Shabbat

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,