Parallel
שבת 15
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— Solomon came and decreed in respect of holy things, while they came and instituted [it] in respect of terumah. [To revert to] the main text: 'Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They enacted eighteen measures, and differed in eighteen 'But it was taught: They were in agreement? — On that day they differed and [only] on the morrow were they in agreement. [To revert to] the main text: R. Huna said: In three places Shammai and Hillel differed: Shammai said: Hallah is due from a kab [of flour]; Hillel said: From two kabs: but the Sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a kab and a half is liable to hallah. When the measures were enlarged, they said, Five quarters of flour are liable to hallah. R. Jose said: [Exactly] five are exempt; just over five are liable. And the second? — Hillel said: A hin full of drawn water renders a mikweh unfit. (For one must state [a dictum] in his teacher's phraseology. Shammai maintained: nine kabs). But the Sages ruled neither as one nor as the other, until two weavers came from the dung gate of Jerusalem and testified on the authority of Shemaiah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water render a mikweh unfit, and the Sages ratified their words. And the third? — Shammai said: All women, their time suffices them; Hillel maintained: From examination to examination; but the Sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a full day reduces [the time] between examination and examination, and [the time] between examination and examination reduces a full day. And are there no more? But there is [this]: Hillel said: One shall lay [hands]; while Shammai ruled that one must not lay [hands]? — R. Huna spoke only of those concerning which there is no dispute of their teachers in addition. But there is also [this:] When one vintages [grapes] for the vat [i.e., to manufacture wine], Shammai maintains: It is made fit [to become unclean]; while Hillel ruled: It is not made fit. — That is excepted, for there Hillel was silenced by Shammai'. 'Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness in respect of the country of the heathens and glassware.' But the Rabbis of the 'eighty years' decreed this? For R. Kahana said, When R. Ishmael son of R. Jose fell sick, they [the Rabbis] sent [word] to him, 'Rabbi, Tell us the two or three things which you stated [formerly] on your father's authority.' He sent back, 'Thus did my father say: One hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple the wicked State [sc. Rome] spread over Israel. Eighty years before the destruction of the Temple uncleanness was imposed in respect of the country of heathens and glassware. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin went into exile and took its seat in the trade Halls. (in respect to what law [is this stated]? — Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi, To teach that they did not adjudicate in laws of fines. 'The laws of fines' can you think so! But say: They did not adjudicate in capital cases. ) And should you answer, They [Jose b. Jo'ezer and Jose b. Johanan] flourished during these eighty years too: surely it was taught: Hillel and Simeon [his son], Gamaliel and Simeon wielded their Patriarchate during one hundred years of the Temple's existence; whereas Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan were much earlier!
—
Rather say they came and decreed in respect to a clod, that it be burnt, but nothing at all in respect to the atmosphere; while the Rabbis of the eighty years came and decreed in respect to the atmosphere that it [terumah] be suspended. Shall we say that the original enactment was for burning? Surely Ilfa said: The original decree concerning hands was for burning. Thus, only concerning hands was the original decree for burning, but concerning nothing else? — Rather say they came and decreed in respect to a clod, that it be suspended, and nothing at all in respect to the atmosphere; and then the Rabbis of these eighty years came and decreed in respect to a clod that it be burnt and in respect to the atmosphere that it be suspended. Yet still, that was decreed in Usha? For we learnt: Terumah is burnt on account of six doubtful cases [of uncleanness]: — [i] The doubt of Beth ha-Peras; [ii] The doubt of earth which comes from the land of the heathens; [iii] The doubt attached to the garments of an 'am ha-arez; [iv] the doubt of vessels which are found; [v] doubtful saliva; and [vi] the doubtful human urine near cattle urine. On account of their certain contact, which is doubtful defilement, terumah is burnt. R. Jose said: It is burnt even on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain. But the Sages maintain: [If there is doubtful contact] in a private domain we suspend it; in public ground, it [the terumah] is clean. Now 'Ulla observed, These six cases of doubt were enacted at Usha! — Rather say they [Jose b. Jo'ezer and Jose b. Johanan] came and decreed suspense in respect of a clod and nothing at all in respect of atmosphere; then the Rabbis of the eighty years came and decreed suspense in both cases; then they came at Usha and decreed burning in respect of a clod, and as to the atmosphere they left it in status quo. Why did the Rabbis impose uncleanness upon glassware? — Said R. Johanan in the name of Resh Lakish, Since it is manufactured from sand, the Rabbis declared it the same as earthenware. If so, let them be incapable of purification in a mikweh? Why then did we learn, And the following interpose in utensils: pitch and myrrh gum in the case of glass vessels? — The circumstances here are e.g., they were perforated, and molten lead was poured into them, this agreeing with R. Meir, who maintained, Everything depends on the support. For it was taught: If glass vessels are perforated and [molten] lead is poured into them, — said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: R. Meir declares them unclean, while the Sages declare them clean. If so,
—