Eduyot 5

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. דַּם נְבֵלוֹת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. בֵּיצַת הַנְּבֵלָה, אִם יֵשׁ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהּ נִמְכֶּרֶת בַּשּׁוּק, מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לָאו, אֲסוּרָה, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. וּמוֹדִים בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵפָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּדְלָה בְאִסּוּר. דַּם נָכְרִית וְדַם טָהֳרָה שֶׁל מְצֹרַעַת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּרֻקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ. אוֹכְלִין פֵּרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית בְּטוֹבָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָה, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין אוֹכְלִים אֶלָּא בְטוֹבָה. הַחֵמֶת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, צְרוּרָה עוֹמֶדֶת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרוּרָה:

R. Yehudah says: six things are of the leniencies of Beth Shammai and the stringencies of Beth Hillel: the blood of neveiloth — Beth Shammai rule it clean [entirely, it not being considered neveilah], and Beth Hillel unclean. The egg of a neveilah [as when it (the bird) became neveilah in shechitah (slaughtering), and eggs were found in it after shechitah] — If its (the egg's) like were sold in the marketplace, [its shell being hard and finished, like other eggs sold in the marketplace], it is permitted; and if not, it is forbidden, as per the words of Beth Shammai, [it being considered like its intestines]. Beth Hillel forbid it. And they concede that the egg of a treifah (an organically defective bird) is forbidden, it having developed in (a state of) issur (forbiddenness). The blood of a gentile and the "clean" blood of a woman leper [the clean blood that she saw in giving birth after seven ("unclean") days for (the birth of) a male, and two weeks for a female] — Beth Shammai rule it clean, [it being written in the parshah of zav — (a genital discharge) (Leviticus 15:2): "Speak to the children of Israel" — the children of Israel become unclean with zivah, but gentiles do not become unclean with zivah. And the Rabbis decreed that they become like zavin in all respects. Beth Shammai hold: In respect to what did the Rabbis decree? In respect to her spittle and her urine, which are a constant. But they did not decree thus in respect to zivah blood, which is of rarer occurrence. (The Rabbis made a "sign" and did not rule it unclean, so that they realize that "gentile tumah" is a rabbinic phenomenon and not come to burn terumah and kodshim (consecrated food) because of it.)] And Beth Hillel say: [The blood of a gentile woman is unclean] when it is like her spittle and her urine; [that is, when it is wet and not when it is dry. And it is this "reminder" alone that they made for her. For if her tumah were Torah mandated, her blood would be unclean both wet and dry. But now that it is unclean only when wet, we realize that her tumah is rabbinically ordained.]

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. תּוֹרְמִין זֵיתִים עַל שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲנָבִים עַל יַיִן, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין תּוֹרְמִין. הַזּוֹרֵעַ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שׁוּרָה אַחַת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת. הַמְּעִיסָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין. מַטְבִּילִין בְּחַרְדָּלִית, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מַטְבִּילִין. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר עַרְבֵי פְסָחִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקָּבֶר:

R. Yossi says: Six things are of the leniencies of Beth Shammai and the stringencies of Beth Hillel: According to Beth Shammai, chicken may be brought up with cheese upon the table, [its issur being only a scribal one], but not eaten. And Beth Hillel say: It may not be brought up (there), [a decree lest he bring up cheese with meat in a boiling pot, which is forbidden according to the Torah, being "cooking"]; and it is not eaten (together).

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. קֹהֶלֶת אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדָיִם. מֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁעָשׂוּ מִצְוָתָן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. הַקֶּצַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. וְכֵן לַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת:

R. Yishmael adduces three instances of the leniencies of Beth Shammai and the stringencies of Beth Hillel: The Book of Koheleth does not render one's hands unclean, [it being Solomon's wisdom and not having been stated by the Holy Spirit.] And Beth Hillel say: It does render the hands unclean. [They hold that Koheleth, too, was stated by the Holy Spirit, wherefore it renders one's hands unclean, as do the other holy writings.] The waters of cleansing (of the red heifer), whose mitzvah has been completed [i.e., after they were sprinkled on the unclean one and he were cleansed by them, if they dripped from his body upon a man or upon vessels], Beth Shammai rules (them) clean, and Beth Hillel, unclean.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. דַּם יוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כְּרֻקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ:

R. Eliezer adduces two instances of the leniencies of Beth Shammai and the stringencies of Beth Hillel: The blood of a woman who gave birth [and waited in her blood of uncleanliness (one week for a male and two weeks for a female)] but did not (yet) immerse — Beth Shammai say: [Her blood is] like her spittle and her urine, [which cause tumah when they are wet but not when they are dry. Her blood, too, causes tumah when wet, but not when dry, unlike the blood of a niddah, which causes tumah both (when it is) wet or dry.] And Beth Hillel say: It causes tumah whether wet or dry. [So long as she did not immerse, it is considered like niddah blood, even in the days of cleanliness.] And they concede that if she had a zav discharge while giving birth, [(in which instance she must count seven clean days, as do all other zavoth) that if she did not count and did not immerse and saw blood in her days of cleanliness,] that it causes tumah whether wet or dry, [it being considered zivah blood so long as she has not counted and not immersed.]

אַרְבָּעָה אַחִים, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, מֵתוּ הַנְּשׂוּאִים לַאֲחָיוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַבְּמוֹת. וְאִם קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ, יוֹצִיאוּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, יְקַיְּמוּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, יוֹצִיאוּ:

If there were four brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and they died, the surviving two perform chalitzah, but not yibum, [for since both women are linked to each brother, the first to perform yibum violates "the sister of his linked one," who is like his wife.] If they were beforehand and married them, they must send them away. R. Eliezer says in the name of Beth Shammai: They may keep them, and Beth Hillel say: They must send them away. [The Gemara in Yevamoth reverses this, viz.: Beth Shammai say: They must send them away, and Beth Hillel say: They may keep them. And this is the halachah, that if they were beforehand and married them, they may keep them.]

עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל הֵעִיד אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, עֲקַבְיָא, חֲזֹר בְּךָ בְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתָ אוֹמֵר וְנַעַשְׂךָ אַב בֵּית דִּין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לָהֶן, מוּטָב לִי לְהִקָּרֵא שׁוֹטֶה כָּל יָמַי, וְלֹא לֵעָשׂוֹת שָׁעָה אַחַת רָשָׁע לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ אוֹמְרִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שְׂרָרָה חָזַר בּוֹ. הוּא הָיָה מְטַמֵּא שְׂעַר הַפְּקֻדָּה וְדַם הַיָּרוֹק. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. הוּא הָיָה מַתִּיר שְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְחַלּוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַשְׁקִין לֹא אֶת הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְלֹא אֶת שִׁפְחָה הַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מַשְׁקִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַרְכְּמִית, שִׁפְחָה מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה בִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהִשְׁקוּהָ שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. אָמַר לָהֶם, דֻּגְמָא הִשְׁקוּהָ. וְנִדּוּהוּ, וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ, וְסָקְלוּ בֵית דִּין אֶת אֲרוֹנוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם שֶׁעֲקַבְיָא נִתְנַדָּה, שֶׁאֵין עֲזָרָה נִנְעֶלֶת בִּפְנֵי כָל אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּחָכְמָה וּבְיִרְאַת חֵטְא כַּעֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל. וְאֶת מִי נִדּוּ, אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן חֲנוֹךְ, שֶׁפִּקְפֵּק בְּטָהֳרַת יָדָיִם. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת, שָׁלְחוּ בֵית דִּין וְהִנִּיחוּ אֶבֶן עַל אֲרוֹנוֹ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַמִּתְנַדֶּה וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ, סוֹקְלִין אֶת אֲרוֹנוֹ:

Akavya ben Mahalalel testified in four instances. They said to him: Akavya, retract the four things that you said and we will make you a chief justice of Israel, whereupon he said: "Better to be called a dolt all of my life and not to be wicked one moment before the L rd," so that they not say: "He retracted because of 'position.'" He would declare unclean a "deposited hair," [a bahereth (a kind of plague-spot) having "deposited," (as it were) the hair in the skin of the flesh and having departed. As in an instance of a bahereth with a white hair in it. If the bahereth departed and left (i.e., "deposited") the white hair in its place and then it (the bahereth) returned — Akavya ben Mehalalel rules it unclean. Since the hair turned white in the bahereth, even though the bahereth that is there now is not the one that turned it white, still, he is unclean.], and (he declared unclean) the 'green' blood (of a niddah.) And the sages rule them clean, [it being written (Leviticus 13:10): "…and it (the bahereth) turned the hair white" — only if it turned it white, and not its neighbor. And (Akavya ben Mahalalel) declared unclean the 'green' blood of a niddah, holding it to be like the color of the bright-colored crocus, one of the "unclean" colors, which had faded (from the red)]. And he would permit derivation of benefit to a Cohein of the wool of a first-born blemished animal, that had fallen (to the ground) and which he had placed on the window, after which he slaughtered it. And the sages forbade it. [For if you permit to him its wool that falls (to the ground) while it is alive, they will come to delay (the slaughtering of) a firstling so that its wool fall always, and they will (also) come to shear and work with it; and it is forbidden to shear and to work with unfit consecrated animals, it being written (Deuteronomy 12:11): "…you shall slaughter and eat flesh" — you shall slaughter, and not shear. And Akavya permits it. For since shechitah avails for (enjoyment of) the wool, which is attached to it, afterwards, it also avails for the wool that has been torn off and placed in the window.] He would say: [The sotah's draught] is not administered to a proselytess or an emancipated maidservant, [it being written (in the oath administered to the sotah [Numbers 5:21]): "May the L rd render you a curse and an oath in the midst of your people," excluding those who are not "in the midst of your people."] And the sages say: They do make them drink. They said to him: There was once an incident of this kind in Jerusalem involving a freed maidservant, Carcamith, and the draught was administered to her by Shemaya and Avtalyon!, whereupon he (Akavya) said to them: "They made her drink the like!" [i.e., they did so because they were (proselytes) like her, and not because this was the law. Another interpretation: They gave her the impression that they were giving her the bitter waters to drink, but they were not really doing so.] And they excommunicated him (Akavya), [for having cheapened the honor of Shemaya and Avtalyon]. And he died in his state of excommunication and beth-din stoned his coffin. R. Yehudah said: G d forbid that Akavya was excommunicated. For the (doors of the) azarah (the Temple court) closed on no man in Israel [on Pesach eve, when they went in to slaughter their Pesach offerings, (viz.: "When the first contingent went in, they closed the doors of the azarah, etc.")] greater in wisdom and fear of sin than Akavya ben Mahalalel. Who, then, was it that they excommunicated? It was Elazar ben Chanoch, who made light of [the rabbinical ordinances of] washing one's hands. And when he died, beth-din sent and placed a large stone on his coffin, [betokening their separation from him], whence we learn that if one is excommunicated and died in that state, his coffin is "stoned."

בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר לִבְנוֹ, בְּנִי, חֲזֹר בְּךָ בְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אָמַר לוֹ, וְלָמָּה לֹא חָזַרְתָּ בָּךְ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים, וְהֵם שָׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים. אֲנִי עָמַדְתִּי בִשְׁמוּעָתִי, וְהֵם עָמְדוּ בִשְׁמוּעָתָן. אֲבָל אַתָּה שָׁמַעְתָּ מִפִּי הַיָּחִיד, וּמִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּין. מוּטָב לְהַנִּיחַ דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד, וְלֶאֱחֹז בְּדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. אָמַר לוֹ, אַבָּא, פְּקֹד עָלַי לַחֲבֵרֶיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי מַפְקִיד. אָמַר לוֹ, שֶׁמָּא עִילָה מָצָאתָ בִי. אָמַר לוֹ, לָאו. מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְקָרְבוּךָ וּמַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְרַחֲקוּךָ:

At the time of his death he said to his son: "My son, retract the four things that I said [re: "a deposited hair," "'green' blood," the torn-off wool of a first-born animal, and the draught of a proselytess and an emancipated maidservant.] He (the son): "Why did you not retract them?" Akavya: "I heard it from the majority and they heard it (the opposite) from the majority. I upheld what I had heard, and they upheld what they had heard. But you heard it from an individual [i.e. from me] and from a majority [against me]. It is better to forsake the words of the individual and to adopt the words of the majority." [For he (Akavya), too, had also received it from a majority, so that his words were like those of the majority — wherefore he told him "Better to forsake, etc." For if not so, why "it is better"? Is it not explicitly written (Exodus 23:2): "After the many to incline (the judgment)," so that it is perforce mandated to forsake the words of the individual? But (in this instance) the reason for saying "'Better', etc." rather than "One must, etc." is that he (Akavya), too, had heard it from a majority. (The halachah is not in accordance with Akavya ben Mahalalel in all of these four instances.)] He (the son): "Father, commend me to your friends." Akavya: "I will not do so." The son: "Have you, perhaps, found some fault in me?" Akavya: "No — your deeds will draw you near (to them), and your deeds will distance you."