Shabbat 17a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Tarfon said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact position of the folio")

I will bury [the expression “I will bury,” an expression of shortening and cutting]

a concise expression meaning “may I bury”]

my sons—

for this is a truncated halakha [lacking and cut off], which is not correct.

deficient and cut short], and therefore incorrect.

That is, he cursed himself out of distress over the fact that the Torah was being forgotten, as reflected by the teaching of such a halakha.

The source of the error is an incident in which

the listener heard

a question that had been asked in the beit-midrash, and heard that the Sages had declared it impure.

And he erred,

and did not understand for what reason they had declared it impure.

And this was the incident:

The Sages were asked about

the peasant

who was

passing

beside a grave,

with his goad [a stick with which oxen are struck]

a stick used to strike oxen]

on his shoulder. And one side of it cast a tent

over

one

of the goad’s sides

over the grave.

And

And they declared

the Sages

him

the peasant himself, impure.

And the listener thought that they had declared him impure because the goad that cast a tent over the grave was considered an “ohel” of the dead. And since it cast a tent both over the dead person and over the person carrying the goad, the peasant standing beneath the goad was impure because of the ohel of the dead. And the peasant became a primary source of impurity, and became impure for seven days.

But in truth, they did not declare him impure for this reason.

Rather, only the goad itself was impure

because of

impurity of

utensils that cast a tent

themselves

over the dead.

For it is not required that the ohel itself have a handbreadth by a handbreadth, except in order to render other utensils located beneath it together with the dead impure. But the utensil that itself casts a tent becomes a primary source of impurity even if it has only any slight width.

And since the goad became impure when it cast a tent over the dead himself, it rendered the peasant impure through contact and made him a first degree of impurity. The peasant did not become impure for seven days, as a primary source of impurity. Rather, he became impure until evening only, according to the law of a first degree of impurity. And the utensil is never considered an ohel of the dead, to render other utensils impure with ohel impurity, unless it has a handbreadth by a handbreadth.

Rabbi Akiva said: I will establish that the words of the Sages who say “with the thickness of a goad”

who said, “with the thickness of a hoe,”

stand.

And I will explain their words:

For what they said

“that all movable objects

bring the impurity

with the thickness of a goad,” they said this only

about the person who carries them.

For only concerning him did they decree that all utensils casting a tent over the dead should be considered an ohel, to bring the impurity of the dead to the person even if those utensils were only

the thickness of a goad,

which is only one-third of a handbreadth.

And they made him like a primary source of impurity, to render him impure for seven days, and to require sprinkling upon him on the third and seventh days.

For since the person carrying the utensils that cast a tent is impure until evening by Torah law, through touching the utensils that cast a tent [the utensil that casts a tent itself is impure by Torah law with any size, as stated above], they also decreed that he should become impure like a primary source of impurity with ohel impurity, because he might come to err and say that he is impure not because of contact, but because of an ohel. And if we do not make him impure for seven days like a primary source of impurity, but only until evening, they will say that even one who becomes impure through a complete ohel is impure only until evening.

And

so they said

about

the utensils that cast a tent

themselves,

that by Torah law they become impure with ohel impurity

with any amount,

and no measure at all is required for them.

But

about another person

who is located beneath the utensils casting a tent over the dead, and does not touch them,

and

so too about

other utensils

located beneath these utensils, they did not decree at all. And they do not become impure on account of an ohel unless there is

in the

utensil casting a tent a measure of

opening a handbreadth!

That is, a thickness of a handbreadth. But with less than this they are not considered an ohel.

And Rabbi Yannai said: And

the measure of

the goad that they said

the Sages renders impure through an ohel is a goad

that does not have a handbreadth in its thickness.

For if it had a handbreadth, it would be an ohel by Torah law. Rather,

it has a handbreadth in its circumference,

so that its thickness is one-third of a handbreadth.

And they decreed concerning its circumference because of its thickness!

Since it has a handbreadth in its circumference, people might err and say that it has the law of an ohel. And if they become impure only until evening, they will say that this is the law of every ohel. But if it does not have a handbreadth in its circumference, it is known that it does not have the law of an ohel, and they will not err in this.

And this decree as well was one of the eighteen matters.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Tarfon, who said, “I will bury my sons, for this halakha is truncated

,” and he does not hold of the decree of “its circumference because of its thickness,” if so,

they are reduced—

there are fewer than eighteen matters.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

With regard to the decree concerning the daughters of Cutheans, Rabbi Tarfon holds like Rabbi Yose, that

even

the decree that

the daughters of Cutheans

are considered

menstruants from their cradles—

they decreed it on that day.

And regarding the other

dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose [when one forgot utensils in a courtyard],

he holds

that Rabbi Tarfon holds

like Rabbi Meir,

that they decreed concerning it that it should be as though his intention had not been nullified. And it is considered as though the water fell there intentionally and became drawn water, and not like Rabbi Yose, who did not count this decree, but counted in its place the decree concerning the daughters of Cutheans.

And we return to the count of the eighteen matters:

And the other

decree—what is it? It is as we learned: food cannot be prepared to receive impurity unless liquids were placed upon it. And the preparation by liquids must be with the owners’ consent.

And

And one who harvests

for the purpose of

squeezing them

press

in the winepress—

Beit Shammai says: They have been prepared

the grapes to receive impurity through the liquid that emerges from them at the time of harvesting. And although he does not desire the emergence of the wine, since it is going to waste, they were prepared because of a decree. And it is one of the eighteen matters.

Hillel says: They have not been prepared

, and he does not hold of this decree.

Hillel said to Shammai:

According to your words,

why

did you decree that the wine of the grapes be considered preparation, and as a result they must be

harvested in purity, but did not

decree likewise concerning olives, that the liquid emerging from them at the time of pressing should prepare them, and they must be

pressed in purity!?

He said to him,

Shammai:

If you provoke me, I will decree impurity even upon the pressing.

For the olives too will be prepared through the liquid emerging from them at the time of pressing.

They stuck a sword in the beit-midrash and said: Whoever enters

the beit-midrash,

let him enter.

And whoever leaves, let him not leave!

Because they wished to establish the count of those who declare impure and those who declare pure, and to decide according to the majority. And the view of the majority was like Shammai, and they decreed according to his words.

And on that day Hillel was bent over and sitting before Shammai like one of the students.

And

this

day was difficult for Israel, like the day on which the calf was made!

Since Hillel was the Nasi, and nevertheless he humbled himself before Shammai out of his humility.

And Shammai and Hillel decreed

concerning one who harvests for the winepress,

but they did not accept it from them.

And

afterward

their students came

in the upper chamber of Hananiah,

and decreed

likewise concerning the eighteen matters,

and they accepted it from them.

And we inquire about it:

And for what reason

did they decree concerning the grapes that they should be prepared, when he does not desire the emergence of the wine from the grapes?

Zeiri said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: It is a decree lest he harvest them

and bring the grapes

in impure baskets.

For the impure utensil in which the grapes are located “thinks” [causes it to be considered] that the liquids prepare them. For the grapes become impure immediately upon the emergence of the wine. And since the preparation and the impurity come at one time, even liquids that are not with consent prepare them. For it is specifically when at the time of the preparation there is not yet impurity, and the liquids prepare the food to receive impurity that will come later, that the liquids must be given with consent.

And we raise an objection:

This works according to the one who says: An impure utensil “thinks” liquids [that is, the presence of the food in an impure utensil causes it to be prepared even by liquids that fell upon it without consent, since the preparation and the impurity come at one time],

[that is, the presence of the food in an impure utensil causes it to become fit even through liquids that fell upon it unwillingly, since the rendering fit and the impurity occur simultaneously],

well.

For because of harvesting into impure baskets, we decree concerning every harvesting that the grapes should be prepared, even though it is without consent.

But according to the one who says: An impure utensil does not “think” liquids,

but even when the preparation and the impurity come at one time, the liquids must be given with consent—

what is there to say?

For even when harvesting into impure baskets, the grapes are not prepared [and this is the dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose in the Tosefta of Makhshirin, chapter 2. Tosafot. And Rashi wrote: “I do not know where”].

Rather, Zeiri said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: It is a decree lest he harvest them in tarred baskets

[sealed with tar]. For in such a case he desires the emergence of the wine, because it does not go to waste. And since the wine is according to his desire, it prepares the grapes.

Rava said:

The fact that the grapes were prepared

is a decree

a

because of

the grape clusters

that cling [are entangled] to one another. And when they are separated from one another, liquid is squeezed onto them. And although he does not desire this, the liquid is considered according to his desire and prepares them, because since it is impossible that the liquid not be squeezed at the time of the separation, and he separates them with his hands, this is like placing the liquid upon them with his hands.

[entangled] to one another. When they are separated, the liquid is squeezed onto them. Although he does not desire this, the liquid is considered to have been applied willingly and renders them fit, since the liquid will inevitably be squeezed out during the separation and he separates them by hand; this is like applying the liquid to them with his hands.

And since in such a case the grapes are prepared by Torah law, they decreed that they be prepared in every case, even where there are no clinging clusters.

Rav Naḥman said

in the name of

Rabbah bar Avuha:

The reason for the decree is because

sometimes a person goes to his vineyard to know

whether

the grapes have reached

the completion of their ripening and are already fit

for harvesting, or

are still

not

ripe.

And

he examines them by

taking a cluster of grapes, squeezing it, and sprinkling

the wine that is squeezed

upon

the

grapes.

And at the time of harvesting, still

the

liquid

that was squeezed

is wetting them. And in such a case they were certainly prepared, for he is preparing them with his hands. And because of this they decreed in every case that the grapes should receive impurity.

In such a case they certainly became fit, since he actively caused them to become fit. Therefore, they decreed in every case that the grapes should contract impurity.

And we return to the count of the eighteen matters:

And the other

decree—what is it?