Shabbat 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

He said

Tavi

[a man's name]

the trapper

[one who spreads traps to hunt animals and birds]

Shmuel said: Even

with regard to

the produce of teruma, on that very day they decreed:

If one sowed teruma, and it was of a species whose seed decomposes [such as grain and legumes], the produce is not subject to the status of teruma by Torah law. But as part of the decree of the eighteen matters, they said that even such produce retains the status of teruma, and is forbidden to non-kohanim and to be eaten in a state of ritual impurity.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

What is the reason

that they decreed this concerning it?

Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is a decree on account of

teruma

that is pure in the possession of an Israelite;

he is miserly and reluctant to give it to a kohen. He may therefore come to sow it in order to nullify its status as teruma. By doing so, he would annul the mitzva of giving it and rob the kohen. Therefore, they instituted that sowing should not be effective in removing the status of teruma.

Rava said:

They did not decree for this reason. For

if

we are concerned with people

who are suspected of doing so

[of nullifying the status of teruma], what did the Sages accomplish with their enactment? From the outset,

separating

teruma

they would also not separate

it, and they would have no teruma at all. And even if they are not suspected of eating untithed produce, we should still be concerned that they will not separate the proper amount,

since it is possible to make

teruma

with a single grain of wheat

and thereby remove the status of untithed produce.

As

said

Shmuel:

One grain exempts the entire pile!

And

from the fact that he

does not do

this, but separates teruma in the measure prescribed by the Sages [one-fiftieth for an average eye], it necessarily follows that

they are fully trusted

with regard to 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 produce of teruma has the status of teruma is

a decree on account of impure teruma in the possession of a kohen.

If sowing were effective in nullifying its status as teruma, we would be concerned

that perhaps he will keep it by him

until the time of sowing and will not burn it,

and this will lead to a mishap,

namely, eating it in a state of impurity . But now, since sowing does not make it permissible to non-kohanim, they will not come to keep it. [And although sowing would remove its impurity and make it permissible to kohanim, they would not keep it for this small profit and sacrifice the land by sowing it. Rather, they would prefer to sow non-sacred produce, whose value is greater than that of teruma. Tosafot, based on the Bartenura].

And the other

decree among the eighteen matters—what is it?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Also

[the ruling that we learned below]:

One whose

day grew dark for him on the eve of Shabbat while he was

on the road,

and Shabbat was approaching,

gives

his

pouch to a gentile,

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

And on that very day,

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

they decreed

this decree as well.

Up to this point we have counted seventeen matters, namely: one may not read by candlelight, and one may not inspect garments for lice , and nine matters that render teruma unfit—this makes eleven. In addition, there are six: one who forgets something in the courtyard, the ox-goad, Samaritan women, harvesting grapes, the produce of teruma, and giving one's pouch .

And the other

[the eighteenth decree]—what is it?

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

of gentiles,

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

All of them constitute a single decree, since each was decreed on account of the next, as stated below. This is the eighteenth decree.

With regard to the decree concerning “their daughters,” the amoraim disagree in tractate Avoda Zara. One says that this means seclusion with their daughters. According to another opinion, they decreed that these women have the ritual impurity of a menstruant from the time they leave their mother's womb, [just as they decreed concerning Samaritan women. It was necessary to decree both concerning gentile and Samaritan women, since neither can be derived from the other, as Tosafot explained above, 16b].

We further raise a difficulty:

This works according to Rabbi Meir,

who also decreed concerning one who forgets utensils in the courtyard; there are indeed eighteen matters.

But according to Rabbi Yose,

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

seventeen

alone

there are.

[The same question could have been raised against Rabbi Tarfon, who does not accept the decree concerning the ox-goad. Tosafot].

And we answer:

There is

another matter,

that of Rav Aḥa bar Adda.

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

of gentiles

on account of their oil.

If their bread were not prohibited, they would not be careful regarding the decree concerning their oil.

And concerning their oil

they decreed

on account of

the concern that they might come to permit

their wine.

The Gemara interrupts Rav Aḥa's statement in the middle and raises an objection:

But what greater severity does oil have than bread?

Why was it necessary to say that their bread was prohibited on account of their oil? Let it follow simply that just as their oil is prohibited on account of their wine, so too their bread is prohibited for the same reason.

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Rav Yitzḥak said:

They decreed concerning their bread and their oil on account of their wine.

And concerning their wine, on account of their daughters.

If one drinks their wine, he may come to seclude himself with them.

And concerning their daughters,

they decreed

on account of

the concern that they might cause them to stumble through

another matter

[idolatry].

[According to the opinion that “their daughters” means that they are impure like menstruants, through the decree that impurity applies to them, people will separate from them and will not be drawn after them into idolatry. Tosafot].

And concerning another matter,

which was not explained here, they decreed

on account of another matter.

We raise a difficulty concerning this:

What is the “other matter”?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “Another matter” is a decree in which

that

they decreed concerning a gentile child, who

even if he is not a zav, has the status of a zav , and he is therefore

rendered impure through a flux.

They decreed this so that

a Jewish child would not become accustomed to be with him,

in “another matter,” that is, in

male intercourse. They decreed this concerning a gentile child who is nine years and one day old, since from that age he is capable of intercourse [Avoda Zara 36b].

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].

The decree concerning a gentile child too was issued on that very day.

With this, the count of the eighteen matters is complete.

We raise another objection:

If so,

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

according to Rabbi Meir, there are also nineteen

[nineteen]

matters!

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

And we answer: The matter of

food and utensils that became impure through liquids,

which thereby become second-degree sources of impurity and render teruma unfit,

as one

decree

he counts them—Rabbi Meir.

But Rabbi Yose counts food and utensils as two separate decrees.

Mishna:

1.

Beit Shammai say: One may not soak

before Shabbat

ink

in water,

or

not

dyes

for coloring,

or

not

vetch

for animal food, if their soaking will be completed on Shabbat itself.

Rather,

it is permitted to soak them only if sufficient time remains

for them to soak

[for the soaking of the ink, dyes, and vetch to be completed]

before daybreak,

before the onset of Shabbat.

And Beit Hillel permit

even if their soaking will be completed on Shabbat.

Beit Shammai say: One may not place

before Shabbat

bundles

[bundles]

of flax

that has been beaten

into the oven,

so that they will be heated and whitened on Shabbat.

Rather,

when enough time remains

for them to become heated

[to become heated]

before daybreak.

And one may not

place

wool into a vat

in order to dye it,

rather

when there is sufficient time

for it to absorb the color

[the color] in the vat before daybreak.

And Beit Hillel permit

placing it there before Shabbat, even if it will continue to whiten or absorb the color on Shabbat itself.

Beit Shammai say: One may not spread traps for animals, birds, or fish

unless there is enough time for them to be caught before daybreak.

And Beit Hillel permit

even if they will be caught on Shabbat.

Two reasons are stated in the Gemara for Beit Shammai's position in all these laws. Either they are a decree, out of concern that one may come to perform them on Shabbat, or the prohibition is of Torah origin: the Torah commanded concerning the cessation of a person's utensils on Shabbat, that labor not be performed through them.

b. They further disagree:

Beit Shammai say: One may not sell to a gentile

before Shabbat,

nor may one load it with him

onto the donkey,

nor may one lift onto it

a burden on its shoulder, if the gentile will need to transport this burden in the public domain on Shabbat, because it appears as though he is assisting the gentile in the labor of carrying it on Shabbat.

[This is how Rashi explained it here. Below he added that it is prohibited because the gentile may be confused with his agent . And agency is prohibited under the law of “instructing a gentile.”]

They permitted this

only

if the place to which the gentile is meant to go is sufficiently near,

so that

he

will reach a nearby place

before Shabbat.

And Beit Hillel permit

it even if the gentile will reach his destination on Shabbat.

c. They further disagree:

Beit Shammai say: One may not give

before Shabbat

hides to a gentile tanner

a gentile,

or

not

utensils to a gentile launderer, unless

there is sufficient time

for them to perform

their work

before daybreak.

But when it is impossible for him to do so before daybreak, it appears as though he instructed him to work on Shabbat , and it is prohibited because of “instructing a gentile—a rabbinic prohibition” [Maggid Mishne, chapter 6 of the Laws of Shabbat, halakha 12].