Shabbat 17b — the Talmud in English

He said ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Tavi

[a man's name]

Rishba

[one who spreads nets to trap animals and birds]

Shmuel said: Even

with regard to

the growths of teruma, on that day they decreed.

For if one sowed teruma, and it was of a species whose seed decomposes [such as grain and legumes], there is no teruma status for the growths by Torah law. And in the decree of the eighteen matters they said that even the growths have the status of teruma, and are forbidden to non-kohanim and to be eaten in impurity.

And we raised the question about it:

And for what reason

did they decree concerning them?

Rabbi Hanina said: It was a decree because of

teruma

that is pure in the possession of an Israelite,

and he begrudges giving it to a kohein. And he may come to sow it in order to nullify its teruma status. And by doing so he is nullifying the mitzva of giving and robbing the kohein. Therefore they enacted that sowing should not be effective to remove it from teruma status.

Rava said:

They did not decree for this reason. For

if

we are concerned about people

who are suspect of doing so

[of nullifying the law of teruma], what did the Sages accomplish with their enactment? Indeed, from the outset,

separating

teruma

also should not be done,

and no teruma would be in their possession at all. And although they are not suspect regarding eating untithed produce, we should still be concerned that they will not separate the proper measure,

since it is possible to make

teruma

one grain

and through this remove the status of untithed produce.

When

he

Shmuel

said: One grain exempts the entire heap!

And

from the fact that he

did not do

this, but rather separated teruma according to the measure given by the Sages [one-fiftieth for an average eye], necessarily

they are trustworthy

in the mitzva of teruma. If so, there is no reason to be concerned that they will nullify it through sowing.

Rather, Rava said:

The reason that the growths of teruma have the status of teruma is

a decree because of impure teruma in the possession of a kohein.

For if sowing would be effective to nullify its teruma status, we are concerned

lest he keep it by him

until the time of sowing and not burn it,

and it come to a mishap,

to eat it in impurity . But now, since sowing is not effective to permit it to non-ko-hanim, they will not come to keep it. [And although they would be able to nullify its impurity and permit it to kohanim, they would not keep it for the small profit of this, nor would they ruin the land by sowing it. Rather, they would prefer to sow ordinary produce, whose value is greater than that of teruma. Tosafot, according to the Bartenura].

And the other one,

what is the decree of the eighteen matters?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Even

[that which we learned below]:

One whose day became dark for him

on the eve of Shabbat while he was

on the road,

and Shabbat was approaching,

gives

his

purse to a gentile,

so that he will not carry it four cubits in the public domain. And although by Torah law he can carry it less than four cubits at a time, they decreed that he should not do so. This too is one of the decree of the eighteen matters.

And on that day,

when they went up to the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Garon,

they decreed

this decree as well.

Until now we have counted seventeen matters, and they are: One may not read by candlelight, and one may not inspect , and nine matters that disqualify teruma. That makes eleven. And six more: one who forgets [his utensils] in the courtyard, the goad, the daughters of the Kutim, harvesting grapes, the growths of teruma, and giving one’s purse .

And the other one

[the eighteenth decree], what is it?

Bali said in the name of Avimi of Sanvata: Their bread

of gentiles,

and their oil, and their wine, and their daughters—all are among the eighteen matters.

And all of them are one decree. For each one was decreed because of the other, as stated below. And this is the eighteenth decree.

And concerning the decree of “their daughters,” the amoraim disagree in Avoda Zara. One says that this means seclusion with their daughters. And according to one who says so, they decreed that they have the impurity of a menstruant from their cradles [as they decreed concerning the daughters of the Kutim. And it was necessary to decree concerning both, because it is impossible to derive Kutim from gentiles, and likewise the reverse. As Tosafot explained above, 16b].

And further we raised the question about it:

This works out for Rabbi Meir,

who also decreed concerning one who forgets utensils in the courtyard, so there are properly eighteen matters.

But for Rabbi Yose,

who did not decree concerning it, one is lacking, and

seventeen

only

there are. [And the same applies: he could have raised a difficulty against Rabbi Tarfon, who does not have the goad. Tosafot].

The same question could have been raised against Rabbi Tarfon, who does not include the goad. Tosafot.

And we answer:

There is

another one,

that of Rav Aha bar Adda.

For Rav Aha bar Adda said: They decreed concerning the bread

of gentiles

because of their oil.

For if we do not forbid their bread, they will not be careful regarding the decree concerning their oil.

And concerning their oil

they decreed

because of

lest they come to permit

their wine.

And the Gemara interrupts in the middle of Rav Aha’s statement and raises an objection:

But what superiority does oil have over bread?

And why was it necessary to say that their bread is because of their oil? Let it follow from the fact that just as their oil is forbidden because of their wine, so too their bread.

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Rav Yitzhak said:

They decreed concerning their bread and their oil because of their wine.

And concerning their wine because of their daughters.

For if he drinks their wine, he will come to seclusion with them.

And concerning their daughters

they decreed

because of

lest they cause him to stumble through

another matter [idolatry].

[idolatry].

According to the one who says that “their daughters” means that they are impure like menstruants, by decreeing impurity upon them, they will separate from them and not be drawn after them into idolatry. Tosafot.

And concerning another matter,

which was not explained here, they decreed

because of another matter.

And we raised the question about it:

What is “another matter”?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

“Another matter” is the decree that

they decreed concerning a gentile child, who

even if he is not one with a discharge, has the status of one with a discharge , and he is

impure with discharge.

And they decreed this in order

that an Israelite child should not be accustomed to him,

in “another matter,” meaning in

male intercourse.

And they decreed this concerning a gentile child from the age of nine years and one day, from when he is fit for intercourse [Avoda Zara 36b].

And the decree concerning a gentile child too, they decreed on that day.

And through this the count of the eighteen matters is completed.

And again we ask:

If so,

that all these are included in the count of the eighteen matters,

for Rabbi Meir also there are nineteen

[nineteen]

!

For he also counts one who forgets utensils in the courtyard. Yet we learned, “eighteen matters.”

And we answer: This matter of

foods and utensils that became impure through liquids,

which become second-degree and disqualify teruma,

as one

decree

he counts them

Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose counts foods and utensils as two separate decrees.

Mishna:

A.

The House of Shammai say: One may not soak

before Shabbat

ink

in water,

and

not

dye materials

for dyeing,

and

not

vetch

for animal food, so that the work of soaking them will finish on its own on Shabbat itself.

Rather,

it is permitted to soak them only if enough time remains

for them to soak

[for the soaking of] the ink, the dye materials, and the vetch to finish

while it is still day,

before the entry of Shabbat.

And the House of Hillel permit,

even if their soaking will finish on Shabbat.

The House of Shammai say: One may not place

before Shabbat

bundles

[bundles]

of flax

that has been combed

into the oven,

so that they will be heated and whitened on Shabbat,

rather

at a time when there is

enough time for them to become heated

[become heated]

while it is still day.

And one may not

place

the wool into the vat

in order to dye it,

rather

with

enough time for it to absorb the color

[the dye] in the vat while it is still day.

And the House of Hillel permit

placing them before Shabbat, even though they will continue to whiten or absorb the dye on Shabbat itself.

The House of Shammai say: One may not spread traps for animals, birds, or fish

unless there is enough time for them to be caught while it is still day.

And the House of Hillel permit

even if they will be caught on Shabbat.

And two reasons were stated in the Gemara according to the method of the House of Shammai in all these laws. Either they are a decree, out of concern lest people come to do them on Shabbat; or it is a Torah prohibition, for the Torah commanded that a person’s utensils rest on Shabbat, so that work not be done through them.

B. And they further disagreed:

The House of Shammai say: One may not sell to a gentile

before Shabbat,

and one may not load with him

on the donkey,

and one may not raise upon him

a burden onto his shoulder, if the gentile will need to carry this burden in the public domain on Shabbat. Because it appears that he is assisting the gentile in the labor of carrying, to carry on Shabbat.

[So Rashi explained here. And below he added that it is forbidden because it is confused with his agent . And agency is forbidden under the law of “telling a gentile.”]

And they permitted this

only

if the place to which the gentile is supposed to arrive is sufficiently near,

so that

he

will reach a nearby place

before Shabbat.

And the House of Hillel permit

even if the gentile will reach his destination on Shabbat.

C. And they further disagreed:

The House of Shammai say: One may not give

before Shabbat

hides to a gentile tanner

[a gentile],

and

not

utensils to a gentile launderer, unless

there is

enough time for them to do

their work

while it is still day.

But when it is impossible for him to do it while it is still day, it appears as though he is telling him to do it on Shabbat, and it is forbidden because of “telling a gentile—a rabbinic prohibition” [ Maggid Mishne, chapter 6 of the Laws of Shabbat, law 12].