Shabbat 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said: Actually,

glass vessels

are entirely analogous to earthenware vessels

in every respect. And they did not render them like metal vessels at all.

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

like earthenware vessels, which become impure only from within”—this is not difficult.

Since

the glass vessel is transparent

and its interior is visible

from the outside through its walls,

just as

what is visible

within it

[its exterior] is visible—its exterior is therefore not considered “the exterior,” but rather “the interior.”

We learned above:

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

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: The impurity of

metal vessels—

is it

Torah law?

As

it is written concerning the impurity of the vessels of Midian:

“But the gold and the silver

and the copper

—‘only through the water of sprinkling shall it be purified’”; and it is not due to a decree.

And we answered:

It was necessary

for Shimon ben Shetah’s decree

only with regard to former impurity.

If they became impure and broke, and one then made vessels from them again, they return to their former impurity.

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

[Shelomtzion]

the queen, who made a banquet for her son.

And all her vessels became impure.

She broke them, gave them to a smith, and he melted them down and made new vessels from them.

And the Sages said

at that time:

“Let them return to their former impurity!”

The incident occurred during the time of Shimon ben Shetah, when Queen Shelomtzion was his sister. He was the head of the court at that time.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the reason

the Sages decreed concerning former impurity?

And we answered:

They touched upon this matter as a safeguard for the water of the red heifer.

For if breaking them were effective, no one would wait seven days for a vessel that had become impure through contact with the dead, until it was sprinkled with the water of the red heifer on the third and seventh days and became pure. Rather, he would break it and immediately repair it in order to purify it. The law of the water of the red heifer would then be forgotten. Therefore, they decreed that breaking would not be effective for it when it was subsequently repaired.

And we raised another difficulty:

This works well according to the one who says, “They did not say that former impurity returns after every

type of impurity,”

that former impurity returns

only after impurity imparted by a corpse [this is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in chapter 11 of Kelim. Tosafot. Rashi wrote: “I do not know where”],

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

the rationale is sound.

Because the period of impurity imparted by a corpse is lengthy, and one must wait seven days for it, we are concerned that no one will wait; rather, he will break the impure vessel and repair it.

But according to the one who says

[according to the Sages there] that

they said that former impurity returns after every type of impurity

—

what can be said?

There is no water of the red heifer in those cases; immersion and sunset alone suffice, and there is no need to wait. If so, why did they decree this?

Abaye said:

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

And therefore they instituted that breaking should not be effective for it after it is repaired,

as a decree lest one not perforate it by the measure necessary for

its purification,

but instead make a hole smaller than “large enough for a pomegranate to emerge,” in which case it remains impure by Torah law.

Rava said:

A vessel does not rise from its state of impurity with regard to teruma and sacrificial food through immersion until sunset. But if one breaks it, it immediately leaves its state of impurity. Therefore, they instituted that even if one broke it and then repaired it, it would not leave its state of impurity,

as a decree lest

people see someone using a vessel that became impure that very day, and not know that it had been broken and repaired but instead think that it had become pure through immersion

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

They would then come to purify a vessel that had been immersed that day before sunset, immediately after its immersion.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the practical difference between

Abaye and Rava?

And we answered:

There is a difference between them

in a case

where one shattered them completely

[breaking the vessel entirely]!

For according to Abaye’s rationale, that we are concerned “lest one not perforate it by the measure necessary for its purification,” there is likewise reason to issue a decree in this case. If breaking purifies it, people may purify it even through minor breaking that is insufficient to annul its status as a vessel.

But according to Rava’s rationale, that we are concerned that after it is repaired people will not recognize that it had been broken, when one shattered it completely there is no such concern, since the fact that it has been renewed is recognizable.

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

Until now, eleven matters have been enumerated: the two matters in the preceding Mishna, and the nine matters cited in the Mishna in Tractate Tohorot.

And we raised a difficulty:

And the other one,

the tenth decree—

what is it?

And we answered: It is a decree issued concerning the water of a ritual bath. It is an established principle that drawn water is invalid for a ritual bath. Water is considered drawn only when it fell into a vessel with the person’s intention. But if it fell in on its own, and he did not reveal that he wanted it, it is not considered drawn water.

And

we learned: “One who places vessels beneath a gutter”,

which is a channel fixed in a wall,

to receive rain

water”

water,

[and the gutter itself is not considered a vessel with regard to invalidating 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 initial formation as a vessel occurred while attached to a building. Therefore, the water within it does not become drawn water]

Whether large vessels

[which, because of their great size, are not considered vessels and therefore do not acquire the impurity of vessels—for example, wooden vessels larger than forty se'ah. Tosafot],

or small vessels

that are insignificant,

or even stone vessels and earthen vessels

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

and vessels of dung

[stone vessels. This is what Rashi wrote here; elsewhere he explained that these are vessels made from cattle droppings], which are not considered significant vessels with regard to acquiring impurity — the rainwater that falls into all these vessels becomes drawn water, and

invalidates the ritual bath.

Whether one places

the vessels there initially with the intention that the water fall into them, and at the time the water falls into them he intends that it do so,

or whether one

places them there and afterward

forgets

that he placed them there, and at the time the water falls he has no thought of them—the water is drawn water,

the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel declare

the water

pure

when he forgot. Since he has no intention concerning it at the time it falls, it is not considered drawn water, and it is valid for a ritual bath. Their dispute is explained below.

Rabbi Meir said: They counted, and Beit Shammai outnumbered Beit Hillel,

and the halakha was decided in accordance with Beit Shammai.

And Beit Shammai concede

to Beit Hillel

with regard to

one who places the vessels in the courtyard so that the rain will fall directly into them, rather than beneath the gutter, and afterward

forgets

them

in the courtyard, that it is

[the rain that fell into them]

pure

for a ritual bath. This is explained below.

Rabbi Yosei said:

That is not so. Rather,

the dispute still stands in its place,

with regard to one who forgets the vessels beneath the gutter. Beit Shammai did not outnumber Beit Hillel in this matter, and the halakha was not decided in their favor.

Rav Mesharsheya said

to explain their dispute:

The scholars of the school of Rav say: Everyone

[Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel]

agrees

that

when he placed them

the vessels beneath the gutter

when the clouds were gathering,

when the rain was about to come but was delayed for the moment, and in the meantime he went to his work and forgot them, the water in the vessels is

impure

as drawn water. For when he placed them, he intended that they collect the water. His original intention was not nullified by his forgetting. It is therefore properly considered water that fell with his knowledge.

But if he placed the vessels

when the clouds were dispersing,

and by 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 rain was not about to fall, and there is no indication 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.

They disagree only when he placed them when the clouds were gathering.

At that time his intention was that the vessels receive the rainwater.

And

afterward

the clouds dispersed

and

then

again

the clouds returned

and

gathered.

By then he had already forgotten the vessels.

One

[Beit Hillel]

holds:

Even though initially his intention concerned the rain, once the clouds dispersed,

his original intention was nullified,

because he diverted his attention and assumed that no more rain would fall.

And the other

[Beit Shammai]

holds:

Even after the clouds dispersed,

his original intention was not nullified! It is considered as though his original indication of intent still exists: that he wants the rain to fall into them.

[This also explains what the Mishna teaches: “And Beit Shammai concede when he forgets them in the courtyard.” Specifically when he places them beneath the gutter, where there is a clear indication that he wants the rain to fall, 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 his original intention—that he wanted the rain to fall into them—is not equally evident, his original intention is therefore nullified by the dispersal of the clouds. And since by the time the clouds gathered again he had already forgotten them, the rain is not considered to have fallen with his knowledge.]

And this is one of the eighteen matters. For although, after the dispersal of the clouds, when it is certain as a matter of law that his original intention has been nullified, they nevertheless decreed that the water be considered she’uvim—drawn water—as stated by Beit Shammai [Sefat Emet].

We examine this further:

And according to Rabi Yosei, who says

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

the dispute still stands,

the halakha is therefore according to Beit Hillel, as it is everywhere. And they did not decree that the water be disqualified even when the clouds dispersed. If so,

they are short

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

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even

the matter that we learned:

“The daughters of the Kutim are menstruants from their cradles

[from the day they are born]” —

they issued this decree on that very day!

For it is established that the passage concerning the impurity of a menstruant states: “A woman.” I have only that an adult woman is impure; from where do we know that an infant girl who is one day old is impure with menstrual impurity? The verse states: “And a woman.” And we derive her inclusion from the extra vav. The Kutim do not expound this derivation, and they are not careful regarding menstrual impurity in young girls. Therefore, the Sages decreed generally concerning their daughters that they be impure like a menstruant.

According to Rabi Yosei, who did not decree with regard to “water left inadvertently in a courtyard,” this decree is counted among the eighteen matters in place of that decree.

We return to explain the source of the eighteen matters:

And the other

decree,

what is it?

It is

that which we learned:

A special innovation was stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse: the corpse imparts impurity to people and vessels through the “impurity of a tent,” without contact and without carrying.

Such impurity can occur in three different ways:

a. People and vessels that are located beneath a tent that extends over the corpse and over them simultaneously.

b. A person or vessel that itself extends over the corpse.

c. A corpse that extends over a person or vessel.

The “tent” in the first case does not necessarily mean a tent erected on the ground. Even movable vessels can serve as the “tent of the corpse” when they extend above a corpse and above other people and vessels simultaneously.

Thus, if one end of a particular vessel extends over the corpse and its other end extends over the vessels, it conveys the impurity of the corpse to the vessels.

It was likewise stated as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that only a “tent” measuring a handbreadth by a handbreadth, called “an opening of a handbreadth,” conveys impurity from the corpse to the people and vessels located beneath it.

This halakha concerning “an opening of a handbreadth” was stated only with regard to the first case. In the other cases, such as a vessel extending over a corpse, with regard to the impurity of the vessel itself that extends over it, there is no minimum measure, and it becomes impure by Torah law even when it is an extremely thin vessel. The Sages therefore decreed that

all movable objects

that extend over the corpse and over the vessels, including those that do not measure a handbreadth by a handbreadth, be treated rabbinically as the “tent of the corpse,”

and

will

convey the impurity

to the vessels beneath them.

This applies provided that there is

in

the movable objects extending over them a circumference measuring

“the thickness of a goad.”

The “goad” is the stick used to strike oxen, and its thickness has a circumference of one handbreadth, meaning that the diameter [the width] of its thickness is only one-third of a handbreadth!

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 a movable object the status of “an opening of a handbreadth.” Therefore, if the object did not render them impure with seven-day impurity, as required by the impurity of a tent, they would err and say that one who becomes impure through the impurity of a tent need remain impure for only one day. Therefore, they decreed that all movable objects whose thickness has a circumference of one handbreadth render the vessels over which they extend, together with the corpse, impure with seven-day impurity.