Kommentar zu Eduyot 1:15

שמאי אומר כל הנשים דיין שעתן – All the women who see [menstral] blood know their hour to defile what is pure that they came in contact with from the time of their seeing [blood] and onward. And we don’t say that before this also, that there was blood in the walls of her womb that had been established and that she was impure even before this, for all women defile in with their vagina, and even though blood had not exited outside. And the reason of Shammai is that he did not suspect that perhaps, before this there had been blood, for if you say this, the heart of a man smites him (i.e., he has no clear conscience) all the time of intercourse and he separates himself from his wife, and it is found that the daughters of Israel would refrain from engaging in [the Mitzvah] of “being fruitful and multiplying.”

Shammai says: “For all women [who begin to menstruate] it suffices [to reckon their impurity from] the time [of their discovering it].” And Hillel says: “[Their impurity is reckoned backwards] from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, even if this covers many days.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [they are considered impure for] the past twenty four hours when this lessens the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, and for the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination when this lessens the past twenty-four hours.” This mishnah discusses a woman’s ritual impurity as a menstruant. When a woman menstruates she makes impure certain things which she touches. The problem is that a woman may not always know when she begins to menstruate, in order to know which things that she touched are impure. Shammai is not concerned with this problem; he states that only things that they have touched after they discover that they are menstruating are impure. Hillel is very considered about this problem; he states that anything touched after the last time she checked herself is impure. In other words, since we cannot be certain when she began menstruating after the last time she checked, we are strict and anything from this time and onwards is impure. The Sages, who probably lived after Shammai and Hillel, found a compromise position. The things a menstruant touched before she discovered that she was menstruating are impure either within the last twenty-four hours or since she last checked, whichever was more recent. For example if it is now Tuesday afternoon and she checked herself on Tuesday morning, anything she touched between the morning and the afternoon is assumed to be impure. If however, it is now Tuesday afternoon and she checked herself Monday morning, anything she touched in the last twenty-four hour period is impure.

מפקידה לפקידה – She checked today and found herself to be pure, and checked at the end of the week and found herself to be impure. We are suspicious of her physical contact from the first examination and onwards, lest with the removal of her hand, she saw that the walls of her womb established her presumptive condition [of cleanness], and we do not worry about refraining from “being fruitful and multiplying”, for specifically, for purity that we defile them from one examination to the next examination, and not to her husband, for Shammai says: if we make her defiled from her purity, the heart of man smites him (i.e., he has no clear conscience) and he would separate also from sexual intercourse.

Any woman who has a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her impurity from] her set time. Any woman who has a regular cycle, begins to make things impure only from the moment she realizes that she is menstruating. It can be assumed that this woman did not begin menstruating at an earlier time since she has a regular cycle.

לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה – not according to the words of Shammai who is more lenient and does not make a tence for his words, and not according to the words of Hillel, who went beyond his measures (i.e., extended the restrictions of the law too far – see Talmud Niddah 4b) who was too strict, for certainly, all these “many days” (according to Hillel) do not establish that the walls of the womb are [filled with] blood.

She who uses testing-cloths [when she has sexual relations], behold this is like an examination: it lessens either the period of the [past] twenty four hours or the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination. If a woman wipes herself clean after having relations with her husband, this counts as checking herself. If within the next twenty-four hours she should realize that she is menstruating, she has made impure only those things which she touched since she had relations and cleaned herself.

מעת לעת ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה – two times were mentioned with regard to the woman to defile that which is pure retroactively, and he went after the liberal of both opinions. For if “from one (i.e., the present) examination” to the [last] examination is greater than from one term of twenty-four hours (of retrospective uncleanness) [reduces the term of the interval from one examination to the other], we go after one from twenty-four hour period to the previous one, and we don’t defile other than those pure things that she came in contact with from yesterday at that hour. But if the period “from one term of twenty-four hours is greater than from one examination to the one that preceded it, such as when she checked herself in the morning and found herself to be pure, and in the evening, found herself to be impure, we don’t defile anything other than those pure things that were from the examination in the morning and beyond. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

על יד – of another, like “Next to him” in the Book of Ezra (actually – it is Nehemiah 3:8, which is like (verse 16): “And after him.”

וסת – fixed (i.e., regular time of menstruation), for it was established for her the time of menstruation three times, and she checked at the time of her regular time of menstruation and found herself to be impure, she knows her time, and we don’t worry that perhaps before this it occurred, for certainly, her time of menstruation comes on time.

והמשמשת בעדים הרי זו כפקידה – Two things are taught and this is how it should be understood: She who uses evidences – a piece of cloth used by women for ascertaining their condition of cleanness or uncleanness that is to say, it is Mitzvah upon each and every woman to use two pieces of evidence which she checks with them, one before sexual intercourse and once after sexual intercourse.

הרי זו כפקידה – the evidence that is after sexual intercourse is considered like an examination.

ממעטת על יד מעת לעת ועל יד מפקידה לפקידה – for you might have thought lest she sees a drop of blood like a mustard seed and ends up takes a handful of semen and that it would not be considered an examination, our Mishnah comes to tell us, that until after sexual intercourse, it is considered like an examination, but the evidence used before sexual intercourse is not like an examination, and because she is restless, that is she is anxious to have sex, she does not bring it into the holes and fissures [of her vagina].

מקב לחלה – dough which has in it a Kab is liable for [separating] Hallah.

Shammai says: “[Dough] of a kav or more is subject to the law of hallah.” And Hillel says: “Of two kavs or more.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [dough of] a kav and a half is subject to the law of hallah.” Numbers 15:20-21 commands Jews to set aside some of their dough and give it to the priests. This is called “hallah”. The question is how big of a batch of dough makes a person liable to separate hallah? According to Shammai, if one mixes one kav of dough he must separate hallah to give to the priests. A kav is about 1 ½ liters. According to Hillel, two kavs of dough make one obligated to separate hallah. The Sages compromise between the two positions and state that 1 ½ kavs is sufficient to obligate for hallah.

קב ומחצה חייבים בחלה – which are seven Logs and an egg and one-fifth of an egg, according to the Wilderness measure. And this is an Omer as a capitation tax, one-tenth of an Ephah which is liable for Hallah, as it is written (Numbers 15:20): “As the first yield of your baking, [you shall set aside a loaf as a gift….],” according to the dough of the wilderness. And they added one-sixth for the Jerusalem [measure], so that it was found that six Wilderness [Logs] become five Jerusalem [logs], and the Log that remains and the egg and the one-fifth egg go up to the Jerusalem Log, for the Wilderness log is [equal to] six eggs, which are given as five large eggs. It is found that the Log is missing one large egg. Give an egg and one-fifth of an egg in place of he large egg, for the one-fifth egg which is one-sixth from the outside additional on the egg, it is found that six large eggs which are a large Log, since six large Logs are one and-one-half Kabs.

And after they increased the measures they said: “[Dough of] five quarters is subject. Rabbi Yose said: “Five are exempt, five and more are liable.” Later in the Mishnaic period, in Tsippori which is in the Galilee, the measure of weights were increased so that a kav was now larger than it used to be. Therefore, the amount that obligates one to separate hallah became 1 1/5 kavs. According to Rabbi Yose, exactly 1 1/5 kavs does not obligate one to separate hallah, but anything over that amount does.

משהגדילו המדות – This is the Sepphoris measure, which they added one-sixth on that of the Jerusalem [measure], so it is found that the six Logim are five, which are five-fourths of a Kab, as the Kab is equivalent to four Logs.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why should there be a minimum amount of dough to make one liable to separate hallah? Why shouldn’t a person have to separate hallah from even a small amount of dough?

חמשה ועוד חייבים – for as Rabbi Yosi holds, the Wilderness measure were larger eggs than ours by one-twentieth of an egg for each egg. And the Halakha is according to the Sages, that a Jerusalem Kab and one-half which equals six Jerusalem Logs which are the Wilderness seven Logs and an egg and one-fifth of an egg, which is the measure [required] for Hallah. And they are forty-three eggs and one-fifth of an egg. And Maimonides cut and examined and checked and found that the weight of five hundred and twenty of most of the commentators from the flour of wheat is the measure of flour that is obligated for Hallah. And the weight of most of the commentators was known in Egypt today and throughout the Land of Israel, which is the weight of nearly sixty-one grains of barley.

Shemaya and Avtalion were the masters of Shamai and Hillel, as described in Mishna Avot. They were converts, and the accents of idol-worshippers stayed in their speech, so that they would say 'in' rather than 'hin'. Hillel would repeat exactly what he heard from them, so that he would also say "a complete 'in'", as he was taught. This is what our rabbis taught, that one is obligated to transmit traditions in the language of the master. There are those who have a different explanation, and say that it says 'hen' rather than 'hin'. But the first explanation is the one I learned from my father, may his memory be a blessing, and he learned it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher. And the hin is equivalent to three kab, which is half a se'ah, and a log is quarter of a kab. And we have explained these measurements in the commentary to the tractate of Pe'ah.

הין – twelve Logs

Introduction Mishnah three contains a dispute between Hillel and Shammai with regards to the laws of the mikveh (ritual bath).

פוסלין את המקוה – if they (i.e., drawn water) fell into it prior to its measure being completed. But after it was completed, even if he cast into it all the drawn water that is in the world, they would not make it (i.e., the Mikveh) invalid.

Hillel says: “A hin full of drawn water renders the mikweh unfit.” (However, man must speak in the language of his teacher.) And Shammai says: “Nine kavs.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one;” But when two weavers from the dung-gate which is in Jerusalem came and testified in the name of Shemaiah and Avtalion, “Three logs of drawn water render the mikweh unfit,” the Sages confirmed their statement. A mikveh, a ritual bath used to cleanse ritual impurity, must contain water that has not been drawn by human hands. The water must get into the mikveh by natural means, either through rain or a stream. The question our mishnah asks is how much drawn water can fall into a mikveh before it becomes unfit to cleanse? According to Hillel, if one hin falls in, the mikveh is unfit. A hin is equal to three kavs (about 4 ½ liters). The mishnah notes that Hillel used the word “hin” and not the word “kav”, even though kav is more commonly used and Hillel himself used the word in the previous mishnah. The answer is that Hillel heard this law about the mikveh from his teacher in this language, and although Hillel himself did not regularly use this language he still taught the statement in the form that he heard it. This is to teach that when you quote your teacher you must use the same language s/he used. Shammai gives a larger measure which would make a mikveh unfit: nine kavs. A smaller amount of drawn water that falls into a mikveh does not render it unfit. As we saw in the first two mishnayoth, the Sages accept neither the words of Shammai nor the words of Hillel. Rather they accept the testimony given by two weavers who were at the Dung-Gate in Jerusalem (the gate next to the Western Wall), who said that Shemaiah and Avtalion, two early Sages, stated that three lugs, which is a quarter of a hin, are enough to render the mikveh unfit.

שחייב אדם לומר בשלון רבו – that is to say, the word "הין" /”hin” is not the language of the Mishnah, but rather is the language of the Torah, but that is what he heard from his teachers Shemaiah and Avtalion. And Maimonides received from his father, of blessed memory, that since Shemaiah and Avtalion were righteous converts, they were not able to pronounce from their mouths the word “Hin,” and they would say, “Een” instead of “Hin,” like people until today who are incapable of articulating the letters [Aleph, Khet, Hei and Ayin), and Hillel would also say, “Een”, like this teachers, the righteous converts Shemaiah and Avtalion would say.

גרדיים – weavers

משער האשפות – The Tanna mentioned the name of their craft and the name of their neighborhoods, to inform you that nothing should prevent a person individually from the House of Study, for there is no lesser craft than that of the weaver, for we can cannot appoint from it neither a King nor a High Priest, and there is n o lesser gate in Jerusalem than the Dung Gate, and they cast the deciding vote through their testimony for all the Sages of Israel.

שלא יהא אדם עומד על דבריו – that he should not stubborn to stand enduring by his viewpoint.

Introduction Mishnah four discusses why the Mishnah records opinions that are not accepted as normative Jewish law (halakhah).

אבות העולם – Hillel and Shammai

And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel for naught? To teach the following generations that a man should not [always] persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world did not persist in their opinion. This mishnah, and the two mishnayoth which we will learn tomorrow ask deep questions about the nature of the Mishnah in its totality. In the previous two mishnayoth we learned statements of Shammai and Hillel that were not accepted as normative law. Indeed, throughout this year of learning we have read and discussed many statements that are not law in our days, nor in the days in which those statements were recited. Why then does the Mishnah record and do we continue to learn these statements? One answer, the answer that our mishnah provides, is to teach that just as Shammai and Hillel compromised and changed their minds when they saw they were contradicted, and they were the “fathers of the world”, the founders of Rabbinic Judaism, all the more so should lesser people change their mind when they realize that they may be wrong. The mishnah then becomes a lesson not in argumentation, but in compromise and unity. The mishnah records minority opinions to show that even great teachers change their mind when wrong. We will learn other reasons tomorrow.

ויסמוך עליו – that is to say, that he acted according to the individual opinion and set aside the opinion of the majority.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the question why are minority opinions recorded in the Mishnah, if there is a rule that the halakhah (the law) is according to the majority opinion.

And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Generally speaking, when there is a dispute in the Mishnah between an individual Sage and the rest of the Sages, the halakhah is according to the Sages. This is due to a “majority rules” principle. Our mishnah asks why then, does the Mishnah record the minority opinion, if that is not to be the accepted halakhah? Before we begin to discuss the answer, which is somewhat difficult to decipher, we should recognize the importance of the question. The Mishnah is not purely a book of halakhah, Jewish law, because it contains a plurality of opinions. In my mind this makes an important statement about Judaism and Jewish law: the first great work of the Oral Torah, that work which continues to shape Judaism to this very day, is not a recording of what one is supposed to do. It records a dialogue between the Sages, meant to be learned and extrapolated. This is the process of “Talmud Torah” that continues to this day. Furthermore, the Mishnah teaches that minority opinions are not necessarily “wrong” even though they may not be accepted. The answer the mishnah provides to its question is slightly cryptic. I will explain it in one way, but there are others who have explained it differently. The mishnah records the opinions of individual Sages so that future courts might rely on their opinions and decide halakhah according to them. Although at the time of the Mishnah these opinions were not accepted by the majority, since they are not “wrong”, in the future other courts may accept them. If a future court were to disagree with the opinions of an earlier court, and there was no recorded minority opinion, they could only change the decision if they were both wiser and greater in number than the earlier court. In other words there are two ways, according to our mishnah, that a future court can overturn an earlier decision: 1) by relying on a minority opinion; 2) by being greater in number and wisdom.

אין בית דין – Another which would arrive after him is able to nullify the words of the earlier Jewish court who acted according to the words of the individual (i.e., minority view), until it is greater than him in wisdom and in number. In wisdom – that is, that the head of the Academy of the latter Jewish court would be greater in wisdom than the head of the Academy of the former [Jewish court]. In number – that the number of the students in the latter Academy would be greater than the number of students in the former Academy.

למה מזכירין דברי היחיד בין המרובין – in order to nullify them. An individual [opinion] that was not followed by a single Jewish court like his words and they are rejected and nullified, why do we mention them at all? And we respond that if a person would say: Such is my received [tradition] and he would be astonished when he sees that no one is acting according to his received tradition, they would say to him: according to the words of that individual you heard and those words were rejected.

Introduction Mishnah six contains a different answer to the same question asked in mishnah five: why are minority opinions recorded in the mishnah.

Rabbi Judah said: “If so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside? So that if a man shall say, ‘Thus have I received the tradition’, it may be said to him, ‘According to the [refuted] opinion of that individual did you hear it.’” Rabbi Judah asks the same question that was asked in the previous mishnah: why does the Mishnah record minority opinions. His answer, however, is the exact opposite of the previous answer. According to Rabbi Judah, minority opinions are recorded so that future Rabbis will not be able to rely on those opinions. If a person in the future should say that he learned the tradition in a certain way, a Rabbi could point to the Mishnah and tell him that that is a minority opinion and is therefore not accepted as halakhah. Halakhah according to Rabbi Judah will continue to follow the majority. Note the irony that the Mishnah records a dispute about why it preserves minority opinions, and in this very discussion there is a recorded minority opinion. If we were to look at this dispute in these two mishnayoth through the eyes of those who gave the first answer, they would have to say that in the future Rabbi Judah’s answer might be acceptable! In other words those who allow for a change in the halakhah, must admit that in the future such change might not be acceptable. If we were to look at the same dispute through Rabbi Judah’s eyes, we would have to say that this opinion is unaccepted now and forever! Meaning, Rabbi Judah himself would have to admit that minority opinions are acceptable in the future, in which case, perhaps, even his minority opinion would someday be accepted.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What might be some of the underlying conceptual differences between Rabbi Judah’s and the Sages’ (mishnah five) reasons why minority opinions are preserved in the Mishnah?

רובע עצמות – one-quarter of a Kab of bones of the dead defile in a tent, and less [than one-quarter] do not defile other than through contact or by carrying [them] but not in a tent, but the School of Shammai holds that one-quarter kab defile and even if they are from many dead individuals.

Beth Shammai says: “A quarter-kav of any bones, even from two limbs or from three.”
And Beth Hillel says: “A quarter-kav of bones from a corpse, either from [the bones which form] the greater portion of the [body’s] build, or from the greater portion of the number [of the body’s bones].
Shammai says: “Even from a single bone.”
This mishnah begins to list disputes between Beth Shammai (the school of Shammai) and Beth Hillel (the school of Hillel). The rest of the chapter will contain disputes between these two schools.
Numbers 19:14 teaches that if a person dies in a tent things that are in the tent, including the people, can become impure, even though they have not touched the dead body. Our mishnah discusses how many bones must be in the tent for them to be considered a dead body which will cause ritual impurity.
According to Beth Shammai, a quarter-kav of bones will transmit impurity, as long as they come from at least two or three different bones. Beth Hillel agrees that a quarter-kav of bones is enough to cause impurity but they state that the bones must either come from the greater portion of the body (the hips, thighs, rib cage and spine) or from a majority of the number of bones in the body, considered to be 248. If there is a quarter-kav but they come from only one limb or many limbs but not a majority of the number or from the greater portion, they do not transmit impurity.
Shammai himself is even stricter than Beth Shammai, for he holds that a quarter-kav from one bone transmits impurity.

ובית הלל אומרים רובע עצמות מן הגויה – that is to say, from one body of one dead individual and not from may dead individuals. And even of one dead person, they do not defile until there will be one-quarter kab of the greater portion of a corpse, that is, the greater size of the body or the greater number of bones of a person which would be one-hundred and twenty-five bones, as the number of the bones of a person is two-hundred and forty-eight.

אפילו מעצם אחד – if one bone of the dead person files one-quarter kab, it defiles in a tent, and the Halakha is according to the School of Hillel.

כרשיני תרומה – In Arabic we call it KARS’NA. And they are food for camels but humans do not eat from them other than from need/emergency in the years of famine, and we separate Terumah/priest’s due from them, since they are eaten by humans on occasion from need/emergency, but it is not holy like the rest of the priest’s due/sacred gifts.

Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.”
And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.”
Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.”
Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”
In order to understand this mishnah we must first explain several rules.
1) Terumah (heave offering) is a portion of produce separated to give to the priests. It is only given from human food and not from animal feed. Vetches, a type of bean, are generally given to animals, but can be eaten by humans in time of need.
2) It is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure. A person who touches terumah must have previously ritually washed his hands.
3) Food can receive impurity only once it has been made wet. While it is dry it cannot receive impurity.
Our mishnah discusses the preparation of vetches of terumah. According to Beth Shammai they must be prepared (both soaked and rubbed) with pure hands, lest the person decide to eat them himself, in which case it would be forbidden to make them impure. However, they may be given to animals by a person with impure hands, since animal food is not really terumah.
According to Beth Hillel, they must be soaked by a person with pure hands, since getting them wet enables them to receive impurity. However, when he rubs them or gives them to an animal it is obvious that they are not intended for humans, and therefore he can do so with impure hands.
Shammai himself is again, stricter than Beth Shammai. He holds that vetches must be eaten dry so that they will not be able to receive impurity. Assumedly, Shammai would agree that a person might also eat them with clean hands.
Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is the most lenient. He holds that vetches are not fit for human consumption and therefore one may do anything with them while his hands are impure. Since vetches are animal food the rules of the purity of terumah do not apply to them.

שורין – [soak] them in water.

ושפין – on [it is necessary to say – the flesh/skin]

בטהרה – with the washing of the hands, like the law regarding the rest of foods of Priest’s due/Terumah. For mere hands are second-level of uncleanness and they defile the Terumah.

ומאכילין – to cattle

בטומאה – and one does not suspect if he defiles them with his hands at the time of his feeding them to cattle, but all the while that he is not feeding them to cattle, it is prohibited to defile them with his hands.

שורין בטהרה – soaking them in water makes them susceptible to receive defilement, and if he soaks them while in a state of defilement, it is found that he has made them susceptible and their defilement comes as one. This alone is what the School of Hillel prohibits, because of a recognition in order that they would know that they are priest’s due/Terumah.

יאכלו צריד – the language of dryness, like the dry-portion of meal-offerings, which is the place of the meal-offering where oil did not arrive there. Even here, they should be eaten dry, so that liquid would not come upon them at the time of eating, in order that they would not be recognized as susceptible to receive defilement.

כל מעשיהם בטומאה – and even the soaking. But the Halakha is according to the School of Hillel.

הפורט סלע ממעות מעשר שני – whomever has Second Tithe copper coins and comes to exchange them for a silver Sela must come up to Jerusalem because of the burden of the path.

One who changes for a sela copper coins from second tithe: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel say: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” Rabbi Meir says: “Silver and fruits may not be substituted for silver.” But the sages allow it. Second tithe, the second ten percent of agricultural products, was to be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there. If it was inconvenient to carry all of the second tithe produce to Jerusalem, one could redeem the produce with money and bring the money to Jerusalem. Our mishnah discusses a person who has already redeemed some second tithe and wishes to exchange his small copper coins for a larger more valuable silver coin, a sela, which will be easier to carry to Jerusalem. According to Beth Shammai, in order to do this he must have a whole sela’s worth of copper coin. If he has only half a sela’s worth of copper (=shekel) and he has a silver shekel (=1/2 sela) which is also of second tithe, he may not exchange the shekel and shekel’s worth of copper for a sela since it is forbidden to exchange silver second tithe for other silver second tithe. According to Beth Hillel, one is permitted to exchange a silver shekel and a shekel’s worth of copper coins for a sela. Although it is in general forbidden to exchange silver second tithe for other silver second tithe, since part of this exchange is copper, it is permitted. Rabbi Meir limits Beth Hillel’s opinion. Although it is permitted to exchange silver and copper for silver second tithe, it is forbidden to exchange fruit and silver for other silver. However, the Sages allow even this.

בית שמאין אומרים בכל הסלע מעות – if one comes to exchange them, he can exchange all of them and give coins for the entire Sela.

ובית הלל אומרים – he cannot exchange other than half of them, for when he comes to Jerusalem, he will need pennies/small coins immediately to purchase the needs of the meal, and if everyone would run to the money-changer to exchange, the small coins/pennies would increase in value and it would be found that the Second Tithe [value] would be lost. Therefore, he should bring small coins/pennies with them to spend partially, and when they run out, he can exchange the silver that is in his hand little by little. A Shekel is one-half of a Sela.

אין מחללין כסף ופירות על כסף – Whomever has one-half a Denar of silver of [Second] Tithe, and produce of [Second] Tithe that are worth one-half a Denar, he should not combine them together to change for a Denar.

וחכמים מתירים – In such a manner through combining produce, since he only has one-half a Denar of silver, but to exchange a silver Denar and produce that is worth a Denar for one-half a Sela whih two Denarim, the Sages admit that we do not exchange. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

הפורט סלע של מעשר שני בירושלין – that he would exchange a Sela that is in his hand and take small coins to spend them for the needs of the meal of the [Second] Tithe.

One who exchanges a sela from second tithe in Jerusalem: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel says: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” The disputants before the Sages say: “Silver for three denars and copper coin for one denar.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Silver for three denars and for the fourth silver, copper coin.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Four aspers in silver.” Shammai says: “He must leave it in the shop and eat on the credit thereof.” This mishnah discusses the person who arrives in Jerusalem with his silver sela of second tithe and wishes to exchange it for copper coins so that he can buy small quantities of food. According to Beth Shammai he must exchange the entire sela for copper. This is consistent with Beth Shammai’s opinion in the previous mishnah: one cannot exchange silver second tithe with silver, but only with copper. According to Beth Hillel, he may exchange half of the sela for a silver shekel and the other half for copper. Again, Beth Hillel holds that since he is exchanging part of the sela for copper he may also exchange part for silver. Rabbi Akiva takes Beth Hillel’s position even further. A person may exchange even ¼ of the sela (denar) for copper and the rest (3/4) for silver. A sela is worth four denars. Rabbi Tarfon goes even further. For the fourth denar he may even take four aspers of silver and one asper’s worth of copper. An asper is 1/5 of a denar. Shammai again is strictest. He holds that he shouldn’t exchange the sela at all. Rather he should leave it at a store and eat on credit.

בית שמאי אומרים – if he comes to exchanges all the Selas that are in his hand for small coins, he should make the exchange.

ובית הלל אומרים – he should only exchange half of them, lest he stay in the city until he spends all of them, and he should deposit them in the city until another Festival as the small coins/pennies decay/become disfigured, and if he would return and exchange them for Selas, it would be found that the money-changer would gain twice over and the Second Tithe would be lost.

הדנים לפני חכמים – Shimon ben Azzai and Shimon ben Zoma and Chanan the Egyptian/HaMitzri.

בשלשה דינרים כסף ובדינר מעות – The Sela is [worth] four Denars, and when one comes to exchange the Sela, he should not take other than one Denar of small coins, and three Denars should be silver.

וברביעית כסף ברביעית מעות – With the fourth Denar of Silver, he should not take other than one-quarter of it copper and three parts silver, so that it is found that he would purchase one M’ah from sixteen for a Sela alone.

ארבעה אספרי כסף – The Denar [is worth] five Sestertius, and it is a coin in the land of Greece that until today we call it ASPERO, it is found that a Sela is twenty ASPERO, and when he exchanges for a Denar, it should be exchanged for four silver ASPERO and one copper coin. It is found that he purchases one copper coin from twenty for every Sela alone.

יניחנה בחנות ויאכל כנגדה – He should not exchange the small coins/pennies, lest he perhaps forget and make them non-sacred. But he should leave the Sela with the money-changer and eat [food] against it until it runs out. But the Halakha is according to the words of the School of Hillel alone.

חפויו – Our Rabbis have explained this from the language of (Shabbat 81a) “the pivots” which are the teeth protruding from the keys that are customarily made in the Land of Ishmael, even here that one ordinarily makes in the bride’s litter/chair like teeth protruding in order that they can support them. And Maimonides explained it engravings and drawings that they make from wood or stones and attach them on to the bridal seat.

According to Leviticus 15:4, any object on which a person who has had a discharge sits is impure. The Rabbis taught that things that are not made to sit upon or are not fit to sit upon, do not receive impurity. Our mishnah discusses two types of stools and whether or not they can receive impurity.

בית שמאי מטמאין – for they are still fit for sitting.

A bride’s stool from which the covering-boards have been taken: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounce it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even the framework of a stool [by itself is liable to become] unclean.” An ordinary stool was made of four legs held together by four boards (the framework), on which were placed covering boards for sitting. A bride’s stool had, in addition, three upright covering boards (also called ‘covering-boards’), against which the occupant leant. The question in our mishnah is with regards to the status of a bride’s stool that does not have its special covering boards. According to Beth Shammai, since this stool can still be sat upon, it can receive impurity. According to Beth Hillel, since it does not fulfill its intended function as a bride’s stool, it cannot receive impurity. Shammai, again taking the strictest position, holds that even a simple framework with no coverings can receive impurity. Since one could potentially sit on the framework, it is considered enough of a stool to potentially become impure.

ובית הלל מטהרין – but they are not fitting for a bride, and they are like broken.

A stool which has been set in a baker’s trough: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even one made therein [is liable to become unclean].” If someone took a stool and put it into a kneading trough, in order to put flour or dough upon it, Beth Shammai would still rule that it is a stool and therefore susceptible to impurity. Beth Hillel rules that the stool is now part of the trough, and since the trough can’t become impure, neither can the stool. The reason that the trough can’t become impure is that it was not made for sitting. Shammai rules that even a stool that was made from the outset as part of a trough, and therefore was never intended for sitting, can become impure. Although it was not intended for sitting, since one could sit on it, it can become impure.

מלבן הכסא טמא – that is to say, even the frame by itself, without the seat and without the seat boards is ritually impure; all the more so, the seat without the its boards is ritually impure. The frame, in the form of a square brick they make on the seat and people sit on it.

כסא שקבעו בעריבה – he brought the seat from another place and affixed it in a trough through his sitting in it. But a trough is not ritually (i.e., Levitically) impure arising from someone with gonorrhea’s immediate contact by treading/leaning against it, and it is fit for kneading but not for sitting upon.

בית שמאי מטמאין – because the seat does not become void in the trough.

ובית הלל מטהרין – from impurity arising from someone with gonorrhea’s immediate contact by treading/leaning upon it, but the sea becomes void regarding the trough. But the seat is made in the body of the trough itself, and the School of Shammai admits to the School of Hillel that it is ritually pure.

שמאי אומר – even the sea that is made in the trough itself is impure by gonorrhea’s immediate contact by treading/leaning upon it.

אלא בבאה מן הקציר – like the event that took place that some people went to harvest wheat and a snake bit one of them and he died, and she came and announced in the Jewish court, and they sent out and found that it was according to her words. But they did not permit it (i.e., for her to re-marry), other than it was an example that the matter be something that is close by, but [if she is coming] from abroad, she is not believed.

Introduction Mishnah twelve begins a series of mishnayoth in which Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai initially disagree, until Beth Hillel changes their minds and teaches according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. Aside from the specific content of these mishnayoth, Beth Hillel’s willingness to admit that their rivals, Beth Shammai were correct, and even to subsequently teach their opinions, teaches a lesson of humility for all generations. Beth Hillel did not allow their personal glory to supersede their search for truth; when they recognized their own mistakes, they admitted them and changed their opinions accordingly.

אלא בהווה – it was an event that took place such as it was, and the same law applies to the rest of the places.

Our mishnah discusses a woman who returns from overseas and claims that her husband has died. The woman cannot bring any documentation to her husband’s death, and therefore the issue arises, is she to be believed? If she is believed, then there are four consequences to her statement discussed by our mishnah: 1) she may remarry, as a widow; 2) if the husband did not have children, she must be married to the husband’s brother (levirate marriage) or have him perform halitzah, the release from levirate marriage; 3) she may collect her kethubah, her marriage document which is paid upon death of the husband or divorce; 4) the husband’s brothers or other inheritors would divide his estate.

שאין האחים נכנסין – to the inheritance of her husband, for the All-Merciful said (Deuteronomy 19:15): “A case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more,” and concerning her marriage they (i.e. the Rabbis) were lenient because of her disability to remarry (see Yevamot 88a – as regards testimony to her husband’s death to prevent the eventuality of “widowhood in life.”).

These are subjects concerning which Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai:
A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; “My husband died [without children]” she must be married by her husband’s brother (the. But Beth Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting.” Beth Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from the harvesting or who came from the olive-picking or who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Beth Shammai. According to Beth Shammai she is believed and may remarry. If the husband had no children she must either undergo levirate marriage or halitzah. Beth Hillel responds that the precedent for this law was a case where a woman had gone harvesting with her husband and she returned claiming that he had died. In such a case we don’t suspect that the woman would lie, for if she did her husband would return and contradict her. Since “harvesting” is close to the city, if the husband was alive he would return. However, if she was returning from abroad, she is not believed, for the husband may still be alive and she might lie assuming that he will not turn up. Beth Shammai responds that she is always believed, no matter where she had been. The case of “harvesting” was how the event really happened, but the Rabbis would have allowed her to remarry under any circumstance. In other words, from where she was returning is immaterial. Beth Hillel accepted Beth Shammai’s opinion and taught according to them.

מפני כתובתה – from the formulation that they established to write in the document of the marriage contract/Ketubah.

Beth Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” Beth Shammai further stated that this woman may not only remarry but may collect her marriage payment from her husband’s estate. Beth Hillel responded to Beth Shammai that although she may remarry, we do not allow her to collect the money, lest the husband is still alive. Beth Shammai then raised a difficulty with Beth Hillel’s opinion: generally speaking the law is more strict with regards to issues of personal status than with issues of money. If you are going to allow her to remarry, as we have already done, for which there are serious consequences (if it turned out that her husband had not died), all the more so should she collect the kethubah payment, for which there are not such serious consequences (at worst she will have to pay it back). Beth Hillel responded that with regards to monetary results of the alleged death, the brothers do not share in his inheritance. In other words, Beth Hillel brings proof from another area of law that with regards to monetary issues, this man’s death is not considered confirmed. To this Beth Shammai responds that we can learn that she collects her kethubah payment from the language written in the kethubah itself. The kethubah states that if she remarries, she may collect her kethubah payment. From this wording Beth Shammai concludes that any time she is allowed to remarry, she may collect her kethubah. Beth Hillel thereby accepted Beth Shammai’s point and taught according to them.

כשתנשאי לאחר – for behold she is married and afterwards can take [the monies] of her Ketubah.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What does Beth Shammai hold with regards to the division of the allegedly dead husband’s estate: do the brothers divide the inheritance? If they do not inherit, why not? Why would Beth Shammai on the one hand believe the woman enough to allow her to remarry, but not in order to allow the dead husband’s brothers to inherit?
• In all of these cases why do you think Beth Hillel changed their minds?

מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין – such as slave of two partners and one of them freed him; alternatively, his master received from him half of the monies [of his worth] and freed half of him with those funds.

Whoever is half a slave and half a free man should work one day for his master and one day for himself, according to Beth Hillel.
Beth Shammai said to them: “You have set matters in order with regards to his master, but you have not set matters in order with regards to himself. He is not able to marry a slave-woman, nor is he able [to marry] a woman who is free. Is he to refrain [from marrying]? [How can he] for is it not the case that the world was created in order for people to be fruitful and multiply? For it is said, “He did not create it to be a waste; but formed it for inhabitation” (Isaiah 45:18). But for the rightful ordering of the world his master is compelled to make him free, and he writes out a bond for half his value.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
This mishnah discusses the case of a slave who is half free and half a slave. This situation could arise if a slave was owned by two masters and one of them set his half free. Beth Hillel allows such a situation to persists and rules that one day a week he should work for his master and one day a week he works for himself. In other words, this person can remain a half-slave.
Beth Shammai remarks to Beth Hillel that this is a fine arrangement for the master, but does not solve an essential problem for the slave. A slave is permitted to marry a female slave but a regular Jew is not allowed to marry a female slave. The half of this person who is a slave could marry a female slave but not a free Jewish woman, and the half of this person who is a Jew (when slaves are freed they become Jewish) could marry a Jewish woman but not a slave woman. Since this problem is irreconcilable, he could not marry anyone. Beth Shammai points out that this is also not an acceptable situation, and contradicts the existence of the entire creation. God created people so that they could establish families and not so that they could remain celibate.
The only solution is that he must be freed by the one remaining master, who writes him a manumission document. The slave then accepts upon himself a debt to pay back his owner and the slave goes free.
When Beth Hillel heard Beth Shammai’s argument they accepted it, and taught like them.
We should note how truly remarkable this mishnah is. Slavery was an accepted institution in the ancient world, and in every society slaves were amongst the lowest of the social classes. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai is concerned that even slaves should have the opportunity to fulfill the purpose of the creation of the world: procreation.

תקנתם את רבו – who is not lacking anything

לישא שפחה אינו יכול – because of the side of freedom that is in him.

בת חורין אינו יכול – because of the side of servitude that is in him.

כופין את רבו ועושהו בן חורין – and the same law applies if he was the slave of one-hundred partners and one of them freed him, we force all of them to free him.

כלי חרס מציל על הכל – an earthenware utensil that is surrounded by something closely covered with a lid protects everything that is inside it when it is the tent of a dead person, and will not defile anything that is inside it, as it is written (Numbers 19:15): “And every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean,” but if it has a lid fastened down, it is pure and what is inside it, it does not matter whether it is utensils, or food-stuffs or drink. And the Biblical verse is speaking about an earthenware vessel, as it is written, “And every open vessel,” concerning that which defiles through its opening, and does not defile through its back.

A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel.
But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.”
Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.
According to Numbers 19:15, a clay vessel that is covered with a lid prevents impurity from entering inside of it. If this vessel is found in a room with a dead body, which would normally cause everything in the room to be impure, the clay vessel and all that is inside of it does not contract the impurity. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel argue about what types of things which may be inside the clay vessels are not impure. According to Beth Hillel any object inside the vessel is pure. Beth Shammai holds that only food, liquids and other clay vessels remain pure; non-clay vessels would be impure.
Beth Shammai explains that we can assume that the clay vessel has been touched by an ignoramus (am haaretz), a person who does not strictly know or observe the laws of ritual purity. It is assumed that the am haaretz makes the vessel impure. Since an impure vessel does not prevent the impurity from entering, the things inside of it are impure.
Beth Hillel responds to Beth Shammai by pointing out that they did indeed accept that the food and liquids inside the vessel were pure. If the clay vessel does not prevent impurity from entering, why should anything inside of it remain pure?
To this question Beth Shammai responds that when they stated that the food and liquids were pure they meant for the am haaretz himself and not for the haver (a person who scrupulously observes the laws of purity and indeed eats only pure food). Beth Shammai assumes that a haver will not borrow any of these things from an am haaretz, since they cannot be made pure (a clay vessel cannot be cleansed of its impurity). Therefore Beth Shammai can pronounce these things clean, knowing that they will never come into the hands of a haver. However, when Beth Hillel pronounced everything inside pure, they were in essence declaring it pure for both the am haaretz and the haver. Beth Hillel had implied that even metal vessels, inside the clay vessel, remained pure. A haver might borrow metal vessels from an am haaretz, with the intent of immersing them to cleanse them of their impurities. However, this immersion will only cleanse them from light impurities and not from impurity contracted from a dead body. Therefore, an am haaretz might borrow them thinking that he could cleanse them and in reality he could not. Due to this problem, Beth Hillel retracted their opinion and taught like Beth Shammai.

אינו מציל אלא על אוכלין ומשקין ועל כלי חרס – but on other kinds of utensils, it does not protect as will be explained further on.

מפני מה וכו' מפני שהוא טמא על גב עם הארץ – for everything that is found with the ignoramuses whether utensils, food-stuffs and liquids/drink, all are considered impure, because they are not expert in the laws of the impurity and purity and consider that which is impure to be pure.

ואין כלי טמא חוצץ – it does not offer protection against the defilement other than only a pure utensil, but an impure utensil cannot protect on what is inside of it, and these utensils belonging to the ignoramuses are considered to be ritually impure and do not offer protection.

לעצמו טיהרנו – to the ignoramus himself we have declared it pure, and we should not suspect that perhaps a Haver/ a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse, would come to use them, for they are separated from contact with them and without this, also, all of their food would be ritually impure; therefore, food and drink and earthenware utensils which have no purity in the Mikveh, for when they were in the midst of a vessel with a lid fastened down belong to the ignoramuses, we say to them that they are ritually pure [for them], and they can use them they are the ones who consider their utensils to be considered pure, and we don’t suspect lest a Haver will borrow one from them and use them, for they are, for him, in a status of impurity and they can never have ritual purity ever. But a vessel that only requires only rinsing in order to be restored to Levitical cleanness where there is a suspicion that a Haver will borrow it from them and immerse them [in the Mikveh] and use them without sprinkling on the third and seventh day, for he will not know that they were defiled in the tent of a dead person, and would think that a mere immersion [in the Mikveh] would be sufficient to rescue it from the ritual impurity that it sustained while with the ignoramus, and that is why it is taught in our Mishnah: “You have declared it ritually clean/pure both for the ignoramus and for you,” and a Haver would come to use it. Therefore, they made the law equivalent for all and said that a vessel that requires only rinsing in order to be restored to Levitical cleanness is saved with a lid fastened down, which does not belong either to a Haver nor to an ignoramus. And if they came to make a decree that an earthenware utensil of an ignoramus shall never be saved with a lid fastened down because it is considered ritually impure and no impure vessel can protect/save it, none of the ignoramuses would accept it from them, because they would hold that they are expert and guard their utensils in ritual purity and they can protect their utensils.