Eduyot 4
אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. בֵּיצָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְיוֹם טוֹב, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, תֵּאָכֵל. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא תֵאָכֵל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׂאֹר בְּכַזַּיִת וְחָמֵץ בְּכַכּוֹתֶבֶת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה בְּכַזָּיִת:
These things are of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the stringent rulings of Beth Hillel: An egg that was hatched on Yom Tov — Beth Shammai say: It may be eaten and Beth Hillel say: It may not be eaten. [We are speaking of a Yom Tov after Shabbath. Beth Hillel says that it may not be eaten, for every egg that is hatched today is completed the day before, so that Shabbath is found to have "prepared" for Yom Tov. But Scripture stated (Exodus 16:5): "And it shall be on the sixth day, that they shall prepare (for Shabbath) what they shall bring" — and the sixth day is generally chol (mundane, not a holy day) — whence: Chol prepares for Shabbath, and chol prepares for Yom Tov (which is also called "Shabbath"), but Yom Tov does not prepare for Shabbath, and Shabbath does not prepare for Yom Tov. And preparation of the type of (the preparation of) the egg, even though it is in the hands of Heaven, is, nonetheless called "preparation."]
בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְיוֹם טוֹב, הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הַבֵּיצָה, הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וָעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יַחְפֹּר בַּדֶּקֶר וִיכַסֶּה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יִשְׁחֹט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ עָפָר מוּכָן. וּמוֹדִים שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט, שֶׁיַּחְפֹּר בַּדֶּקֶר וִיכַסֶּה. שֶׁאֵפֶר כִּירָה מוּכָן הוּא:
A beast that was born on Yom Tov — all agree that it is permitted to be eaten, [this, provided that its gestation period has been completed.] and a chick that emerged from its egg (on Yom Tov) — all agree that it is forbidden. If one would slaughter an animal and a bird [on Yom Tov, and inquires of beth-din how it should be done] — Beth Shammai say: [Beth-din instructs him to slaughter ab initio and] to dig with a mattock ("deker") [that he had stuck in the ground before Yom Tov] and cover (the blood). [That is, he is to remove it from the place where he had stuck it, take up earth, and cover (the blood) with it. We are speaking of an instance where it is stuck in moist earth which is fit for covering, not lacking crumbling. ("deker") as in (Numbers 25:8): "And he thrust through ('vayidkor') both of them."] And Beth Hillel say: He may not slaughter unless he had earth prepared. And they agree that if he had (already) slaughtered, he may dig with a mattock and cover it. And oven ashes are (considered) "prepared." [This does not refer to the instance of Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, but is an independent statement, viz.: "Oven ashes are (considered) 'prepared.'" And this obtains only when the oven had been fired before Yom Tov; but if it has been fired on Yom Tov it is forbidden, for it cannot be said that his mind was set on it from yesterday. And if an egg can be roasted in it, the ashes still being hot, it is permitted to cover (the blood) with it. Since they may still be stirred for roasting an egg, he may also use them for covering.]
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִיִּים, הֶבְקֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ הֶבְקֵר, עַד שֶׁיֻּבְקַר אַף לָעֲשִׁירִים כַּשְּׁמִטָּה. כָּל עָמְרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁל קַב קַב, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין, וּשְׁכָחוֹ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שִׁכְחָה:
Beth Shammai say: Hefker for the poor is hefker. [If one made (his produce) hefker (i.e., "renounced") for the poor but not for the rich, it has the din of hefker and is not subject to leket, shikchah, and peah or to ma'aser, it being written with respect to leket and peah (Leviticus 19:10): "To the poor man and to the stranger shall you leave them." What is the intent of "them"? To apprise us of another "leaving," i.e., hefker, which is like this. Just as this is to the poor and not to the rich, so, hefker is (i.e., can be) to the poor and not to the rich.] And Beth Hillel say: It is not hefker until it is made hefker to the rich, too, like shemitah, [it being written (Exodus 23:11): "And the seventh year it shall lie fallow and you shall leave it." What is the intent of "and you shall leave it"? To apprise us that there is another "leaving," i.e., hefker, which is like shevi'ith. Just as shevi'ith is for both rich and poor, so, hefker.] If all the sheaves in the field were (the size of) a kav, and one, four kabin, and it were forgotten, Beth Shammai say that it is not shikchah, and Beth Hillel say that it is shikchah. And, similarly, if all the sheaves were two kabin, and one, eight kabin, and he forgot it, it is shikchah. More than this is not shikchah.]
הָעֹמֶר שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לַגַּפָּה וְלַגָּדִישׁ וְלַבָּקָר וְלַכֵּלִים, וּשְׁכָחוֹ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שִׁכְחָה:
If the sheaf were near a gappah [a fence of stones placed one upon the other without loam], a stack, cattle, or [plowing] implements, Beth Shammai say that it is not shikchah, and Beth Hillel say that it is shikchah. [The argument between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel concerned a sheaf that he took hold of to take to the city and which he placed beside a gappah or a stack, where he forgot it. Beth Shammai say that it is not shikchah because he took hold of it, and Beth Hillel say that it is shikchah. Another interpretation: Beth Shammai say that it is not shikchah even with a sheaf that he did no take hold of at all. For since he placed it next to a particular object, he will come to remember it; and Beth Hillel say that it is shikchah, so long as he did not take hold of it. And Beth Hillel concede that if he took hold of it and then forgot it, it is not shikchah.]
כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵין לוֹ חֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בִעוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, יֶשׁ לוֹ חֹמֶשׁ וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בִעוּר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יֶשׁ לוֹ פֶרֶט וְיֶשׁ לוֹ עוֹלְלוֹת, וְהָעֲנִיִּים פּוֹדִים לְעַצְמָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כֻּלּוֹ לַגָּת:
Kerem revai (a vineyard in its fourth year), [which requires redemption if he wishes to eat its fruits outside of Jerusalem (and the same applies for every fruit tree)] — Beth Shammai say: It does not require a chomesh (the addition of a fifth of its value), [it not being written thereof in the Torah that a fifth is to be added, as it is written in respect to the second tithe]; and it does not require removal [from the house on the eve of Pesach of the fourth and seventh years, when he removes the tithes, viz. (Deuteronomy 26:13): "I have removed the holy thing (ma'aser sheni and neta revai) (see Leviticus 27:30 and 19:24) from the house."] And Beth Hillel say: It does require a chomesh and it does require removal. [Beth Hillel derive it (by identity) "holy"-"holy" from ma'aser — Just as ma'aser requires a chomesh and removal, so kerem revai requires a chomesh and removal; and Beth Shammai do not derive it from there.] Beth Shammai say: It [kerem revai] is subject to peret (the taking of individual [fallen] grapes by the poor) and it is subject to oleloth (the taking of single [fallen] bunches by the poor), [for they are considered chullin (non-sacred) re the owner]; and the poor redeem for themselves (the peret and the oleloth that they picked), and eat them in their places and bring up their (redemption) monies to Jerusalem.] And Beth Hillel say: They all go to the wine-press, [for they derive (kerem revai) from ma'aser, and hold that ma'aser sheni is considered sacred re the owner. Therefore, the poor have no share in it. And the owners press the olelim together with the rest of the grapes and bring everything up to Jerusalem.]
חָבִית שֶׁל זֵיתִים מְגֻלְגָּלִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנַקֵּב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, צָרִיךְ לְנַקֵּב. וּמוֹדִים, שֶׁאִם נִקְּבָהּ וּסְתָמוּהָ שְׁמָרִים, שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. הַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן טָהוֹר וְנִטְמָא, יָרַד וְטָבַל, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְנַטֵּף, טָהוֹר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּדֵי סִיכַת אֵבֶר קָטָן. וְאִם הָיָה שֶׁמֶן טָמֵא מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כְּדֵי סִיכַת אֵבֶר קָטָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם בֵּית הִלֵּל, טוֹפֵחַ וּמַטְפִּיחַ:
A cask of olives, pickled [in salt in order to sweeten them] — Beth Shammai say: It is not necessary to make holes (in the cask). [And even though the mohal (the sap) exuded from them floats upon them, it does not condition them to receive tumah (uncleanliness), for he does not desire that mohal, and we require (for such conditioning) a liquid that he desires, it being written (in that connection, Leviticus 11:38): "And if water YTN upon a seed." It is written "ki yiten" ("if he place"), but it is read "yutan" ("if it be placed.") Just as "yiten" connotes his desiring it, so "yutan" implies his desiring it.] Beth Hillel say: He must make holes in it. [He must perform an act to indicate that he does not desire that mohal to float on the olives, desiring it to leave through the hole that he made in the cask.] And they concede that if he made a hole in it and the lees obstructed it that it is pure (i.e., not conditioned to receive tumah) [for since he did so, he thereby revealed that he did not desire the mahol, so that it no longer conditions them to receive tumah.] If one anointed himself with clean oil and became unclean, and he immersed himself (in a mikveh) — Beth Shammai say: Even if he is dripping [i.e., even if the oil is dripping from his flesh after he immersed], he is clean. And Beth Hillel say: [Even if there remained on his flesh] enough for the anointing of a small limb, [he is clean; but if more, he is unclean. For the oil became unclean when he did, and it remained upon his flesh and rendered him unclean. And the oil on his flesh does not become clean in a mikveh. For there is no liquid which becomes clean in a mikveh but water alone, by hashakah (being dipped in a mikveh while in a vessel)]. And if the oil were tamei in the beginning, Beth Shammai say: If there is enough for the anointing of a small limb, [but not more, it is clean], and Beth Hillel say: Liquid is moist (alone). R. Yehudah says in the name of Beth Hillel: It is moist and moistens (other objects). [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]
הָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִינָר, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה, אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בְאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, פּוֹטֵר הוּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט יָשָׁן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. אֵיזֶהוּ גֵט יָשָׁן. כָּל שֶׁנִּתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ. הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְפֻנְדְּקִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. אֲבָל אִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין, אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַס בָּהּ:
A woman is betrothed with a dinar [ninety-six barley-corns weight of silver] or with the worth of a dinar, according to the words of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel say: with a p'rutah [a half barley-corn weight of silver] or with the worth of a p'rutah. And how much is a p'rutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar [four barley-corns weight of silver, so called because it was issued in Italy.] Beth Shammai say: A man may divorce his wife with an old get [which he wrote to divorce his wife, continuing to live with her after he wrote the get. Beth Shammai hold that we do not decree against it lest people say: "Her get preceded her son," i.e., lest a year or two pass between the writing and the giving and she have children from him in the interim and then be divorced with that get — so that people, seeing the get as antedating the birth of her son, might come to think that the get were given her at the time of writing and come to cast a blemish upon the child, saying that it was born of an unmarried woman.] And Beth Hillel forbid it. Which is "an old get"? A get, after the writing of which he continued living with her. [The halachah: One may not divorce his wife with an old get. And if he divorced her and went to a different country, she may remarry by it ab initio.] If one divorced his wife, and she spent the night with him at an inn, [there being witnesses to their having been alone together, but not to their having cohabited], Beth Shammai say: She does not require a second get from him. Beth Hillel say: she requires a second get from him. [Beth Hillel hold that witnesses to their being alone together are (considered) witnesses to cohabitation. And since a man does not cohabit promiscuously when he can do so legitimately, (we assume that) he betrothed her with this cohabitation. And Beth Shammai hold that we do not consider witnesses to their being alone witnesses to cohabitation until they actually observe her in the act.] When is this so? If she were divorced from marriage. But if she were divorced from betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, for he is not that familiar with her (and is assumed not to have cohabited with her.)
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין אֶת הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. חָלְצוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. נִתְיַבְּמוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַכְשִׁירִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל פּוֹסְלִין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ פוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּשָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלֹא בֵית הִלֵּל מִלִּשָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית שַׁמָּאי. וְכָל הַטָּהֳרוֹת וְהַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵלּוּ מְטַהֲרִין וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ לִהְיוֹת עוֹשִׂים טָהֳרוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל גַּב אֵלּוּ:
Beth Shammai permit tzaroth (co-wives) to brothers. [They permit the tzarah of an ervah to be taken in yibum (levirate marriage) by one's brother, not expounding (Leviticus 18:8): "And a woman together with her sister you shall not take to be rivals (litzror)," which implies: take neither her, her tzarah, nor the tzarah of her tzarah.] And Beth Hillel forbid them. If they [the tzaroth] received chalitzah (release from yibum) [from the brothers], Beth Shammai regard them [the tzaroth] as unfit for marriage within) the priesthood, [their chalitzah being valid (and a chalutzah being forbidden to a Cohein)], and Beth Hillel regard them as fit, [their chalitzah having been unnecessary, and akin to chalitzah from a gentile.] If they were taken in yibum [by the brothers], Beth Shammai regard them as fit [for marriage to Cohanim if they are widowed from their husbands], and Beth Hillel as unfit, [living with those forbidden to them rendering them "zonah," and thus forbidden to a Cohein]. And even though these regard as unfit, and these as fit, Beth Shammai did not keep from marrying women from Beth Hillel, and Beth Hillel did not keep from marrying women from Beth Shammai. [And even though the children of the tzaroth who were taken in yibum according to the ruling of Beth Shammai are mamzerim according to Beth Hillel, (the interdict against a brother's wife applying to them, the punishment for transgression being kareth, and the children of a kareth union being mamzerim), still, Beth Hillel did not keep from marrying women from Beth Shammai, for they would apprise them which came from tzaroth and they would avoid them.] And in all those instances where these ruled clean and the others unclean, they would not keep from observing ritual cleanliness among each other. [i.e., they would lend their vessels to each other.]
שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם נְשׂוּאִים לִשְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֶחָד מֻפְנֶה, מֵת אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֲחָיוֹת וְעָשָׂה בָהּ מֻפְנֶה מַאֲמָר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו הַשֵּׁנִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְהַלָּה תֵּצֵא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט וַחֲלִיצָה, וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אִי לוֹ עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאִי לוֹ עַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו:
If there were three brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and one of them single — if one of the sisters' husbands died, and the single brother made a ma'amar (a verbal declaration of marriage) in her [(ma'amar - betrothal of a yevamah, which "takes" only according to the words of the scribes)], and then the second brother died — Beth Shammai say: His (the third brother's wife) remains with him [For Beth Shammai hold that the woman betrothed by ma'amar is regarded as his wife, so that when her sister falls before him (for yibum) afterwards, she (the first sister) is not forbidden by reason of "the sister of his linked one"], and the other goes out [even from chalitzah, by reason of "the sister of his wife."] And Beth Hillel say: — He must send his wife away by get and by chalitzah, and his brother's wife by chalitzah. [For ma'amar is not sufficient to give her (the first) the status of a married woman, and the other (the second) is forbidden by reason of "the sister of his linked one." A get is necessary because of the ma'amar, which is partial betrothal (and betrothal is not dissolved without a get.) and she also requires chalitzah, for since the ma'amar is not bona fide betrothal, she is still linked to him (for yibum) and requires chalitzah to dissolve that linkage; so that first he gives her a get, and then chalitzah.] and this is the instance of which they said (13:7): "Woe to him by reason of his wife, [whom he must divorce], and woe to him by reason of his brother's wife!" [whom he must give chalitzah]
הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שַׁבָּת אֶחָת. הַמַּפֶּלֶת לְאוֹר שְׁמֹנִים וְאֶחָד, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין מִן הַקָּרְבָּן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין. סָדִין בְּצִיצִית, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִים. כַּלְכָּלַת הַשַּׁבָּת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין:
If one forbids his wife by vow from cohabitation [as when he says: "Let the enjoyment of your cohabitation be forbidden to me" (But if he says: "The enjoyment of my cohabitation is forbidden to you," she is not forbidden, for he is obligated to her, it being written (Exodus 21:10): "…and her (conjugal) time he shall not withhold")] — Beth Shammai say: Two weeks. [If he vowed thus, he must wait two full weeks (before resuming relations); for thus do we find with a woman who gave birth to a female, that she is unclean for two weeks.] And Beth Hillel say: one week. [For thus do we find with respect to a niddah, that she is unclean for seven days; and we derive what is common (a man's becoming angry with his wife and forbidding her by vow) from what is common (niddah, which is a common occurrence) — as opposed to childbirth, which is not that common. And Beth Shammai hold that we derive something which he causes (the vow of the man, which causes her to desist), from something that he causes (childbirth, which comes through him) — as opposed to niddah, which comes of itself. If (he forbids her) more than one week according to Beth Hillel, or more than two weeks according to Beth Shammai, he must send her away and give her her kethubah — even if he were a camel driver, whose conjugal time is once in thirty days, or a mariner, whose conjugal time is once in six months.] If a woman miscarried on the eve of the eighty-first day [of her having given birth to a female, in which instance she brings an offering of atonement on the eighty-first day (for the first birth)], Beth Shammai exempt her from an offering [for the second (miscarried) birth, even though it took place after the "consummation" (of her days of purification [viz. Leviticus 12:6]) since it took place at night, when an offering may not be brought, it being written (Ibid. 7:38): "…on the day that He commanded… to present their offerings," wherefore, in respect to the offering, it (the eighty-first day) is considered the day of "consummation."] And Beth Hillel rule it liable (for a second offering) [since she miscarried after the time of "consummation."] A (linen) night-garment with tzitzith, [(which contain a cord of tcheleth, (wool dyed in the (purple) blood of a chilazon)] is kilayim (a forbidden admixture [wool and linen]). Beth Shammai exempt [such a garment from tzitzith in the daytime], and Beth Hillel does not. [In the daytime, the time of the mitzvah (of tzitzith), the positive commandment comes and overrides the negative commandment (against wearing sha'atnez (viz. [Deuteronomy 22:11]: "You shall not wear sha'atnez, wool and linen together"). But in the night-time, when the mitzvah of tzitzith does not obtain, it being written (Numbers 15:39): "And you shall see it (the tcheleth)," excluding (from the mitzvah) a night-garment, if he wears a linen night-garment with tzitzith attached, he is in transgression of "You shall not wear sha'atnez." Beth Shammai hold that we decree against wearing a (linen) night-garment with tzitzith even in the daytime, so that it not be worn at night when, (the mitzvah of tzitzith not obtaining,) he would be liable for kilayim. And Beth Hillel hold that we do not make such a decree.] The basket of the Sabbath [i.e., a basket full of fruits designated for the Sabbath] — Beth Shammai exempt them [from tithing, holding that Sabbath "takes hold" only when it arrives.] And Beth Hillel obligate [them to be tithed immediately, even before the arrival of the Sabbath. For since he designated them for the Sabbath, it so "took hold" immediately.]
מִי שֶׁנָּדַר נְזִירוּת מְרֻבָּה וְהִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא לָאָרֶץ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, נָזִיר בַּתְּחִלָּה. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים מְעִידוֹת אוֹתוֹ, אֵלּוּ מְעִידִים שֶׁנָּדַר שְׁתַּיִם וְאֵלּוּ מְעִידִים שֶׁנָּדַר חָמֵשׁ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּת וְאֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נָזִיר שְׁתָּיִם:
If one assumed many Naziritisms and completed his Naziritism and then came to Eretz Yisrael [(For Naziritism obtains only in Eretz Yisrael because of the uncleanliness of "the lands of the nations." And if one vowed Naziritism outside Eretz Yisrael, he is obliged to go up to Eretz Yisrael and observe his Naziritism there)], Beth Shammai say: He becomes a Nazirite for thirty days, and Beth Hillel say: He becomes a Nazirite from the beginning. [He must observe in Eretz Yisrael the number of days of Naziritism that he vowed. And the days of Naziritism that he observed outside of Eretz Yisrael are not regarded as such at all.]
אָדָם שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן תַּחַת הַסֶּדֶק, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אָדָם חָלוּל הוּא, וְהַצַּד הָעֶלְיוֹן מֵבִיא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה:
[In a vestibule whose roof split in two, where there are vessels (on the ground) on one side of the split and an unclean object (tumah) on the other side,] if a man were lying (on the ground) [directly] under the split — Beth Shammai say: [The vessels are clean, for] the man does not conduct tumah [from the object to the vessels, only something having a cavity the size of a tefach doing so, (and the air under the split acting as a "barrier" between the object and the vessels)]. And Beth Hillel say: A man is [considered as having] a cavity [And even though his intestines are within it, the cavity within the body is regarded as a cavity of a tefach], and the upper part (of his body) conducts the tumah (to the vessels).