who is an adult. A girl one day old—from where [do we know] that she is impure with menstruant impurity? The verse says: "And a woman." And we include her from the extra vav. But the Cutheans do not expound this exposition, and they are not careful concerning menstruant impurity in the case of young girls. Therefore, the Sages decreed generally regarding their daughters that they be impure like a menstruant.

And according to Rabbi Yosei, who did not decree regarding "one who forgot [the vessels] in the courtyard," this decree is counted among the eighteen matters in place of that decree.

And we return to explain the source of the eighteen matters:

And the other

decree,

what is it?

This is

that which we learned:

A special innovation was stated concerning impurity from a corpse: the corpse renders people and vessels impure through "tent impurity," without contact and without carrying.

Such impurity is possible in three different ways:

A. People and vessels that are beneath a tent that covers the corpse and them together.

B. A person or a vessel that itself "covers" the corpse.

C. A corpse that "covers" a person or a vessel.

The "tent" in the first case is not specifically a tent standing upon the ground; even movable objects can serve as the "tent of the corpse" when they cover from above a corpse and people and other vessels together.

Thus, if one end of a certain vessel "covers" the corpse and its other end "covers" the vessels, it conveys the impurity of the corpse to the vessels.

Likewise, a halakha given to Moses at Sinai was stated: only a "tent" that has an opening of one handbreadth by one handbreadth [called "an opening of a handbreadth"] conveys the impurity from the corpse to the people and vessels located beneath it.

This halakha of "an opening of a handbreadth" was stated only in the first case. In the other cases, such as a vessel that covers a corpse, with regard to the impurity of the vessel that covers [the corpse] itself, it has no prescribed measure, and it becomes impure by Torah law even when it is an exceedingly thin vessel. And the Sages came and decreed that

all movable objects

that cover the corpse and the vessels, including those that do not have an opening of one handbreadth by one handbreadth, be made [by rabbinic decree] into a "tent of the corpse",

and

be

conveying the impurity

to the vessels beneath them.

This, provided that there is

in

the movable objects that cover [the corpse] a measure of circumference

"the thickness of a goad."

The mardea is the stick with which oxen are struck, and the circumference of its thickness is one handbreadth, so that the diameter [the width] of its thickness is only one-third of a handbreadth!

And although, by Torah law, one-third of a handbreadth does not have the status of a tent, the Sages were concerned that, when the circumference of its thickness is one handbreadth, people might err and think that a circumference of one handbreadth is sufficient to give movable objects the status of "an opening of a handbreadth." Therefore, if we did not render them impure with seven-day impurity, in accordance with the law of tent impurity, they would come to err and say that one who becomes impure through tent impurity need become impure for only one day. Therefore, they decreed concerning all movable objects whose thickness has a circumference of one handbreadth that they render the vessels over which they cover, and the corpse, impure with seven-day impurity.