Shabbat 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Tarfon said:

I will bury

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

my sons—

for this is a truncated halakha

[deficient and cut off], which is incorrect.

That is, he cursed himself out of distress that the Torah was being forgotten, as reflected in the transmission of such a halakha.

The source of the error was the incident in which

the listener heard

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

And he erred,

not understanding why they had declared it impure.

This is what happened:

The Sages were asked about

the farmer

who was

passing

beside a grave,

with his ox-goad

[a stick with which oxen are struck]

on his shoulder. And one side of it extended as an overhang

over

one

of the goad

over the grave.

And

they declared

the Sages

him impure,

the farmer himself.

The listener thought that they had declared him impure because the goad that extended as an overhang over the grave was considered an “ohel” of the corpse. Since it extended as an overhang over both the corpse and the person carrying the goad, the farmer standing beneath the goad became impure because of the ohel of the corpse. The farmer thus became an av ha-tuma and was impure for seven days.

But in truth, that was not why they declared him impure.

Rather, only the goad itself became impure

because of

the impurity of

utensils that extend as an overhang

themselves

over the corpse.

For it is not necessary that the ohel itself measure a handbreadth by a handbreadth except in order to render other utensils located beneath it together with the corpse impure. But the utensil that itself extends as an overhang becomes an av ha-tuma even if it has only the slightest width.

And since the goad became impure when it extended as an overhang over the corpse itself, it rendered the farmer impure through contact and made him a rishon le-tuma. The farmer did not become impure for seven days, like an av ha-tuma. Rather, he became impure until evening only, as is the law of a rishon le-tuma. A utensil is never considered an ohel of the corpse, capable of rendering other utensils impure through the impurity of an ohel, unless it measures a handbreadth by a handbreadth.

Rabbi Akiva said: I will reconcile the matter, so that the words of the Sages—

who say, “with the thickness of an ox-goad”—

will stand.

And I will explain their words:

For when they said

“All movable objects

bring the impurity

with the thickness of an ox-goad,” they said this only

with regard to the person carrying them.

For only with regard to him did they decree that all utensils extending as an overhang over a corpse are considered an ohel, to bring the impurity of the corpse to the person—even if those utensils were only

the thickness of an ox-goad,

which is only one-third of a handbreadth.

And they treated him as an av ha-tuma, so that he would be impure for seven days and require sprinkling on the third and seventh days.

Since the person carrying the utensils extending as an overhang was impure until evening by Torah law, through touching the utensils extending as an overhang [the overhanging utensil itself becoming impure by Torah law regardless of its size, as stated above], they also decreed that he become impure as an av ha-tuma through the impurity of an ohel, because he might err and say that he was impure not because of contact but because of an ohel. And if we did not render him impure for seven days, as an av ha-tuma, but only until evening, people would say that even one rendered impure by a complete ohel is impure only until evening.

And

so they said

concerning

the utensils extending as overhangs

themselves:

By Torah law they become impure through the impurity of an ohel

regardless of their size,

and no minimum measure is required for them at all.

But

with regard to another person

who is beneath utensils extending as overhangs over a corpse and does not touch them,

and

likewise with regard to

other utensils

located beneath those utensils, they did not decree anything at all. They become impure through an ohel only when

the

overhanging utensil has the measure

of an opening of a handbreadth!

That is, a thickness of one handbreadth. Less than this, they are not considered an ohel.

And Rabbi Yannai said: And the

measure of

the ox-goad that they mentioned,

concerning which the Sages said that it renders one impure through an ohel, is an ox-goad

that does not have a thickness of a handbreadth.

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

its circumference is one handbreadth,

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

And they decreed concerning its circumference because of its thickness!

Since its circumference is one handbreadth, people might err and say that it has the status of an ohel. If it became impure only until evening, they would say that this is the law of every ohel. But if its circumference is less than one handbreadth, it is evident that it does not have the status of an ohel, and they would not err in this matter.

This decree, too, was one of the eighteen matters.

And we challenge this:

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

and does not accept the decree that “its circumference is treated like its thickness,”

they are short—

there are fewer than eighteen matters.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Regarding the decree concerning the daughters of the Samaritans, Rabbi Tarfon agrees with Rabbi Yosei, that

even

the decree that

the daughters of the Samaritans

are considered

menstruants from their cradles—

they decreed it on that very day.

But regarding the other matter,

the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei [concerning one who forgot utensils in the courtyard],

he holds

that Rabbi Tarfon agrees

with Rabbi Meir,

who decreed that it be treated as though his intention had not lapsed. It is considered as though the water had fallen there intentionally and becomes drawn water, unlike Rabbi Yosei, who did not count this decree and instead counted the decree concerning the daughters of the Samaritans.

We return to the enumeration of the eighteen matters:

And the other

decree—what is it?

And

one who harvests grapes

for the purpose of

treading

them

in a winepress—

Shammai says: They have become fit

for the grapes to contract impurity, through the liquid that emerges from them at the time of harvesting. Although he does not desire the wine’s emergence, since it is being wasted, they became fit by virtue of a decree. This was one of the eighteen matters.

Hillel says: They have not become fit,

and he does not accept this decree.

Hillel said to Shammai:

According to your view,

why

did you decree that the wine of the grapes be considered a liquid that renders them fit, thereby requiring people to be

harvesting grapes in purity, but

did you not make the same decree concerning olives, that the liquid emerging from them during olive picking should render them fit, thereby requiring people to be

picking olives in purity!?

He said to him,

Shammai:

If you provoke me, I will decree impurity even upon olive picking.

The olives, too, will become fit through the liquid emerging from them during picking.

They stuck a sword in the beit-midrash and said: Let the one who enters

the beit-midrash

enter.

And let the one who leaves not leave!

For they wished to establish the number of those who declared things impure and those who declared them pure, and to decide according to the majority. The majority held in accordance with Shammai, and they issued the decree as he had said.

On that day Hillel was sitting bowed before Shammai like one of the students.

And that day was difficult

for

Israel, like the day on which the Golden Calf was made!

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

And Shammai and Hillel decreed

concerning one who harvests grapes for the winepress,

but their decree was not accepted.

And

afterward

their students came

to the upper chamber of Hananiah

and decreed

the same as one of the eighteen matters,

and their decree was accepted.

And we inquire about it:

And what is the reason

that they decreed that the grapes become fit, when he does not desire the wine’s emergence from the grapes?

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

and bring the grapes

in impure baskets.

The impure utensil containing the grapes causes the liquids to be considered liquids that render food fit. For the grapes become impure immediately when the wine emerges. Since the rendering fit and the impurity occur simultaneously, even liquids that emerge contrary to one’s will render the food fit. The requirement that the liquids be applied willingly applies specifically when, at the time the food is rendered fit, the impurity is not yet present, and the liquids render the food fit to contract impurity that will come later.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says: An impure utensil “causes” liquids

[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 the possibility that he will harvest grapes in impure baskets, we decree concerning every grape harvest that the grapes become fit, even though it is unwillingly.

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

but even when the rendering fit and the impurity occur simultaneously, the liquids must be applied willingly—

what can be said?

For even when one harvests into impure baskets, the grapes do not become fit [and this is the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei in Tosefta Makhshirin, chapter 2. Tosafot. Rashi wrote: “I do not know where...”].

Rather, Zeiri said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: It is a decree lest he harvest them in tar-sealed baskets

[sealed with tar]. In such a case, he desires the wine’s emergence, since it is not being wasted. Since the wine emerges willingly, it renders the grapes fit.

Rava said:

The fact that the grapes become fit

is a decree

that applies

because of

grape clusters

that are clinging

[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 become fit by Torah law, they decreed in every case that they become fit, even when there are no clinging clusters.

Rav Naḥman said

in the name of

Rabba bar Avuha:

The reason for the decree is that

sometimes a person goes to his vineyard to determine

whether

the grapes have reached

the completion of their ripening and are already fit

for harvesting, or

they have

not

yet ripened.

And

he examines them by

taking a cluster of grapes, squeezing it, and sprinkling

the wine that is squeezed out

upon

the

grapes.

And at the time of harvesting, the

liquid

still

that was squeezed out

is moist upon them.

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.

We return to the enumeration of the eighteen matters:

And the other

decree—what is it?