שבת 14 — parallel

14:1

but does not defile? — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, It is R. Joshua. For we learnt: R. Eliezer said: One who eats food of the first degree is [himself defiled in] the first degree; of the second degree, is [defiled in] the second degree, of the third degree, is [defiled in] the third degree. R. Joshua said: One who eats food of the first or of the second degree is [defiled in] the second degree; of the third degree, [he enters] the second degree in respect of hekdesh, but not in respect of terumah, this referring to hullin subjected to the purity of terumah. When one eats food of the first or of the second degree, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? Because one may sometimes eat unclean food [hullin] and take a liquid of terumah and put it in his mouth and thus render it unfit. When one drinks unclean liquid, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? — Because he may sometimes drink unclean liquid and take food of terumah and put it in his mouth, and thus render it unfit. But it is the same thing! — You might argue, The first is usual but not the second: therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. And one who comes with his head and the greater part of his body] into drawn water, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? — Said R. Bibi in R. Assi's name: Because originally people performed tebillah in collected pit water, which was stagnant [noisome], and so they poured drawn water upon them selves. [But when] they began to make this a fixed [law], the Rabbis imposed uncleanness thereon. What is meant by 'a fixed [law]?'Abaye said: They maintained, Not this [pit water] purifies, but both together purify. Said Raba to him, Then what did it matter, seeing that they did perform tebillah in this [the pit water]? But, said Raba, they maintained, Not this [the pit water] purifies but that [the drawn water]. And a clean person upon whose head and the greater part of his body there fell three logs of drawn water, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? For if not this, the other would not stand. And why did the Rabbis impose uncleanness upon a Book? Said R. Mesharsheya: Because originally food of terumah was stored near the Scroll of the Law, with the argument, This is holy and that is holy. But when it was seen that they [the Sacred Books] came to harm, the Rabbis imposed uncleanness upon them. 'And the hands'? — Because hands are fidgety. It was taught: Also hands which came into contact with a Book disqualify terumah, on account of R. Parnok['s dictum]. For R. Parnok said in R. Johanan's name: One who holds a Scroll of the Law naked will be buried naked. 'Naked!' can you really think so? Rather said R. Zera, [It means] naked without good deeds. 'Without good deeds!' can you really think so? Rather say, naked, without that good deed [to his credit]. Which was first enacted? Shall we say that the former was first enacted?

—

14:2

But since this was first enacted, why was the other too needed? — Rather the latter was first decreed, and then it was enacted in respect of all hands. 'And a tebul yom.' But the law of tebul yom is Biblical, for it is written, and when the sun is down, he shall be clean; [and afterwards he shall eat of the holy things, i.e., terumah]? — Delete tebul yom from here. 'And food which was defiled through liquid'. Through liquid of which [uncleanness]? Shall we say, through liquid which was defiled by a [dead] reptile: then its law is Biblical, for it is written, and all drink that may be drunk [in every such vessel shall be unclean]? _ Rather it means through liquid defiled by the hands, and it is a preventive measure on account of liquid defiled by a reptile. 'And vessels which were defiled by liquid'. Vessels which were defiled by liquid of which [uncleanness]? Shall we say, By the liquid of a zab? But that is Biblical, for it is written, and if the zab spit upon him that is clean; [then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water], [meaning] what is in the clean man's hand have I declared unclean unto thee! Rather it refers to liquid defiled by a reptile, and it is a preventive measure on account of the fluid of a zab. 'And the hands'. Did then the disciples of Shammai and Hillel decree this: [Surely] Shammai and Hillel [themselves] decreed it! For it was taught, Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness in respect of the country of the heathens and glassware. Simeon b. Shetah instituted the woman's marriage settlement and imposed uncleanness upon metal utensils. Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness for the hands. And should you answer, [It means] Shammai and his band and Hillel and his band [of scholars]; surely Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They enacted eighteen measures, and they differed on eighteen measures, whereas Hillel and Shammai differed only in three places; for R. Huna said, in three places they differed, and no more! And should you answer, They [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed that it be suspended, while their disciples came and decreed that it be burnt: surely Ilia said: The original decree concerning hands was for burning? — Rather, they [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed it, yet it was not accepted from them; then their disciples came and decreed, and it was accepted from them. But still, Solomon decreed it? For Raba Judah said in Samuel's name, When Solomon instituted 'erubin and the washing of the hands, a Heavenly Echo came forth and declared, 'My son, if thine heart be wise; My heart shall be glad, even mine'; and 'My son, be wise, and make my heart glad, That I may answer him that reproacheth me'?

—