Eduyot 1

שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַנָּשִׁים דַּיָּן שְׁעָתָן. וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, אֲפִלּוּ לְיָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת. כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. הַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּעִדִּים, הֲרֵי זוֹ כִפְקִידָה, מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְעַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה:

Beth Shammai says: "All women — their time is sufficient." [All women who see blood, their time is sufficient to render unclean levitically clean food (taharoth) which they had touched, from the time of sighting (blood) and thenceforward. And we do not say that there was also blood before them, but the walls of the woman had prevented it from coming out, and that she was unclean even before her sighting. For all women render taharoth unclean (when they find blood) in the outer orifice, even though the blood has not come out. The reason that Shammai is not concerned that blood may have been there before her examination is that one would always be worried during intercourse that blood had issued forth and he would separate from his wife, thereby keeping the daughters of Israel from having children.] Hillel says: "From examination to examination, even for many days." [i.e., If she examined herself today and found herself clean and examined herself again at the end of the week and found herself unclean, we are concerned about what she had touched from the first examination on. Perhaps with the withdrawal of her hands (from the first examination) blood had appeared and had been prevented from coming out by the walls of the womb. And we are not concerned about suspension of cohabitation. For it is only in resepct to taharoth that we render (them) unclean from one examination to the next. But (we do) not (render her unclean) in respect to (cohabitation with) her husband. And Shammai holds that if you render her unclean in respect to taharoth, he will be uneasy and will also separate from intercourse.] And the sages say: "Neither like the one nor like the other." [Neither like Shammai, who is too lenient and does not make a fence for his words; nor like Hillel, who is overly stringent. For the womb does not hold in the blood for so long a period of time.] But "me'eth le'eth" [i.e., twenty-four hours] (sometimes) shortens al yad (i.e., after) "examination to examination," and "examination to examination" (sometimes) shortens al yad "me'eth le'eth" [i.e., Two time periods are mentioned in respect to a woman relative to rendering taharoth unclean retroactively, and the more lenient option is followed in both instances. That is, if "examination to examination" is longer than "me'eth le'eth," "me'eth le'eth" is followed and only the taharoth that she touched at this time yesterday are rendered unclean. And if "me'eth le'eth" is longer than "examination to examination," as when she examined herself in the morning and found herself clean, and in the evening and found herself unclean, only those taharoth from the first examination to the second are rendered unclean. And the halachah is in accordance with the sages. ("al yad" here is to be understood as "after," as in Nechemiah 3:8, 10, 12)]. Every woman who has a [regular] period, [established by three sightings; and she examined herself at her expected time and found herself unclean], her [expected] time is sufficient [and we do not fear that her flow had come before her time, for, certainly, the "guest" comes on time.] And if one uses cloths, this is considered an examination. [We are taught two things here, viz.: It is a mitzvah for every woman to use two examination cloths for intercourse, one before and one after. "This (the second cloth) is considered an examination," viz.] It "shortens" through "me'eth le'eth" or "examination to examination" (respectively). [For I might think that there might have been a drop of blood the size of a mustard-seed, which had been covered by semen, so that this would not constitute an examination; the Mishnah, therefore, apprises us that the ed (cloth) after intercourse is considered an examination. But the ed before intercourse is not considered an examination. For, in her haste for cohabitation, she may not be careful to insert the ed into all the crevices].

שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, מִקַּב לְחַלָּה. וְהִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, מִקַּבָּיִם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא קַב וּמֶחֱצָה חַיָּבִים בְּחַלָּה. וּמִשֶּׁהִגְדִּילוּ הַמִּדּוֹת אָמְרוּ, חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים חַיָּבִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, חֲמִשָּׁה, פְּטוּרִין. חֲמִשָּׁה וָעוֹד, חַיָּבִין:

Shammai says: "From a kav, for challah" [i.e., a kav of dough is subject to challah (the Cohein's share of the dough)]. Hillel says: "From two kavim." And the sages say: "Neither like the one nor like the other; but a kav and a half are subject to challah." ["a kav and a half" — seven logs, an egg, and a fifth of an egg by the measure of the desert, this being the omer for a head" (Exodus 16:16), half of an ephah, which is subject to challah, as it is written (Numbers 15:20): "The first of your dough, challah, etc." according to the dough of the desert." And they added a sixth in Yerushalmiyoth. It is found, then, that six desert logs are contained in five Yerushalmiyoth; and the remaining log, and an egg, and a fifth of an egg add up to a Yerushalmi log. For the desert log was six eggs. Place them in five big eggs and you find that the log is lacking a big egg. Give an egg and a fifth for the big egg, the fifth of the egg being a sixth in addition to the egg, we find six big eggs, which are a big log, so that (altogether) we find six big logs — a kav and a half (which are subject to challah.)] And when the sizes were enlarged [to the Sepphoris standard, a sixth more than the Yerushalmith, so that the six logs became five, which are five quarters of a kav, a kav being four logs,] they said: "Five quarters of a kav are subject (to challah"). R. Yossi says: "Five (quarters) are exempt (from challah), five and above are subject to it." [R. Yossi holds that the desert measure was (eggs) larger than ours, one-twentieth of an egg for each egg. And the halachah is in accordance with the sages, that the shiur (the minimum measurement) for challah is a Yerushalmith kav and a half; that is, six Yerushalmith logs, which, by the desert standard, are seven logs, and an egg and a fifth of an egg — altogether, forty-three eggs and a fifth of an egg. And the Rambam weighed and searched and adjusted and examined and found that the weight of five hundred and twenty derahams of wheat flour is the shiur of flour subject to challah. And the deraham weight is known in Egypt today and in Eretz Yisrael to be the weight of about sixty-one barley grains.]

הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, מְלֹא הִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁאָדָם חַיָּב לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ. וְשַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנֵי גַרְדִּיִּים מִשַּׁעַר הָאַשְׁפּוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהֵעִידוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן, שְׁלֹשֶׁת לֻגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, וְקִיְּמוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם:

Hillel says a whole hin [twelve logs] of drawn water invalidates a mikveh [if they fall into it before its shiur (its minimum amount of non-drawn water) has been completed. But after it has been completed, even if he threw into it all the drawn water in the world, it is not invalidated.] One must use the terminology of his teacher [i.e., "hin" is not Mishnah terminology but Torah terminology. But this is what he heard from his teachers, Shemayah and Avtalyon. And the Rambam received it from his father, of blessed memory, that Shemayah and Avtalyon, being righteous converts (gerei tzedek) could not pronounce "hin" and said "in" instead, (like [many] people today, who cannot enunciate aleph, cheth, heh, and ayin), so that Hillel also said "in," as his teachers, the gerei tzedek, Shemayah and Avtalyon did.] Shammai says nine kavin. And the sages say: Neither like the one nor like the other; but until there came two weavers from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemayah and Avtalyon that three logs of drawn water invalidate the mikveh, and the sages substantiated their words. ["the Dung Gate": The Tanna mentioned their occupation and their locality to teach that one should not keep himself from the house of study. For there is no trade more menial than that of a weaver, who is not appointed a king or a high-priest. And there is no gate in Jerusalem inferior to the Dung Gate, and yet, they outweighed in their testimony all the sages of Israel.]

וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין אֶת דִּבְרֵי שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל לְבַטָּלָה, לְלַמֵּד לַדּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם עוֹמֵד עַל דְּבָרָיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲבוֹת הָעוֹלָם לֹא עָמְדוּ עַל דִּבְרֵיהֶם:

And why are the words of Shammai and Hillel mentioned in vain? To teach future generations that one should not stand fast upon his words, [i.e., that he should not be intransigent in his opinion]; for "the fathers of the world" [Hillel and Shammai] did not stand fast upon their words.

וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן:

And why do we mention the words of the one, among the many, if the halachah is only in accordance with the many? So that if beth-din holds with the view of the one, and relies upon it [against the view of the many], a [future] beth-din cannot annul the words of its fellow beth-din unless it be greater in wisdom than that of the first], and in number [i.e., that the number of disciples in the second be greater than the number of disciples in the first.] If it were greater in wisdom but not in number, or in number but not in wisdom, it cannot annul its words unless it be greater (than the first) both in wisdom and in number.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין לְבַטָּלָה. שֶׁאִם יֹאמַר הָאָדָם כָּךְ אֲנִי מְקֻבָּל, יֵאָמֵר לוֹ, כְּדִבְרֵי אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׁמָעְתָּ:

R. Yehudah said: If so, why do we mention in vain the words of the individual, [in accordance with whose view no beth-din has acted], among the many? So that if a man say [in wonderment, when he sees that he is not being upheld by beth-din]: "But so have I received it," they can say to him: "You have received it according to this and this man's view," [but it has been rejected.]

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הָעֲצָמִים, בֵּין מִשְּׁנַיִם בֵּין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הַגְּוִיָּה, מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵעֶצֶם אֶחָד:

Beth Shammai say: A quarter [of a kav] of the bones [of the dead], whether from two or three, [cause tent-uncleanliness. And fewer than a quarter cause uncleanliness only by touching or carrying, but not in a tent. And Beth Shammai hold that a quarter of a kav cause tumah (uncleanliness) even if they are from many dead.] And Beth Hillel say: A quarter (of a kav) of the bones of the body. [That is, from the body of one dead man and not from many dead. And, even from one dead man, there is no tumah unless there be in the quarter of a kav either] the majority of the built [i.e., the majority of the built of the body] or the majority of the number [of the bones of a man — one hundred and twenty-five, a man's bones numbering two hundred and forty-eight.] Beth Shammai say: Even one bone. [i.e., If one bone of the dead man fills a quarter of a kav, it causes tent-uncleanliness. The halachah is in accordance with Beth Hillel.]

כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין וְשָׁפִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וְשָׁפִין וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, יֵאָכְלוּ צָרִיד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בְּטֻמְאָה:

Karshinim (vetch) of terumah — [In Arabic they are called "karshena." They are camel feed, and are used for human consumption only in a famine year. Terumah is separated from them, since men sometimes eat them, when forced to do so. And they are not sanctified, as other terumoth are] — Beth Shammai say: They are soaked [in water] and rubbed [on one's skin] in cleanliness [i.e., after cleansing one's hands, (netilath yadayim), according to the din of all other terumah food. For hands have the status of second-degree uncleanliness, and invalidate terumah]; and they are fed [to animals] in uncleanliness, [there being no concern about his making them unclean with his hands when feeding them to animals. But when they are not fed to animals, it is forbidden to render them unclean by the hands.] Beth Hillel say: They are soaked, in cleanliness, [for soaking them in water renders them susceptible to acquiring uncleanliness; and if he soaks them in uncleanliness, their tumah and their susceptibility come together. And this alone is what Beth Hillel forbid, as a sign, so that it be known that they are terumah], and they are rubbed (on the skin) and fed (to animals) in uncleanliness. Shammai says: Let them be eaten tzarid, ["dry," as in "tzarid of menachoth," there being a place in the meal-offerings where the oil did not reach. Here, too, let them be eaten dry, so there not be liquid upon them when they are eaten, so that it not be recognized that they were made susceptible of acquiring uncleanliness.] R. Akiva says: All that is done with them [even soaking] may be done in uncleanliness. [The halachah is in accordance with Beth Hillel.]

הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בְּכָל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף וּבְשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְחַלְּלִין כֶּסֶף וּפֵרוֹת עַל הַכֶּסֶף. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין:

One who exchanges a sela-worth of second-tithe money [i.e., one who has copper coins of second-tithe (ma'aser sheni) money, and he comes to exchange them for a silver sela to take up to Jerusalem because of the burden of the way] — Beth Shammai say: For the whole sela, coins. [i.e., If he comes to exchange them, he exchanges all of them, and he gives (copper) coins for the whole sela.] And Beth Hillel say: (He should take with him) a shekel [half a sela] in silver, and a shekel in (copper) coins. [For when he comes to Jerusalem, he will need coins immediately to buy what he needs to eat; and if all run to the money changer to change (a whole sela for copper coins), the coins will become dear and ma'aser sheni will suffer a loss. Therefore, they should take (copper) coins with them for their immediate needs, and, when they give out, he should exchange the silver that he has, little by little.] R. Meir says: Silver and fruits are not to be redeemed for silver [i.e., if one has half a silver dinar of second-tithe money and second-tithe fruits worth half a dinar, he should not combine them to redeem them for a dinar.] And the sages permit it [in such an instance, by combining it with fruits, since he has only half a dinar of silver. But to redeem a silver dinar and fruits worth a dinar for half a sela, which is worth two dinars — the sages agree that this is not to be done. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]

הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בְּכָל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף וּבְשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. הַדָּנִים לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִינָרִים כֶּסֶף וּבְדִינָר מָעוֹת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִינָרִים כֶּסֶף וּבִרְבִיעִית כֶּסֶף בִּרְבִיעִית מָעוֹת. וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַרְבָּעָה אַסְפְּרֵי כָסֶף. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, יַנִּיחֶנָּה בַחֲנוּת וְיֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּהּ:

One who exchanges a sela of second-tithe money in Jerusalem [i.e., if he exchanged a sela that he had for copper coins to expend them for the needs of a second-tithe meal — Beth Shammai say: For the whole sela, coins [i.e., if he wishes to exchange all the selaim that he has for coins, he may do so.] And Beth Hillel say: A shekel in silver and a shekel in coins. [i.e., he should exchange only half, lest he not remain in the city until he has spent all of them and he deposit them in the city until the next holiday and the coins deteriorate. And if he re-exchanges them for selaim, the money changer will profit twice, and ma'aser sheni will lose.] Those who deliberate in the presence of the sages, [i.e., Shimon b. Azzai, Shimon b. Zoma and Chanan Hamitzri] say: For three dinars, silver, and for one dinar, coins. [i.e., he should take coins only for one dinar, and three silver dinarim should remain.] R. Akiva says: For three dinars, silver; and for the fourth, a quarter in coins. [i.e., For the fourth silver dinar, he should take only a fourth in copper coins, and three-quarters, silver, so that he ends up with one-sixteenth of a sela in copper coins alone.] R. Tarfon says: Four esperi, silver. [A silver dinar equals five esperi (a Greek coin, which is still called by the same name), so that a sela equals twenty esperi. Therefore, in exchange for a dinar, he receives four silver esperi and one espero of copper (coins), and he ends up with one-twentieth of a sela in copper coins alone.] Shammai says: Let him leave it in the shop and eat in accordance with it. [i.e., He should not exchange it for coins at all, lest he forget and render them chullin (i.e., non-sanctified); but let him leave the sela with the shopkeeper and eat corresponding to its worth, until it is used up. The halachah is in accordance with Beth Hillel alone.]

כִּסֵּא שֶׁל כַּלָּה שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ חִפּוּיָיו, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף מַלְבֵּן שֶׁל כִּסֵּא טָמֵא. כִּסֵּא שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַעֲרֵבָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הֶעָשׂוּי בָּהּ:

A bridal chair whose chipuyim were removed — Beth Shammai rule it unclean (if sat upon by a zav), and Beth Hillel rule it clean. [("whose chipuyim were removed":) Our rabbis understand "chipuyim" as in "chafei pothachath" (Shabbath 81a), which are teeth (i.e., projections) protruding from keys that they make in the Arab lands. Here, too, they make projections on the bridal chair on which to lean. The Rambam understands it as carvings and figures made of wood or stone affixed upon the bridal chair. "Beth Shammai rule it unclean" (tamei): for it is still fit for sitting. "And Beth Hillel rule it clean" (tahor): for it is unfit for a bride and considered broken.] Shammai says: Even the frame (malbein) of the chair is tamei. [That is, even the frame itself without the seat is tamei; how much more so the seat itself without its appurtenances. ("malbein":) the form of a square brick made upon the seat, on which one sits.] A seat affixed to a kneading trough [If one brought a seat from a different place and affixed it to a kneading trough to be sat upon (and a kneading trough itself is not rendered tamei if sat upon, for it is made for kneading and not for sitting)] — Beth Shammai rule it tamei, [for the seat is not "neutralized" (batel) by the kneading trough.] And Beth Hillel rule it tahor [if sat upon, for the seat is neutralized by the kneading trough. (But if the seat is built into the kneading trough itself, both Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that it is tahor)]. Shammai says: Even if it were built into it [i.e., even if the seat were built into the kneading trough itself, it is tamei if sat upon by a zav.]

אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּנָּשֵׂא. מֵת בַּעְלִי, תִּתְיַבֵּם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶלָּא בְּבָאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר בִּלְבָד. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַקָּצִיר וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִן הַזֵּיתִים וְאַחַת הַבָּאָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, לֹא דִבְּרוּ בַקָּצִיר אֶלָּא בַהֹוֶה. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמָּאי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְתִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, תִּנָּשֵׂא וְלֹא תִטֹּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הִתַּרְתֶּם אֶת הָעֶרְוָה הַחֲמוּרָה, לֹא תַתִּירוּ אֶת הַמָּמוֹן הַקָּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מָצִינוּ שֶׁאֵין הָאַחִים נִכְנָסִין לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וַהֲלֹא מִסֵּפֶר כְּתֻבָּתָהּ נִלְמֹד, שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב לָהּ, שֶׁאִם תִּנָּשְׂאִי לְאַחֵר, תִּטְּלִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לִיךְ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:

These are the cases where Beth Hillel reversed (their ruling) to teach in accordance with Beth Shammai: If a woman came from abroad and said: "My husband died," she may remarry; "my husband died," she may perform levirate marriage. And Beth Hillel say: We did not hear (that she is permitted to remarry) except when she came from the wheat harvest) [as in the event that occurred, where men went to harvest wheat, and a snake bit and killed one of them, and his wife came and apprised beth-din of it, whereupon they sent and found her account to be correct. And they permitted it only in like circumstances; but she was not believed (to testify) about what had happened abroad.] (At this,) Beth Shammai said to them: (She may remarry) whether she came from the wheat harvest or the olive harvest, and from abroad. The sages stated "wheat harvest" only in that this happened to be the case, [but the same applies to all places] — whereupon Beth Hillel retracted (their ruling) to rule according to Beth Shammai. Beth Shammai say: She marries and she takes her kethubah (payment). Beth Hillel say: She marries, but does not take her kethubah — whereupon Beth Shammai said to them: You permitted an ervah (i.e., remarrying), which is more stringent, and you did not permit money, which is less stringent! Beth Hillel answered: We have found that her brothers do not enter the inheritance [of her husband] by her testimony, [it being written (Deuteronomy 19:15): "By word of two witnesses, etc.", but vis-à-vis her marrying, the rabbis were lenient, so that she not remain an agunah.] Beth Shammai responded: But should we not learn (the ruling) from the scroll of her kethubah [i.e., from the formula of the kethubah deed], where he writes to her: "If you marry another, take what is written (over) to you" [and she did remarry, wherefore she should take her kethubah (payment)!] — whereupon Beth Hillel retracted (their ruling) to rule according to Beth Shammai.

מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל. בַּת חוֹרִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל. לִבָּטֵל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מה), לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמָּאי:

If one were half-slave, half-free, [as the slave of two partners, who was freed by one of them, or as one whose master received from him half of his (redemption) money, by which half of him was freed], he serves his master one day and himself another day. These are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: You have aided his master, [who loses nothing], but you have not aided him! He cannot marry a maidservant, [because of the part of him that is free], and he cannot (marry) a free woman, [because of the part of him that is slave]. Shall he abstain (from marriage)? Was the world not created for having children? viz. (Isaiah 5:18): "Not for naught did He create it; to be settled did He form it!" But, for the world's amendment (tikkun haolam), we force his master to free him, and he writes (his master) a note (of indebtedness) for half his worth. [(The same applies if he were the slave of a hundred partners; all of them are forced to free him)] — whereupon Beth Hillel retracted, to rule in accordance with Beth Shammai.

כְּלִי חֶרֶס מַצִּיל עַל הַכֹּל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ מַצִּיל אֶלָּא עַל הָאֳכָלִין וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקִין וְעַל כְּלֵי חָרֶס. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מִפְּנֵי מָה. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא עַל גַּב עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְאֵין כְּלִי טָמֵא חוֹצֵץ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, וַהֲלֹא טִהַרְתֶּם אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְנוּ אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ, לְעַצְמוֹ טִהַרְנוּ. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְתָּ אֶת הַכְּלִי, טִהַרְתָּ לְךָ וָלוֹ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:

An earthenware vessel [whose cover is (completely) fastened upon it] protects all that is in it (from tent-uncleanliness) according to Beth Hillel, [it being written (Numbers 19:15): "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is unclean." But if its cover is fastened upon it, it and what is in it, whether vessels or food and drink, is clean. And the verse speaks of an earthenware vessel, it being written: "And every open vessel," connoting a vessel that contracts tumah through its opening and not through its back (i.e., an earthenware vessel).] And Beth Shammai say: It protects only food and drink and earthenware vessels (that are in it), [but not other vessels]. Beth Hillel asked them: Why? Beth Shammai answered: Because it (the earthenware vessel containing them) is tamei through an am ha'aretz (ignoramus) [For everything found with an am ha'aretz, both vessels and food and drink, are all in a status of tamei, because they are not versed in the halachoth of tumah and taharah, and think that what is tamei is tahor], and an unclean vessel does not intervene [i.e., it does not protect against tumah, but only a clean vessel does. An unclean vessel does not protect what is in it (from tent-uncleanliness). And the vessels of an am ha'aretz, since they are in a status of tamei, do not protect.] (At this,) Beth Hillel asked them: But did you not rule "tahor" the food and drink in it? Beth Shammai answered: When we ruled the food and drink in it "tahor," we did so for him, [the am ha'aretz himself. And we have no fear that a Torah scholar will come to use them, for they separate themselves from them. And even without this, all of their food is tamei. Therefore, as to food and drink and earthenware vessels, which cannot be purified in a mikveh, which were in the vessel of an am ha'aretz, whose cover was (completely) fastened — we tell them that they are tahor. And we have no fear that a Torah scholar will borrow from them and use them, for they are in the status of tamei to them and can never be made tahor. But with vessels that can be immersed (in a mikveh), we fear that a Torah scholar may borrow from them and use them without haza'ah (sprinkling the purification waters) on them the third and seventh days, not knowing that they had become tamei in a tent of the dead and thinking that immersion (in a mikveh) itself is sufficient for them, to free them of their tumah that they had contracted through the am ha'aretz], but when you (Beth Hillel) ruled the vessel "tahor," you did so for you and for him. [For a Torah scholar might come to use it. Therefore, they (Beth Shammai) ruled the same for all, that a vessel that could be immersed is not protected by a sealed covering, neither for a Torah scholar nor for an am ha'aretz. If they came to decree that the earthenware vessel of an am ha'aretz never "protects" (even) with a fastened cover, because it is in the status of tamei, the amei ha'aretz would never accept this, thinking that they are expert (in these laws) and that they keep their vessels tahor, and that their vessels "protect."] And Beth Hillel retracted, to rule in accordance with Beth Shammai.