Commentary for Eduyot 4:17

ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב – we are dealing with the Holy Day [that occurs] right after Shabbat, and the reason for the School of Hillel is that they say that a person should not eat it (i.e., an egg) because every egg that is born/hatched today, it was completed the day before and it is found that Shabbat is preparing for the Holy Day. And the Torah states (Exodus 16:5): “But on the sixth day, when they apportion [what they have brought in, it shall prove to be double the amount they gather each day].” But a regular “Friday” is a secular/non-holy day. One can prepare on a non-sacred day for Shabbat, and one can prepare on a non-sacred day for the Holy Day and the Holy Day is called “Shabbat,” but on a Holy Day, one cannot prepare for the Shabbat, nor can one prepare on the Sabbath for a Holy Day, and the preparation of an egg, even though it is in the hands of Heaven, is called “preparation.”

Introduction This entire chapter contains cases where Beth Shammai was lenient and Beth Hillel was strict. Generally speaking the opposite is true, hence these are exceptional cases. Most of the examples in these mishnayoth are from the laws concerning festivals. There is a halakhic concept in Judaism called “muktzeh”. There are many forms of “muktzeh”; I will explain the one form germane to these two mishnayoth. [For more information you can look at the Steinsaltz reference guide]. Anything consumed on Shabbat or a festival has to have been available before the day begins. This “availability” must be both physical and mental. In other words the thing must have been physically available before the day began and the person must have known the day before that he might use the object during the Sabbath or festival. Anything that is not available before the day began is considered “muktzeh”. We will see some examples as we proceed.

שאור בכזית – in regards to eating, the whole world doesn’t disagrees that both {the Schools of Hillel and Shammai) agree that the minimum [prohibited amount of leaven] is an olive’s bulk, since the Biblical verse begins with leaven (Exodus 12:19): “No leaven shall be found in your houses [for seven days]…” and it (i.e., the verse) concludes (ibid.): “For whoever eats what is leavened,” to inform you that leaven is equivalent to Hametz, just as the one, so is the other. But they dispute regarding getting rid of it. The School of Shammai holds that since the All-Merciful wrote concerning both “leaven and Hametz,” we learn from it that the measure of one is not the same as the measure of the other, and we don’t derive getting rid of it from [the prohibition of] eating of it. But the School of Hillel holds that we do derive getting rid of [Hametz] from [the prohibition of] eating of it.

The following cases are [examples] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and of the rigorous rulings of Beth Hillel.
An egg which is laid on a festival Beth Shammai says: it may be eaten, and Beth Hillel says: it may not be eaten. An egg which is laid on a festival is considered by Beth Hillel to be “muktzeh” something which was not available to be consumed on the eve of the festival and therefore is forbidden on the festival itself. Beth Shammai holds that since the chicken was available on the eve of the festival, the egg is as well, for if the person had slaughtered the chicken he could have eaten the egg inside.

Beth Shammai says: yeast as much as an olive [in quantity], and leavened food as much as a date, and Beth Hillel says: as much as an olive [in quantity] in both cases. On Passover it is forbidden to eat either leavened products or the leaven itself, which is yeast. According to Beth Shammai if one eats as a much as olive’s worth of yeast or a date’s worth of leavened food, he is liable for having transgressed the laws of Passover. Beth Hillel holds that in both cases one who eats an olive’s worth is liable. Note that smaller amounts are not permitted either. A smaller amount is still forbidden but one who consumes a smaller amount has not transgressed the Biblical prohibition of eating yeast or leavened food on Passover.

הכל מודים שהוא מותרת – for it known that the fetus completed its months.

Introduction This mishnah continues the subject of yesterday’s mishnah, muktzeh.

ואפרוח שיצא – everyone admits/agrees that it is prohibited because of the moving creatures of the birds.

A beast which was born on a festival all agree that it is permitted; and a chicken which was hatched from the egg all agree that it is forbidden. This section contains an elaboration of the dispute that was in the first section of the previous mishnah. There we saw that a dispute with regards to an egg born on a festival: Beth Shammai permitted its consumption and Beth Hillel forbid. In this mishnah we learn that there are two other similar instances where the two houses do not disagree. They both hold that a beast that was born on a festival is permitted. Although the beast was not born before the festival, and therefore might have been thought to be “muktzeh”, it in reality was available since if the mother had been slaughtered, the unborn young could have been eaten as well. The two houses also agree that a chicken hatched on the festival is forbidden. Even though Beth Shammai permits an egg that is laid, the chicken that is hatched is different because it was still in its shell the day before. Unlike the beast which was in its mother who could have been slaughtered and eaten, the chicken was not part of another animal that could have been eaten.

השוחט חיה ועוף (this part of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Betzah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) – who comes to slaughter beasts and fowl on Holy Days and they took counsel in the Jewish court how one might do this.

He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival Beth Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood] , but Beth Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready. But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday. According to Leviticus 17:13, when one slaughters an undomesticated animal or any type of foul the blood must be poured out of the animal and covered with earth. One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or foul on the festival has a problem. Although it is permitted to slaughter if he doesn’t have any prepared earth to cover the blood, newly dug earth is “muktzeh” and cannot be used. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai permits one to dig up new earth and cover the blood. Beth Hillel says one cannot slaughter unless one has earth already prepared. However, they all agree that if he had already slaughtered the animal, even though Beth Hillel says he should not have done so without already prepared earth, he may still dig new earth to cover the blood. This is because the principle of “muktzeh” is only rabbinically ordained and the obligation to cover the blood is Biblical. When one has two competing commandments, one rabbinic and one Biblical, the latter takes precedence. The two houses also agree that the ashes in the oven are considered prepared for the festival, in other words they are not “muktzeh”. Since people used these ashes for different purposes, we can make the assumption that before the festival began he knew in his mind that he would use these ashes.

ב"ש אומרים – The Jewish court teaches him that he may slaughter [the animal] ab initio and dig with a mattock/pronged-tool stuck into the ground that he has while it is still daylight, that is to say, he should from the place where it is stuck and bring up dirt and cover it (i.e., the blood]. And we are speaking of that which is stuck in crushed/loose earth that is suitable for covering which is not lacking crushing/pounding.

דקר – a peg which we stick into the ground; the language of (Numbers 25:8): “[He followed the Israelite into the chamber] and stabbed both of them…”

שאפר כירה מוכן הוא – it does not refer to the matters of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel but rather it is an independent matter of its own and this is how it should be understood: the ashes of the stove may be regarded as set in readiness. And it is not taught that it was heated from the Eve of the Holy Day, but if it was heated on the Holy Day, it is prohibited as we cannot say that from the day before, our mind was upon it. And if it is appropriate to roast an egg in it, for still there are hot ashes/embers, it is permitted to cover it. Since one can turn it over to roast it an egg, we can take it also and cover it.

הבקר לעניים הבקר (this Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 1)– he who renounced ownership for the poor but not for the rich, the law of renunciation applies to him, and he is not liable for gleanings, forgotten produce, the corner or the field nor for tithes, as it is written (Leviticus 19:10): ”[You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard;] you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger…” What is the meaning of “you shall leave them?” It teaches about another form of leaving, that is renunciation of ownership like this, just as it is for the poor and not for the rich, so renunciation of ownership is for the poor and not for the rich.

Introduction The Mishnah continues to bring disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, in which Beth Shammai took the lenient position.

עד שיפקיר אף לעשירים כשמטה – as it is written (Exodus 23:11): “But in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow…” What does it mean “and lie fallow?” It comes to teach on another form of lying fallow, that is, a renunciation of ownership which is like the Seventh year. Just as the Seventh year is for the poor and for the rich, so too, renunciation of ownership is for the poor and for the rich.

Beth Shammai says: [produce pronounced] ownerless with respect to the poor [only] is counted as ownerless. But Beth Hillel says: it is not counted as ownerless unless it is made ownerless also with respect to the rich, as in the year of release (. This section discusses the process whereby a person announces that something he owns is legally ownerless. One of the important consequences of such an action is that if the item is a food product he need not separate tithes before he eats it. In other words if a person has some produce he may pronounce it ownerless and eat from it without tithing. Of course, he runs the risk of having other people come and take it from him. According to Beth Shammai one could partially pronounce his produce ownerless by declaring that only the poor may partake of it. Beth Hillel disagrees and says that pronouncing something legally ownerless must be complete. Beth Hillel learns this from the precedent set by the laws of the “year of release”, or the shmittah (seventh) year. During the seventh year all produce grown in the fields is ownerless and anyone may enter any field and eat from it, both rich and poor. Beth Hillel says that just as seventh year produce is ownerless and available to anyone, so too all produce must be available to all.

כל עומרי השדה של קב קב – if each of all the sheaves in the field were one kab, and one was four kabim and he forgot that one, that is forgetting. More than this, it is not forgetting, and similarly, if all the sheaves were two kabs and one was eight kabs and he forgot it, that is also forgetfulness. More than this is not forgetfulness.

If all the sheaves of the field were of one kav each and one was of four kavs, and it was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. There are a number of agricultural rights given by the Torah to the poor. One of them is the right to collect the harvested sheaves forgotten in a field (Deuteronomy 24:19). The dispute here is over the definition of a forgotten sheaf. According to Beth Shammai if all of the sheaves were one kav in volume and the forgotten sheaf was four times that size, and he left the large sheaf in the field, it is not considered forgotten. The reason is that four separate sheaves that are left together are not considered to be forgotten. In other words, if four separate sheaves are left in a field we can assume that the owner never came to collect them, and not that he came to collect them and left them behind. Beth Shammai says that if one sheaf is the size of four sheaves of that field we can consider it to be four separate sheaves and it is not considered forgotten. Beth Hillel holds that since it is really only one sheaf, we can assume that he did forget it, and hence it already belongs to the poor.

לגפה (this Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2) – a fence of stones set up one on top of the other without plaster.

Introduction The Mishnah continues to bring disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, in which Beth Shammai took the lenient position.

ולכלים – the utensil of the plough

A sheaf which was close to a wall or to a stack or to the herd or to [field] utensils, and was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. This mishnah continues to discuss the definition of “forgotten”. According to Beth Shammai, if one left a sheaf close to a specific item, we can assume that he intended to go back and get the sheaf, and that is why he left it close to that item. In this case he may go back and collect it at a later time. Beth Hillel does consider this sheaf to be forgotten and therefore it belongs to the poor.

ב"ש אומרים אינו שכחה – The dispute of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel regarding sheaves that taken possession of to be brought into the city and he placed it at the side of the wall or on the side of the stack and forgot it there. For the School of Shammai states that it is not something forgotten, for he merited it. But the School of Hillel states that it is something forgotten. Another interpretation: The School of Shammai states that it is [not] something forgotten, even sheaves that were taken possession of as such at all, it is not something forgotten, for since he placed them at some specific thing that he would in the future remember it. But the School of Hillel states that it is something forgotten all the while that he didn’t take possession of them. But the School of Hillel admits that if he took possession of them and afterwards forgot it, it is not something forgotten

Questions for Further Thought:
• From whose perspective is Beth Shammai lenient in these mishnayoth? Why does the editor of the Mishnah consider them lenient and Beth Hillel strict?

כרם רבעי (this Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Peah, Chapter 7, Mishnah 6 and also in Tractate Ma’aser Sheni, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3) – which needs redemption if he comes to eat it outside of Jerusalem and the same law applies to all fruit-bearing trees.

Introduction Our mishnah contains several disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regards to the status of the fruit of a vineyard in its fourth year, which according to Leviticus 19:24 must be “set aside”. The Rabbis teach that this fruit is similar to second tithe and that both may be consumed by their owners only in Jerusalem. In our mishnah Beth Shammai says that despite some similarities to second tithe there are some key differences. Beth Hillel teaches that they are completely the same.

אין לו חומש – For the Torah did not write concerning it that the owners add one-fifth in the matter that it wrote regarding the Second Tithe.

A vineyard of the fourth year Beth Shammai says: it is not subject to the law of the fifth nor to the law of removal. And Beth Hillel says: it is subject to the law of the fifth and to the law of removal. The fruit of a vineyard in its fourth year is treated similar to second tithe. Both must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. If it is too far or too difficult to carry the actual fruit to Jerusalem one may redeem it for money and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. When second tithe is redeemed for money, a person must add one-fifth the value of the produce being redeemed. According to Beth Shammai, when one redeems the fruit of fourth year vineyard he does not need to add the fifth. According to Beth Hillel he does, just as he does with second tithe. Before Passover on the fourth and seventh years of a seven year (shmittah) cycle, one must remove all of the tithes from one’s house. This is called the “law of removal”. According to Beth Shammai the law does not apply to the removal of the fruit of a fourth year vineyard. According to Beth Hillel it does.

ואין לו ביעור – he is not liable to remove it from the house on the Eve of Passover of the fourth year and of the seventh year as one removes the tithes, as it is written (Deuteronomy 26:13): “[You shall declare before the LORD your God:] ‘I have cleared out the consecrated portion from the house, [and I have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow…].”

Beth Shammai says: it is subject to the law of fallen grapes and to the law of gleanings, and the poor redeem them for themselves. And Beth Hillel says: all of it goes to the winepress. According to Leviticus 19:10 one is not allowed to pick bare the fruit of a vineyard nor collect the fallen fruit. Rather these must be left for the poor. According to Beth Shammai these rules still apply for the fourth year vineyard. When the poor person has collected his share, he must redeem it himself and bring the money to Jerusalem and use it there to buy food. According to Beth Hillel fourth year produce is not subject to the laws of what must be left to the poor. Just as second tithe is not subject to the laws of what must be left for the poor, so too fourth year produce is not.

יש לו חומש ויש לו בעור – The School of Hillel derives “holy” “holy” from tithes (Leviticus 19:24: “In the fourth year all its fruit shall be set aside [literally – “holy”] for jubilation before the LORD; and Leviticus 27:30: “All tithes from the land, whether seed from the ground or fruit from the tree, are the LORD’s;] they are holy to the LORD).” Just as tithes have an added fifth and it has removal, so does the fourth year fruit of the vineyard - it has the added fifth [when redeemed] and it has removal. But the School of Shammai does not derive “holy, holy” from tithes.

יש לו פרט ויש לו עוללות – for they are considered like non-holy produce.

והעניים פודין לעצמן – The grapes fallen off during cutting and the gleaning reserved for the poor which they harvested, and they eat them in their place and bring their monetary value to Jerusalem.

וב"ה אומרים כולו לגת – because they derive it from tithes, and they hold that the Second Tithe money belongs to “On-High.” Therefore, the poor have no portion in it and they tread on the gleanings with the rest of the wine, and the owners bring it all up to Jerusalem.

מגולגלים – picked with salt in order to sweeten them.

Introduction Our mishnah contains two disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the first over the impurity of olives inside a barrel and the second over the impurity of the oil dripping off a person who had entered the mikveh (ritual bath).

אינו צריך לנקב – the barrel, and even though that the thin secretion that comes out from them floats on top, it does not make them susceptible to receive defilement. And it is not satisfactory with that thin secretion that comes out, and we require a liquid that is satisfactory for it, as it is written (Leviticus 11:38): “but if water is put/YUTAN on the seed [and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be unclean for you].” It is written as יתן"”/he will put on it, but we read it is as “יותן”/is put on [the seed]. Just as יתן/will put on – is satisfactory for it, so too יותן/is put on [the seed] is satisfactory for it.

A barrel of pickled olives: Beth Shammai says: one need not perforate it, And Beth Hillel say: one must perforate it. But they agree that if it was perforated and the dregs stopped it up, it is not liable to receive impurity. Leviticus 11:38 teaches that food cannot receive impurity unless it has come into contact with water. The Rabbis taught that not only water but other liquids as well can cause food to become receptive to impurity. However, if the owner of the food did not wish the liquid to touch his food the liquid does not cause the food to become receptive to impurity. In this section of our mishnah Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to the liquid that oozes out of olives that have been pickled in salt. Everyone agrees that this liquid is not desired by the owner; all he wants are the edible olives. However, according to Beth Hillel the owner must put a hole in the barrel to let the liquid seep out in order to make it clear that he does not want the liquid. If he does not do so the olives will be made receptive to impurity by the liquid which oozes out of them. Beth Shammai does not require one to put this hole. According to them we can generally assume that a person does not want such liquids and therefore they do not cause food to become receptive to impurity. Both houses agree that if one put a hole in the barrel and then it was closed up by the dregs that the olives are not receptive to impurity. Since he put a hole in the barrel he has made it clear that he does not want the liquids inside and therefore their contact with the olives do not cause the olives to receive impurity.

צריך לנקב – to perform an action to reveal his intention that it is not satisfactory for him that this thin secretion floats on top of the olives and he wants that it would exit through the perforation that he makes in the barrel.

One who had anointed himself with clean oil and [then] became unclean, and he went down and immersed himself, Beth Shammai says: although he still drips [oil], it is clean. And Beth Hillel says: [only while there remains] enough for anointing a small limb. And if from the beginning it was unclean oil, Beth Shammai says: [it is unclean as long as there remains] enough for anointing a small limb, And Beth Hillel says: [even if there remains as much] as a moist liquid. (4) Rabbi Judah says in the name of Beth Hillel: [provided it remains] moist [itself] and [can also] moisten [other things]. The first part of this section discusses one who anoints himself with pure oil and then becomes impure. [Anointing with oil was part of the bathing process]. If he enters the mikveh (ritual bath) to purify himself, according to Beth Shammai, he also purifies any remaining oil on his body. Although oil is cannot generally be made pure through a mikveh, in this case the oil becomes pure by being part of his body, which does become pure. Beth Hillel holds that if there is only enough oil remaining on his body to anoint a small limb, it is pure. In this case we can say that the oil is not of significance in and of itself and therefore is part of the body. However, if there is more than that, it is impure. If the oil was impure from the outset, and then the person became impure through another source of impurity (the oil itself cannot cause the person to become impure), and went into the mikveh, then both houses are stricter with regards to the purity of the oil remaining on his body. According to Beth Shammai if only enough remains to anoint a small limb, it is pure. If more remains it is impure. According to Beth Hillel if enough remains to moisten the hand that touches the oil, it is impure; if less, then it is pure. Rabbi Judah teaches a different version of Beth Hillel’s words. According to him if enough remains to moisten the hand that touches the oil and to moisten another area as well, it is impure.

וסתמוה שמרים שהיא טהורה – for since he perforated it, he revealed his intention that it is not satisfactory to him and furthermore, that thin secretion makes them susceptible to receive defilement.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Why are both houses stricter in the second case (where the oil was impure before he anointed himself with it) than they are in the first (where it only became impure when he became impure)?

אף על פי מנטף טהור – and even though the oil drips from his skin after he has immersed [in a Mikveh], he is ritually pure.

כדי סיכת אבר קטן – if there didn’t remain from the oil on his skin other than the anointing of a small limb, he is ritually pure. But more than this measurement, he is ritually impure, For since the oil that was defiled when he was defiled, and remained on his skin and defiled him. For the oil that is on his skin was not purified in the Mikveh, for there isn’t a liquid that receives purity in the Mikveh other than water alone through dipping of a vessel, filled with an unclean liquid, so as to make its surface level with the surface of the water into which it is dipped.

ב"ש אומרים כדי סיכת אבר קטן – it is pure; more than this, it is impure.

משקה טופח [מטפיח] – that there is moisture in one pan until it reaches another pan, the moisture attaches itself also to it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

בדינר ובשוה דינר – and the weight of the Denar is ninety-six silver panicles.

Introduction This mishnah continues listing the leniencies of Beth Shammai. The issues listed in our mishnah are from the realm of marital law.

פרוטה – one-half of a silver panicle.

A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. There are two stages in the Jewish marital process: kiddushin (betrothal) and nisuin (marriage). We will learn these laws more extensively when we learn Seder Nashim. For now I will merely mention that kiddushin creates a stronger bond than secular engagement does in our day. In order to separate from Jewish betrothal there is a need for a full divorce. One of the ways of contracting betrothal is for the man to give something of value to a woman. Today this is usually performed with a ring, a custom not mentioned in the Mishnah or even in the Talmud. According to Beth Shammai, the minimum amount that a man had to give a woman was a denar. While it is hard to know how much a denar was worth at those times, it probably was not more than a day’s wages, and maybe even less. Beth Hillel holds that a man can give a woman an even lesser amount, even one perutah, which was worth almost nothing.

איסר – its weight is four globules of barley, and it is called Italki on account that it was coin that came from Italy.

Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. This section discusses a man who writes a get (a divorce bill) for his wife but is secluded with her before he gives it to her (the divorce is not effective until she receives the get). If he had relations with her at this time, the get would nullified and in order to divorce her he would have to write a new get. Beth Shammai says that even though they were secluded we don’t suspect that they had relations and therefore, he may still give her the previously written get. Beth Hillel does suspect that they had relations, and therefore obligates the man to write a new get, if he wishes to divorce his wife.

בגט ישן (this section of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Gittin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 4) – as it is explained further on that he (i.e., the husband) that wrote to divorce his wife and after the Jewish bill of divorce was written, he engaged in sexual intimacy with her. The School of Shammai holds that we do not say that it is a decree lest people say that her Jewish bill of Divorce came before her child/son, for if we delay [the delivery of the Jewish bill of divorce] a year or two [years] between the writing and the giving and that she will have children from him during this time, and afterwards he will divorce her with it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce), and when they would see that the time of the Jewish bill of divorce was prior to the birth of the child, [people] would think that he gave it to her from the time of its being written, and the defect that that they would say that he (i.e., the child) was born from a freed woman. And the legal decision is that a man should not divorce his wife with an “old Jewish bill of divorce,” and if he divorced her and then the husband went to another country, she can marry him ab initio.

One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? (4) When she was divorced after marriage. ( But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her. This section discusses a similar incidence, except in this case the couple was already divorced before they were secluded. The question is did they have relations while secluded? If they did they may be betrothed, since sexual relations is one of the ways in which betrothal may be contracted (see Kiddushin 1:1). According to Beth Shammai we do not suspect that they had relations, and therefore she doesn’t need a new get from her former husband (the new get would allow her to marry someone else). Beth Hillel fears that they did have relations, and therefore she needs a new get if she wishes to marry someone else. The final clause limits this ruling of Beth Hillel to a couple that was already married. Since they were already sexually familiar with each other, we suspect that they may have again had sexual relations while they were at the inn. However, if the couple had been divorced before they were married, while they were still betrothed, there had not been sexual familiarity between them and therefore Beth Hillel does not suspect that they had relations while secluded. In this case Beth Hillel would agree with Beth Shammai that they do not need a get.

ולנה עמו בפונדקי (this section of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Gittin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 9) – and there are witnesses of sexual intimacy there (which generally, today, follows the wedding ceremony), but there aren’t there witnesses of sexual intercourse. The School of Hillel holds that these are both the witnesses of sexual intimacy and the witnesses of sexual intercourse, for there is a presumption that nobody wants to make his intercourse of woman one of prostitution (but wants to make her his wife thereby), when he has the ability in his hand to engage in sexual intercourse not for the sake of prostitution and that he has betrothed her through sexual intercourse. But the School of Shammai holds that we don’t say that these witnesses are both providing testimony for both sexual intimacy and sexual intercourse until they have seen that she has had sexual intercourse.

Questions for Further Thought:
Why are these leniencies of Beth Shammai? To whom is Beth Shammai lenient?

מתירין את הצרות לאחין – rivals of a woman forbidden on account of consanguinity, they (i.e., the School of Shammai) permit her to engage in a levirate marriage to the dead husband’s brother, for they lack [acceptance of] the expounding of [the Biblical verse] (Leviticus 18:18): “Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister [and uncover her nakedness in the other’s lifetime],” that implies from this that he cannot marry neither her, nor her associate wife, nor her associate’s associate wife.”

Introduction This mishnah discusses a dispute in the laws of levirate marriage between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. We will learn these laws more fully when we learn tractate Yevamoth.

חלצו – the associate wives from the brothers.

Beth Shammai permits the rival wives [of a deceased brother to be married] to the [surviving] brothers; But Beth Hillel forbids them. This mishnah describes a complicated situation which we will first explain. Reuven and Shimon are brothers. Leah and Rachel are sisters. Reuven marries Leah and Devorah (who is not related to anyone). Shimon marries Rachel. If Reuven should die without children one of his wives needs to either marry Shimon (levirate marriage) or have the ceremony of release (halitzah) performed. Shimon cannot marry Leah, since he is already married to her sister, Rachel, and it is forbidden for one man to marry sisters. According to Beth Shammai, although Leah cannot marry Shimon, Devorah, Leah’s rival wife from her marriage to Reuven, can. According to Beth Hillel, since Leah was forbidden, Devorah is also forbidden. If Shimon were to marry Devorah this would be considered the forbidden relationship of marrying a brother’s wife, which is only permitted when necessitated by levirate marriage. [Note: it is forbidden to marry a brother’s wife even after the brother is dead].

ב"ש פוסלין – the associate wives from [marrying into] the priesthood, for their taking off of the levir’s shoe is considered a valid act of removal of the levir’s shoe.

If they have performed halitzah, Beth Shammai pronounce them unfit to [marry into] the priesthood, But Beth Hillel pronounced them fit. If Shimon should perform halitzah for Devorah, according to Beth Shammai she is now truly a halutzah, a woman had been released from levirate marriage. Since halutzoth are forbidden to subsequently marry priests, Devorah cannot marry a priest. According to Beth Hillel, this halitzah was not necessary, since there was no necessity for levirate marriage in this case. Therefore Devorah is not considered a halutzah, and she may subsequently marry a priest.

וב"ה מכשירין – for their act of taking off of the levir’s shoe was not necessary, and it is as if she is removing the shoe of a heathen.

If they have married their brother-in-law, Beth Shammai pronounce them fit [to marry into the priesthood], But Beth Hillel pronounced them unfit. If Shimon should marry Devorah and then die, according to Beth Shammai she could now marry a priest. Shimon’s marriage to Devorah was legal and therefore she has not been rendered unfit to marry a priest by having engaged in a forbidden relationship. Her status is that of a twice-widowed women. [Note: widows may marry priests.] According to Beth Hillel, since Shimon’s marriage to Devorah was illegal, she is unfit to subsequently marry into the priesthood. [Note: any woman who has had an illicit sexual relationship cannot subsequently marry a priest. This includes incestual and adulterous relationships.]

נתיבמו – to the [dead husband’s] brothers.

And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai. The last two sections of this mishnah are amongst the most powerful statements of pluralism in the Rabbinic tradition. Up until now we have learned of serious and consequential disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. The marital laws of the two houses are substantially different: what one house accepts the other rejects. As a consequence of these different laws, Beth Shammai will consider some children born according to the rules of Beth Hillel to be mamzerim who are forbidden for regular Israelites to marry. The same is true for Beth Hillel with regards to the women of Beth Shammai. Nevertheless, scholars of neither house refrained from marrying the women of the other house. So important to them was the unity of Israel, that when it came to marriage they put aside their differences and intermarried.

ב"ש מכשירין – them to [marry] Kohanim, if they had become widowed from their levirs.

And in the case of all matters of purity and impurity in respect to which these pronounce pure and these pronounce impure, they did not refrain from preparing foods requiring a condition of purity each by means of [the vessels of] the other. The same is true with regards to the laws of purity. Although we have learned many disputes with regards to these laws, Beth Shammai would prepare its food with vessels used by those from Beth Hillel, and vice versa.

וב"ה פוסלים – since they were engaged in sexual relations with someone prohibited to them, and when they engage in sexual relations with someone prohibited to them, it makes her a harlot and a harlot is prohibited to a Kohen.

Questions for Further Thought:
• In what situations would a member of Beth Hillel theoretically not be able to marry a daughter of Beth Shammai and vice versa?

לא נמנעו – and even though the children of the associate wives have already engaged in levirate marriage according to the words of the School of Shammai, they are illegitimate/Mamzerim according to words of the School of Hillel, because the prohibited act of marrying one’s wife’s brother has come upon them, and marrying the wife of one’s brother [makes him] liable for extirpation and the children of those who are liable for extirpation are illegitimate/Mamzerim. And despite this, the School of Hillel was not prevented from marrying women from the School of Shammai, because they would inform them of those who come from the rival wives and separate themselves from them.

אלו על גב אלו – they lend out their utensils one to the other.

מופנה (this part of the Mishnah is found in Tractate Yevamot Chapter 3, Mishnah 5)– lives without a wife.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to list disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regards to the laws of levirate marriage. In order to understand this mishnah it is important to understand one issue about how levirate marriage works. When a woman’s husband dies without children she must either marry her brother-in-law or be released from marriage by him. According to the laws of the Torah, this marriage does not require prior betrothal. Rather it is consummated in one step: sexual relations. However, the Rabbis instituted that the brother-in-law should first betroth her. This betrothal is called maamar.

מאמר – Betrothal/Sanctification and with the widow of a brother who died without issue, does not take effect other than through the words of the Scribes.

[In the case of] three brothers, of whom two were married to two sisters and one was unmarried, if one of the husbands of the sisters died and the unmarried one betrothed her (, and afterwards his other brother died, Beth Shammai says: his wife remains with him, and the other [widow] is released on the grounds of [the law forbidding] the wife’s sister. But Beth Hillel says: he should put away his wife with a get and halitzah, and the wife of his brother [he should put away] with halitzah. This is the case of which they said: woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife! If you thought the last case was complicated, it now gets even worse! In this mishnah there are three brothers, Reuven, Shimon and Levi. Reuven and Shimon were married to Leah and Rachel who are sisters and Levi is unmarried. When either Reuven and Shimon dies Levi performs maamar, betrothal in the case of levirate marriage, with one of the sisters. At this point the other brother dies. The other sister should according to the laws of levirate marriage, also marry Levi. This is a problem because the other brother has already betrothed, although not married this woman’s sister. It is also somewhat of a problem for Levi to consummate the marriage with the first widowed sister since her sister is also bound to Levi by her need for levirate marriage or halitzah. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai rules that Levi may marry the first sister. The second widowed sister does not need either halitzah or levirate marriage, since she is forbidden to Levi who is married to her sister. In other words, according to Beth Shammai although Levi only performed “maamar” with the first sister, the bond created is strong enough to exempt the second sister from halitzah or levirate marriage to Levi. Beth Hillel disagrees. According to them maamar is not as strong as full marriage. Therefore Levi must perform two ceremonies in order to release the first widow: 1) he must divorce her to untie the bond created by the maamar; 2) he must perform halitzah to untie the bond created by her being his dead brother’s wife. The second widow also requires halitzah. The mishnah ends with what must have been a popular saying, although not necessarily said strictly in this circumstance. This is truly a sorry case for both Levi, who loses both women, and for his wife (the first widow) and for his (dead) brother’s wife as well.

אשתו עמו – for the School of Shammai holds that the wife the bespoken one is considered as entered into marriage, and when her sister fell [into widowhood] afterwards, she was not forbidden because of being the sister of her chained one.

Questions for Further Thought:
In what other circumstance might the saying at the end of the mishnah been stated?

והלה – and this one should be go free even from the ceremony of removing the levir’s shoe if he refuses to consummate the marriage with his dead brother’s widow, because she is the wife’s sister.

מוציא אשתו בגט – for the levir’s betrothal by word of mouth is not so strong to compare it as if he is married, for this prohibits her because of she is the sister of the chained one, and she requires a Jewish bill of divorce because of the Ma’amar/the levir’s betrothal by word of mouth to his dead brother’s widow and shed also requires the ceremony of removing the levir’s shoe [when he refuses to consummate the marriage of with his dead brother’s widow], for since Ma’amar is not a complete betrothal and she is still as yet chained and requires the ceremony of removing the levir’s shoe because of the interdependence of the childless widow and her late husband’s brothers; and in the beginning, he gives her a Jewish bill of divorce and afterwards conducts the ceremony of removing the shoe of the levir [and spitting in his face].

אי לו – woe is to him on his wife that he has to divorce her with a Jewish bill of divorce.

ואי לו על אשת אחיו – that he has to have her [conduct the ceremony to] .remove her levir’s shoe [and spit in his face].

המדיר את אשתו מתשמיש המטה (this part of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6) – such as the case when he (i.e., the husband) said: “your benefit of sex will be forbidden to me, but the benefit of my sex will be forbidden upon you, is not forbidden,” for he is subjugated to her, as it is written (Exodus 21:10): “[If he marries another,] he must not withhold from this one [her food, her clothing] or her conjugal rights.”

Introduction This mishnah contains four more disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. The first one continues to deal with marital law. The second one deals with laws of giving birth. The final two deal with other areas of law.

ב"ש אומרים שתי שבתות – if he made her take a vow for two weeks, she should wait, for so we found with a woman who gave birth to a girl is ritually defiled for two weeks.

One who takes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: [after] two weeks [he must divorce her and pay her kethubah], And Beth Hillel say: after one week. According to the Rabbis, a husband is obligated to have sexual relations with his wife at regular intervals (see Ketuboth 5:6). If he takes a vow not to have relations with his wife, Beth Shammai says that after two weeks she can sue him for divorce and she will be able to collect her kethubah (marriage payment). Beth Hillel is stricter on the husband and gives him only one week.

וב"ה אומרים שבת אחת – for such we have found with the menstruant woman who is ritually impure for seven days, and we learn that something that is frequent, that is, the anger that a man expresses towards his wife and makes her take a vow, and that is something that is frequent, from the case of a menstruant woman which is something that is frequent, which excludes a woman who gives birth to a female which is not all that frequent. But the School of Shammai holds that we learn a thing that he caused her, that is the vow of a man that he caused her to wait, from giving birth which through him comes upon her, to exclude the case of a menstruant woman that of itself comes upon her, and more than one week, according to the School of Hillel or two weeks, according to the School of Shammai, he should release her (i.e., divorce her) and give her a Ketubah settlement, and even a camel driver whose period is one days or a sailor whose period is six months.

A woman has a miscarriage on the eve of the eighty first [day]: Beth Shammai exempt her from bringing the offering, And Beth Hillel do not exempt her. According to Leviticus 12:5-6, a woman must bring a sacrifice 80 days after having given birth to a daughter. In other words, she brings a sacrifice on the 81st day. If she should become pregnant again during these 80 days, and have a miscarriage, the she need not bring another sacrifice for her miscarriage. [Generally she would have to bring a sacrifice for a miscarriage, just as she does for a live birth]. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to a woman who has a miscarriage on the night preceding the 81st day, the day she should have brought a sacrifice for the first birth. Beth Shammai rules that since she could not have brought a sacrifice at night, she is still within the 80 days, and she is exempt from bringing an additional sacrifice for the miscarriage. Beth Hillel rules that since the 80 days have been completed, she must bring a sacrifice for the miscarriage as well as one for the previous birth.

המפלת לאור שמונים ואחד (this section of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Keritut, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6) – she gave birth to a female, and the night of the eighty-first day when it was appropriate for her to bring her atonement, she miscarried.

[With regards to the rules of] tzitzit ( on linen sheet: Beth Shammai exempts, And Beth Hillel does not exempt. This mishnah deals with the obligation to put fringes (tzitzit) on a linen sheet. There are two reasons why Beth Shammai exempts one from doing so: 1) a sheet is not a piece of clothing. Deuteronomy 22:12 specifically states that the fringes must be put on clothing. 2) The sheet is made of linen and tzitzit are made of wool. According to Deuteronomy 22:11 it is forbidden to mix wool and linen. Beth Hillel rules that one should put the fringes on the sheet for two reasons: 1) The sheet may be worn as a piece of clothing; 2) The commandment to put fringes on clothing supersedes the prohibition of mixing linen and wool.

ב"ש פוטרים מן הקרבן – from the second birth, even though it it was after it was full, since it was at night, and the appropriate hour for the sacrifice did not end, for the night was lacking the time of the sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 7:38): “when He commanded that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD…” Therefore, with regard to the sacrifice it is like the day of completion.

A basket of [fruit set aside for] the Sabbath: Beth Shammai exempts it [from tithes]. And Beth Hillel does not exempt it. This mishnah deals with who has put aside a basket of fruit for Shabbat but wishes to snack from the basket before Shabbat. This snacking is not considered a fixed meal, and in general one may “snack” from produce before it has been tithed. However, this is not true on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath it is forbidden to eat any produce that has not been tithed. According to Beth Shammai one may eat the fruit of this basket before the Sabbath. Although on the Sabbath itself it will be forbidden to do so since it has not been tithed (and cannot be tithed on the Sabbath), before the Sabbath it is still permitted. Beth Hillel forbids. According to them, setting aside something for the Sabbath makes it forbidden to eat from it until it has been tithed.

וב"ה מחייבין – since it is after she completed it that she miscarried.

Questions for Further Thought:
• How did these four disputes come to be strung together? Can you find some link between each section and the preceding one?
• Section one: If a man is obligated to have regular sexual relations with his wife, why doesn’t he have to divorce her immediately if he takes such a vow not to perform his duty?

סדין – of flax/linen.

ב"ש פוטרין – because it is the manner of a [linen] sheet that we wear it at night, and Tzizit/ritual fringes which has a “thread of blue,” which is wool colored with the blood of a Chalazon/purple-shell used for dying T’kheletl, which is mixed seeds/Kilayim in a linen sheet, and during the daytime which is the time for this Mitzvah, the positive command of Tzizit overrides the negative commandment of not wearing Shaatnez/linen and wool together (Deuteronomy 22:11 – “You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen). But at night, when the command of Tzizit/ritual fringes does not apply, as it is written (Numbers 15:39): “[That shall be your fringe;] look at it [and recall all the commandments of the LORD and observe them],” excluding clothing of the nighttime. If he wears ritual fringes/Tzizit on linen sheet, he is liable because of “You shall not wear clothing combining wool and linen,” but the School of Shammai holds that we make the decree that a linen sheet with Tzizit, even during the daytime does not make one liable, with a decree because of night-time clothing which makes it liable because of mixed seeds. And the School of Hillel holds that we do not make this decree.

כלכלת שבת (this portion of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Ma’aserot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2) – a basket filled with fruits that have been designated for the Sabbath.

ב"ה מחייבין – [The School of Hillel] obligates them] for tithes immediately, even before the Sabbath, since he designated it for the Sabbath, it was appointed immediately. But the School of Shammai holds that the Sabbath does not establish it until it has entered.

ואח"כ בא לארץ (this Mishnah is also taught in tractate Nazir, Chapter 3, Mishnayot 6 and 7) – for the Nazirite [vow] is not practiced other than in the Land [of Israel] because of the defilement of the land of the nations, and [whomever] took a Nazirite vow in the Diaspora, we require him to come up to the land of Israel to practice his Nazirite [vow].

Introduction In order to understand this mishnah we must first explain some laws concerning the nazirite. One who takes a vow to be a nazirite (see Numbers 6) is forbidden to do three things: 1) cut his hair; 2) drink wine or any grape products; 3) become impure. If a nazirite should become impure during his naziriteship, he must begin to count the days of his naziriteship again. According to the Rabbis one who takes a vow of naziriteship without specifying the length of the naziriteship is a nazirite for thirty days. If he specifies more than thirty days than he is a nazirite for that specified period. If he specifies less than thirty days, he is still a nazirite for thirty days. Thirty days is the minimum period that one can be a nazirite. If one took a vow of naziriteship outside the land of Israel, he will have trouble observing his vow, because the Rabbis ruled that land outside of Israel imparts impurity. Since he is impure merely by being outside of Israel, he cannot truly keep his vow. Nevertheless the Rabbis said that he must observe his naziriteship outside of Israel, and then later when he arrives in Israel, observe another naziriteship. In our mishnah Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regards to how long he must be a nazirite when he arrives in Israel.

נזיר ל' יום – We fine him that he should fulfill his undefined Nazirite vow in the Land of Israel which is thirty days.

One who vowed [to keep] a longer naziriteship [than ordinary] and he completed his naziriteship and afterwards came to the [holy] land: Beth Shammai says: [he must be] a nazirite [only] thirty days, But Beth Hillel says: [he must be] a nazirite [the full time vowed as] in the beginning. If while living outside of the land of Israel one took a vow of naziriteship, and specified a period of over thirty days, when he afterwards comes to Israel, he must, according to Beth Shammai, observe only another thirty days of naziriteship. Since the impurity of land outside of Israel is only of Rabbinic (derabanan) ordinance and is not of the higher Toraitic status (deoraitta), Beth Shammai is lenient. Although his original vow was of greater length, he need observe only thirty days, the minimum length of naziriteship, when he arrives in the Holy Land. Beth Hillel holds that he must observe the full length of his original naziriteship.

נזיר בתחלה – he must practice it in the land of Israel according to the number of days that he vowed for his Nazirite vow, and the days which he practiced as a Nazirite outside the land of Israel are as if he had not practiced his Nazirite vow at all.

One who has two groups of witnesses who testify about him, these testifying that he vowed two naziriteships and these testifying that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: their testimony is divided, and there is no [obligation to perform] naziriteship. But Beth Hillel says: within the five, two are included, so that he must be a nazirite twice. If there are two groups of witnesses testifying that a certain man took several vows to be a nazirite, one group claiming that he took five vows to be a nazirite and therefore should observe 150 days of naziriteship, and the other group of witnesses testifying that he took two vows, and therefore should observe 60 days of naziriteship, according to Beth Shammai the testimony has been contradicted and there is no evidence that he is a nazirite. This person would therefore not be obligated to be a nazirite at all. According to Beth Hillel, since all of the witnesses agree that he took at least two vows, he must observe two periods of naziriteship.

אלו מעידין שנדר שתים – two Nazirite vows.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: Do you think there is significance to the mishnah’s using the numbers five and two, as opposed to three and four or any other smaller discrepancy between the two testimonies?

ואלו שנדר חמש – at the same time that you say that he took a vow for two, we testify that he took a vow for five Nazirite vows, and he states that he didn’t make a vow at all. -

נחלקה העדות – since they contradict each other, their words have been voided; there is no testimony at all.

וב"ה אומרים יש בכלל חמש שתים – and he will be a Nazirite for two [periods].

אדם שהוא נתון תחת הסדק (this Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Ohalot, Chapter 11, Mishnah 3) – a covered place in front of the house (excedra) whose ceiling was split and divided into two and utensils from one side and defilement from the other side. The utensils are ritually pure, as the air of [the split] interrupts and causes that the defilement doesn’t pass to the second side, and if a person was put there I in the ground on the floor of the covered place in front of the house, opposite the split.

Introduction This is the final mishnah in the long list of mishnayoth that list the disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.

ב"ש אומרים אינו מביא את הטומאה – he doesn’t bring the ritual defilement other than something that has an open space of a hand-breadth.

A man who was set beneath the gap: Beth Shammai says: he does not cause the impurity to pass over. But Beth Hillel says: a man is hollow, and the upper side causes the impurity to pass over. This mishnah, which is also found in tractate Ohalot 11:3, deals with a situation explained there in mishnah two. The situation is that there is a portico, a semi-covered courtyard, which is surrounded by pillars and on one side is a house. The portico is covered but the walls are open in three directions. This roof would normally cause tent impurity to be imparted to anything under the roof. In other words, if there was a source of impurity (such as a dead body) under the roof and a live person, or vessels under the same roof, the live person and vessels would be impure. The previous mishnah to our mishnah in Ohalot deals with a case where there is a crack in the roof. The impurity does not pass from one side of the crack to the other. Therefore if there is a dead body on one side and vessels on another, the vessels are not impure. The dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is about a case when a person was lying on the ground, directly under the crack. According to Beth Shammai, this person does not bridge the crack in the roof above, and the vessels which are on the opposite side remain pure. Beth Hillel holds that since the body of a person is considered to be hollow, the roof of his abdomen bridges the gap created by the crack and brings the impurity over to the other side.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Do you think it would make a difference if the crack did not go the whole length of the roof?
• Would this same law be true if there were cracks in a house?

וב"ה אמרים אדם חלול הוא – and even though his intestines are inside are inside him, the hallow that is within his body is considered as hallow one-handbreadth.