Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 15

(1) THE MINIMUM AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR CHALAH

QUESTION: The first of the three occasions on which Shamai and Hillel argued was concerning the minimum amount of dough required for Chalah to be separated from the dough. There were three opinions -- Shamai, Hillel, and the Chachamim. Shamai required that there be at least one Kav of dough in order for one to be obligated to separate Chalah from it. Hillel required two Kavim. The Chachamim said that there must be at least one and a half Kavim of dough.

The Chachamim's opinion is simple to understand. One and a half Kavim is equivalent to the quantity of Mann that fell for each person every day in the desert (since there are 432 eggs in one Eifah, 1/10 of an Eifah equals 43.2 eggs, which equals 1.8 Kavim in Midbariyos units (24 eggs = 1 Kav), which is 1.5 Kavim in Yerushalmiyos units). The Sages derive from a verse that the requirement of Chalah is equivalent to the amount of Mann that fell for each person.

However, what is the reasoning of Shamai and Hillel? What were they arguing about?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Shamai Omer) cites the Yerushalmi that explains that Shamai and Hillel also learned their amounts from the Mann, but they measured the Mann differently from the way the Chachamim measured it. Even though the Mann that fell each day was 1/10 of an Eifah, they both understood that the tenth was a tenth *from the outside* (that is, if it is added with another nine parts, it equals ten parts), or, in our terms, *one-ninth* of an Eifah. (The Mann, therefore, measured 48 eggs (1/9 of 432), which equals 2 Kavim.)

Hillel maintained that Chalah must be separated from dough of that quantity, hence he requires at least 2 Kavim. Shamai said that Chalah needs to be taken from *one meals' worth* of the quantity of Mann that fell. Since two meals' worth of Mann came down, and the total amount of Mann was 2 Kavim, Shamai requires that Chalah be separated from 1 Kav of dough. (Accordingly, Hillel and Shamai are not discussing the same type of Kavim that the Chachamim are discussing. They are discussing Kavim of Midbariyos units, and the Chachamim are discussing Kavim of Yerushalmiyos units.)

(b) The RASHBA cites RABEINU TAM who explains the reason of Hillel and Shamai. Hillel and Shamai agree that the amount of Chalah that the Torah wants us to separate is a significant amount, which means a measure of at least one egg. The Torah, then, only requires us to separate Chalah if there is enough dough in order to separate from it one whole egg unit of dough as Chalah.

The Mishnah (in Maseches Chalah) teaches that a Ba'al ha'Bayis (one baking bread for his own personal use) separates 1/24th of his dough for Chalah, and a professional baker (who uses large amounts of dough) separates only 1/48th for Chalah. This fair percentage must also have been the practice before the Rabanan officially instituted it. Hillel maintained that one Kav of dough is the minimum amount that can be obligated in Chalah, because when the Ba'al ha'Bayis separates 1/24th, he will have one egg's worth (because 1 Kav = 24 eggs). Shamai maintained that the Torah was also referring to a professional baker, so the minimum amount of dough that is obligated in Chalah is 2 Kavim (so that when one separates 1/48th of it, he will have one egg's worth).

QUESTION: Hillel said that a "M'lo Hin" of drawn water will invalidate a Mikvah. Hillel concluded his opinion by saying, "... because a person is required to speak the way his Rebbi speaks." What was Hillel excusing himself for with that statement?

(a) RASHI (DH she'Chayav) explains that Hillel was explaining why he used the name for the unit of measure that the Torah uses ("Hin"), and not the name of the measure used by the Rabanan ("Lug").

(b) RAMBAM (PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS, Eduyos 1:3) explains in the name of his father that since Hillel's teachers, Shemaya and Avtalyon, were converts (Berachos 19a), they spoke with the inflection of the language of the land in which they were raised. Instead of saying "M'lo *Hin*," they pronounced it "M'lo *Ein*." Hillel would therefore say it with the mispronunciation of his teachers and excuse himself, "I know that I mispronounced it, but that is the way my Rebbi spoke!"

(c) The VILNA GA'ON (Eduyos 1:3) explains that it does not seem sensible that a person is required to mispronounce words the way his Rebbi did. Instead, he explains that since Shemaya and Avtalyon could not pronounce "Hin" properly and said "Ein" instead, they feared that their students might misunderstand what they were saying. They might think that their teachers were saying "*Ein* Mayim She'uvim Poslim Es ha'Mikvah" -- "drawn water does *not* invalidate a Mikvah," instead of "*Hin* Mayim She'uvim Poslim..." -- "a *Hin* of drawn water invalidates a Mikvah." Therefore, they would phrase their Halachah by saying, "*M'lo* Hin Poslim Es ha'Mikvah" -- "a *full* Hin...," so that the students would not misunderstand it. When Hillel repeated it, although he pronounced "Hin" properly and it was not necessary for him to say "M'lo Hin," he nevertheless added the word "M'lo" because that is the way his Rebbi said it!

(d) The DOROS RISHONIM explains that all three Sages (Shamai, Hillel, and the Chachamim) had received through oral tradition their opinions as to how much drawn water invalidates a Mikvah. Their oral tradition was common in that it said that a Mikvah is invalidated by *3* of some measure (Shamai said 9 Kavin, which is *3* Hin; the Chachamim said *3* Lugin; and Hillel said a Hin, which is *3* Kavin). Hillel and Shamai did not specifically use the number 3 with the appropriate unit of measure, even though that was the tradition they had received, because they were saying it the way they had heard it from their Rebbi.

15b

QUESTION: The Gemara challenges the Beraisa that says that Yosi Ben Yo'ezer and Yosi Ben Yochanan were the first to enact the decree that the land outside of Israel (Eretz ha'Amim) will make a person Tamei, because we know that the late Sages instituted that decree. The Gemara answers that YBY and YBY originally made the decree, and the later Sages added to it.

However, this does not answer the question on the second decree enacted by YBY and YBY, the decree that glass vessels will become Tamei, which the Gemara also asserts was made by the later Sages. If the same answer applies -- that the later Sages *added* to the original decree -- what did they add? They could not have added that the Tumah of glassware requires Terumah to be *burned*, because the Gemara (16a) explicitly says that it causes Terumah to be Toleh and not burned (as a reminder that the Tumah of glassware is not mid'Oraisa).

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Asu Inhu) answers that the initial decree was to be Toleh the Terumah that touched *any* part of the glass vessel. The later Sages added that if Terumah touches the *inside* of the glass vessel, it must be burned. When the Gemara later says that glassware can only require Terumah to be Toleh, but not burned, it is referring to Tumah that is caused by the Terumah touching the *outside* of the glass vessel.

(b) TOSFOS suggests another answer. Originally, the decree on glassware was not accepted. The later Sages re-enacted the decree, and it was accepted. (Tosfos says that this is actually the text of some Gemaras.)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites an argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan concerning a case of a glass vessel that was punctured and the hole was filled with lead. Rebbi Meir maintains that it can become Tamei because it is considered to be a metal vessel, because that which makes the vessel useful is the metal patch (it is the "Ma'amid"). The Rabanan say that we do not attribute the laws of the "Ma'amid" to the entire vessel, and thus it is not considered to be a metal vessel and cannot become Tamei.

However, even if the Rabanan say that we do not attribute the laws of the "Ma'amid" to the mended glass vessel, they should not say that the glass vessel is *Tahor*. Since it is repaired, it should become Tamei mid'Rabanan, like any other glass vessel!

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI in Rosh Hashanah (19b, DH v'Chachamim Metaharin) and TOSFOS here (DH Chachamim) explain that the Rabanan were only saying that the glass vessel does not become Tamei *mid'Oraisa* like a metal vessel; it will, of course, still become Tamei with the Tumah *d'Rabanan* that the Sages decreed upon glassware.

(b) RASHI in Rosh Hashanah (19a, DH Yehudah) gives another explanation. The argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan involves *Tumah Yeshanah*, *retroactive Tumah*. If a metal vessel becomes Tamei and is then broken so that it is no longer a vessel, it loses its Tumah. However, when the metal vessel is repaired, it reverts to its original Tumah. Rebbi Meir says that a glass vessel that was repaired with lead reverts to its original Tumah, because it is now considered to be a metal vessel. The Rabanan say that it is still only a glass vessel, and thus it does not return to its original Tumah when it is repaired (like earthenware), and it is *Tahor* until touching Tumah once again.

(c) The RASHBAM (cited in Tosfos here and in Tosfos in Rosh Hashanah) says that Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan agree that we follow the "Ma'amid" and give the glass vessel the laws of the material that was used to repair it. The argument is whether plugging a glass with lead *will serve as a proper plug*. Rebbi Meir says that it is usable, and therefore it is Tamei. The Rabanan say that it is not usable, and therefore it is not considered a utensil and it is Tahor. (The Rashban had an alternate text in the Gemara which omitted the words, "We follow the Ma'amid.")

(d) RASHI here (DH Metamei) explains that according to the Rabanan, a glass vessel that is broken is like any *earthenware* vessel that is broken, which is never considered a utensil even after it is repaired. The argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan is whether it is considered *metal* now that it was fixed with lead, or whether it is still considered like earthenware. Tosfos cites a Tosefta that supports this view, that if an earthenware vessel is broken, it can never again become Tamei.

(However, Tosfos and most other Rishonim interpret the Tosefta differently, proving that it is talking about a broken earthenware vessel that breaks a *second* time. Since it has broken a second time, it is basically unusable. After the first break and repair, it is still usable and will become Tamei. Rashi might respond that a glass utensil that breaks for the *first* time is like an earthenware utensil that breaks for the *second* time, because glass is much more fragile - M. Kornfeld)