Commento su 'Eduyyot 5:8

רבי יהודה אומר. דם נבילות ב"שש מטהרין – it is not considered as something that died of itself.

Introduction Chapter five continues to list disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in which Beth Shammai were more lenient. The difference between these lists and those in the previous chapter is that in this chapter individual Sages state the lists as opposed the lists in the previous chapter which were not ascribed to anyone in particular. The first mishnah is Rabbi Judah’s list. It contains six disputes.

ביצת נבלה – such as the case where it became ritually forbidden by unskillful slaughtering, and eggs were found in it after the slaughtering.

Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.
The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. Everyone holds that the flesh of a carcass (an animal which was not properly slaughtered) is impure. Beth Shammai holds that the blood of a carcass is not like the flesh, and it is not impure, whereas Beth Hillel holds that it is impure.

אם כיוצא בה נמכרת בשוק – for its shell is hard, and it is completed like the rest of the eggs sold in the marketplace.

An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. If an egg is found in the carcass of a bird, the question arises, can one eat the egg? The bird is forbidden, but we need to know is the egg still part of the bird, in which case it too is forbidden, or is it a separate entity, in which case it is permitted. According to Beth Shammai, if this egg is fully-formed such that it is similar to eggs sold in the market, it is a separate entity and is permitted. Beth Hillel states that the egg is forbidden in any case. The mishnah notes that the two houses agree in the case of an egg found in a “trefah” that it is forbidden. A “trefah” is an animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within 12 months. Since the egg grew in an animal that was definitely going to be forbidden to eat, even if it was slaughtered properly, the egg is forbidden. The egg which was found in the carcass of the dead bird, had the potential to be a kosher egg, and therefore, according to Beth Shammai, if the egg was fully formed, it is permitted to eat.

ואם לאו – and if it is not completed

One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Sections three and four: This section discusses the purity of the menstrual or gonorrheal blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of a gonorrheal Jewish woman during the first 40 days (for a boy) or 80 days (for a girl) after giving birth. According to Rabbinic law, fluids flowing from gentiles are impure. However, Beth Shammai argues that this is only with regards to their spit and urine, fluids which are always present. The decree of the Rabbis that their fluids are impure does not apply to their blood flows. With regards to the gonorrheal Jewish woman, she is normally impure. However, the blood flow of women is always pure during this period after childbirth. Beth Shammai says that the blood of a gonorrheal woman is also pure. Beth Hillel says that the blood flows of both of these women is like their urine and spit: they are all impure.

אסורה – for it is considered like its intestines.

During the Sabbatical year all of the produce grown in the fields is considered ownerless, and may be eaten by anyone. Beth Shammai holds that when one eats such produce one may express his thanks to the owner of the field, or one may not choose not to express thanks. Beth Hillel holds that one may not express thanks to the owner of the field. These fruits are ownerless; giving thanks to the owner of the field may give people the impression that he is the one giving them, whereas in truth it is the Torah’s laws which have given them to the person eating. [I have explained the mishnah according to some versions of the text, which Albeck believes are correct.]

דם נכרית ב"ש מטהרים (this section of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Niddah, Chapter 4, Mishnah 3) as it is written in the portion of a person with a flux (Leviticus 15;2): “Speak (in the plural) to the Israelite people and say to them;” the Israelite people become defiled by flux but the gentiles do not become defiled through flux. But the Rabbis decreed upon them that they would be like those with a flux for all of their words. The School of Shammai holds that when the Rabbis decreed on the spittle and urine, which are found frequently, but the blood of a woman with flux which is not found all that much, the Rabbis did not make a decree regarding it. The Rabbis made this thing recognizable, but did not defile the blood of a heathen woman with flux, in order that they would know that the defilement of a heathen is according to the Rabbis, just as the priest’s due and holy things are not burned on it.

As we have stated many times, a vessel cannot receive impurity unless it is functional. Our mishnah discusses a waterskin. According to Beth Shammai, the waterskin receives impurity only if it is tied up and standing upright, so that it will retain the water which is inside. Beth Hillel holds that as long as it is upright, it need not be tied up to receive impurity.

כרוקה וכמימי רגליה – the blood of the heathen woman defiles like her spittle and her urine, that is moist, but not dry. And this is for recognition alone that they did it, for it had been defilement from the Torah, the blood would defile moist and dry. Now that it defiles only when moist, we recognize that it is defilement of the Rabbis.

ודם טהרה של מצורעת – the pure blood that the leprous woman saw when she gave birth after seven days for a son and two weeks for a daughter.

בטובה – that the person who eats attaches favor to the owner of the fruits that he fed him from his produce.

ושלא בטובה – who does not attach favor to him.

אין אוכלים בטובה – that it is forbidden to attach favor to the honors for the All- Merciful made them ownerless.

החמת – like a leather skin/bottle that was pierced and tied up.

צרורה עומדת – which does not receive defilement other than if it is tied up, that is to say, that it the leather was tied and bound, and it is not stiff at the point of the tie, for since they tied it and strengthened it and it receives defilement.

העוף עולה עם הגבינה – (see Tractate Hullin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 1 for parallel) as its prohibition is not other than from the words of the Scribes.

Introduction In this mishnah Rabbi Yose lists six cases in which Beth Shammai ruled more leniently than did Beth Hillel.

לא עולה – it was a decree lest the cheese served up [on the table] with the meat of cattle in a boiling tightly-covered pot, which is prohibited from the Torah for it is cooking.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.
A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. It is forbidden to place on one table both meat and cheese, lest by accident one come to eat them together. According to Beth Shammai this prohibition is with regards to meat (cow, lamb, sheep) only. Since eating fowl together with dairy is not forbidden according to the Torah, as is eating milk and meat, but rather fowl and dairy are forbidden only by Rabbinic law, the Rabbis were not so strict as to prevent one from putting them together on the same table. Beth Hillel says that even chicken and cheese are forbidden to be put on one table.

ובה"א אין תורמין (see Tractate Terumot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4) - whomever has [olive] oil that he is obligated to separate from it the priest’s due and olives that is obligated to separate from it priest’s due, he is not allowed to separate the priestly gift from the olives according to the measure that he has to separate the priest’s gift from the olives and from the oil, and to exempt the oil through the priest’s gifts of the olives, for it is written (Numbers 18:27): “as with new grain from the threshing floor [or the flow from the vat],” from that which is completed on that which is completed, and not from what is not completed on that which is completed.

Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. According to Beth Shammai, if a person has olive oil and raw olives, or wine and grapes from which he needs to separate terumah (which goes to the priest), he may give from the raw fruits (olives or grapes) and have that count as the terumah for the finished products (olive oil or wine). Although these things are in different form, since they are of the same type, one may give terumah from one for the other. Beth Hillel says that one may not do so.

הזורע ארבע אמות בכרם (see Tractate Kilayim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5) – which is the measure that a person must distance the seed from the vineyard, and the individual who sows within this measure has caused the condemnation of one row of the vineyard, as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:9): “else the crop – from the seed you have sown – and the yield of the vineyard may not be used,” but te School of Shammai holds that one row is called a vineyard. And the School of Hillel holds that something is not called a vineyard if it is less than two rows, and when the All-Merciful states that the yield of a vineyard has been condemned, two rows of the vineyard are spoken of.

One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. According to Deuteronomy 22:9 it is forbidden to plant a vineyard with other types of seed. If one does neither may be used. The Rabbis stated that one must leave four cubits between the vineyard and the planting of the seed. If one plants within this four cubits, according to Beth Shammai the fruit of the first row of the vineyard, the one next to the planted seeds, is forbidden to eat. According to Beth Hillel two rows are forbidden.

המעסה (this section of the Mishnah is taught in Tractate Hallah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6) -flour upon which boiling water is poured and it boils and thickens there. The School of Shammai exempts it from Hallah and the School of Hillel obligates [separating from it] Hallah. And the legal decision regarding this we have written at the beginning of [Tractate] Hallah (i.e., if it is baked in an oven, Hallah is required to be taken; but, if any deep or covered pan and/or in pan or anything where the flame passes underneath it, is exempt from Hallah being taken).

Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. According to Numbers 15:19 the first yield of bread baking must be given to the priests. This is called “hallah”, and it is observed by separating some of the dough and giving it to the priests. Our mishnah discusses flour that has been mixed with boiling water and thereby cooked with water instead of being baked. According to Beth Shammai since it was not baked it is exempt from the laws of hallah. Beth Hillel says that it is subject to these laws, and therefore one must give part of it to the priest.

חרדלית (this section of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Mikvaot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6) – like HARD’LIT a stream of water that comes from the bucket of the mountain, that is to say, from the height of the mountain, and even if from their beginning until their end there is nothing other than forty Se’ah, we immerse in according to the School of Shammai. But the School of Hillel states that we don’t immerse in it until there are forty Se’ah [of water] in one place, for rain water rushing down a slope/a torrent, does not purify other than in a cavity for the reception of water.

One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. Ritual baths are usually taken in a bath of water that is at least 40 seahs large. According to Beth Shammai, one may also bathe in a flow of rainwater, flowing down from the mountains. Although there is not 40 seahs in the specific place where he bathes, since from the beginning of the torrent up in the mountains, until its end in the valley there are certainly 40 seahs, he may make use of it as a ritual bath (mikveh). Beth Hillel says that he may not.

כפורש מן הקבר (this section of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 8, Mishnah 8) – and he requires sprinkling [of the ashes of the Red Heifer] on the third and seventh days (having been in contact with the dead -as per Numbers 19:19). But the Schools of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree other than in the case of an uncircumcised heathen who circumcised on the fourteenth day [of Nisan], for the School of Hillel holds that it is a decree lest he become ritually impure in the next year and say that “last year, I did not purify from all the ritual defilement until [the fourteenth] and I immersed and I ate; now, also, I will immerse and eat, but he did not know that last year, when he was still a heathen, he could not receive ritual defilement; now that he is an Israelite, and he can receive ritual defilement. But the School of Shammai holds that we don’t make this decree, but according to everyone, an uncircumcised Israelite may immerse and each his Passover offering in the evening.

One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave. This mishnah discusses a new convert’s eating the Passover sacrifice, which cannot be eaten in a state of impurity. If he converted on the eve of Passover, according to Beth Shammai he may immerse and eat of the Passover sacrifice that very evening. According to Beth Shammai the convert is only impure by minor impurities, which dissipate at nightfall if the person took a ritual bath. However, Beth Hillel says that one who has just left the uncircumcised, meaning he was just circumcised, is like one who separates from the grave and is impure like one who came into contact with a dead body. This impurity lasts seven days, and therefore, one who converted on the eve of Passover will not be able to eat his Passover sacrifice that evening.

קהלת אינו מטמא את הידים – because it is the wisdom of [King] Solomon, and it was not stated in the Holy Spirit.

Introduction This mishnah contains Rabbi Yishmael’s list of three instances in which Beth Shammai ruled more leniently than Beth Hillel.

מטמא את הדים – Because they (i.e., the School of Hillel) hold that Kohelet/Ecclesiastes was stated in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it imparts impurity to the hands like the rest of Holy Scripture.

Rabbi Yishmael says: there are three instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel.
The book of Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: it defiles the hands. According to the Rabbis the Holy Scriptures, meaning any canonized book in the Bible, cause ones hands to be ritually defiled. According to the Talmud the reason is that people used to put the scrolls into arks with terumah food, reasoning that both were holy. Mice would come to eat the food and they would destroy the scrolls. By decreeing that the scrolls would defile the terumah, people stopped this practice. There are several debates in the Mishnah about what books are included in the Biblical canon such that they defile the hands. According to Beth Shammai, Ecclesiastes (Koheleth) does not defile the hands. This is probably due to the deeply pessimistic, bordering on heretical, tone of the book. At times the author of the book has at least serious doubts about whether or not the performance of good deeds brings with it rewards, a doctrine held as true by the Rabbis. Beth Hillel includes it in the Biblical canon probably for two reasons: 1) it was, according to tradition, written by King Solomon; 2) the last verse of the book exhorts the reader to listen to God’s word and to do good, a message that was certainly acceptable to the Rabbis.

שעשו מצותן – After they had sprinkled them on the impure individual and he became pure through them (the ashes of the sin-offering), if they dripped from his body on to a person or on to utensils. (this section of the Mishnah, according to the commentary of Tosafot Yom Tov is not like the anonymous Mishnah taught in Tractate Parah, Chapter 12, Mishnah 4 as well as Mishnah 5).

Water of purification which has done its duty: Beth Shammai pronounces it pure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it impure. “Waters of purification” refers to the water that has been mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, and was used to rid a person of corpse impurity. According to Beth Shammai, the water remains pure even after it has been sprinkled on the impure person. Although before it has been used it causes impurity to one who touches it unnecessarily (see Numbers 19:21), according to Beth Shammai once it has been used it is no longer impure. Beth Hillel holds that these waters remain impure even after they have been used.

הקצח – black seed that we call it NEELO in a foreign language, and it is customarily placed on bread and whomever uses this regularly does not have heart pains. [Tis is also taught in in the Tractate Uktsin, Chapter 3, Mishnah 6 and also at the end of chapter 1 of Tractate Tevul Yom, Mishnah 6).

Black cumin: Beth Shammai pronounces it not liable to become impure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable to become impure. So, too, with regard to tithes. In this section Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel debate about the status of black cumin. If black cumin is considered a food, then it should be receptive to impurity and one who wishes to eat it would have to first separate the necessary tithes and terumah. Beth Shammai does not consider black cumin to be “food” and therefore holds that it is not receptive to impurity nor subject to the laws of tithes and terumah. Beth Hillel holds that it is food and is therefore receptive to impurity and one who eats it must separate tithes and terumah.

ב"ש מטהרין – for it is not considered food.

וב"ה מטמאין – because it is customary to put it on foods and is considered food.

וכן למעשרות – just as they disputed regarding ritual defilement, they similarly disagree in the question of tithes which it defiles by the ritual impurity of foods, that one is obligated in tithing.

דם יולדת – that she delayed a week for [the birth of] a male and two weeks for female, and did not immerse [in a Mikveh].

Introduction This mishnah and the mishnah that we will learn tomorrow contain the last lists of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in tractate Eduyoth.

בית שמאי אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה – which ritually defile moist but do not ritually defile as dry,. Even her blood defiles moist but does not defile dry, and is not considered like the blood of a menstruant woman which defiles [both] moist and dry.

Rabbi Eliezer says: there are two instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel.
The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed herself, Beth Shammai says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. But Beth Hillel says: it causes impurity whether wet or dry. However, they agree in the case of the blood of a woman who gave birth when she had non-menstrual discharge, that it causes defilement whether wet or dry. According to Leviticus, chapter 12, after a woman gives birth to a male she is impure for seven days and after giving birth to a female she is impure 14 days. After this time she is supposed to go to the mikveh (ritual bath) and she will be pure. Any blood that flows after this time is pure (up to 33 days for a boy and 66 days for a girl). Our mishnah discusses a woman who had not gone to the mikveh after the initial seven or 14 day period. According to Beth Shammai the blood of this woman is not totally impure. Rather it is impure only when it is wet, like her spittle and urine. When dry the blood is pure. Beth Hillel disagrees and holds that it is impure whether wet or dry. The two Houses agree that if the woman was a “zavah”, a woman with an unnatural discharge (such as gonorrhea) at the time of childbirth, that her blood remains impure both when wet and when dry. A “zavah” must count seven clean days (free from any blood) for her to be able to go to the mikveh and become pure. Since she has not been able to do so, her blood remains impure, both wet and dry, as blood normally is.

ובית הלל אומרים מטמא לח ויבש – all the time that she has not immersed [in a Mikveh], it is considered like the blood of a menstruant woman, and even though it is amidst the days of her purification.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Now that we have learned the last list of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, can you discern any order to their appearance in the mishnah?

ומודים ביולדת בזוב – that she needs to cunt seven clean days like the law of all the rest of those with a flux, for if she did not count nor immersed [in the Mikveh], and saw blood during the days of purification, which defiles [both] moist and dry, for it is considered like the blood of someone with a flux all the time that she didn’t count or immerse [in the Mikveh].

חולצות ולא מתיבמות – for since both of them are tied by their interdependence of a childless widow and her late husband’s brothers (i.e., they cannot marry otherwise until released from their dead husband’s brother) to this one and to that one first and if he (i.e., one of the brothers) marries the wife of a brother who died without issue, he strikes against the sister of his obligated leviratical relation who is like his wife.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It contains the second example of Rabbi Eliezer’s list of disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.

משום ב"ש יקיימו וב"ה [אומרים] יוציאו – in the Gemara in [Tractate] Yevamot 28a in the chapter “Four Brothers” (chapter three), they reverse it, as the School of Shammai states that they should release her, and the School of Hillel states they should uphold it [and remain wed], and such is the Halakah that if he went ahead and married [the two sisters], they may remain wed.

[In the case of] four brothers of whom two were married to two sisters, if those married to the sisters died, behold, these should perform halitzah and not enter into levirate marriage (with the brothers-in-. If they went ahead and married them, they must put them away (divorce. Rabbi Eliezer says in the name of Beth Shammai: they may keep them. But Beth Hillel say: they must put them away. In the case in our mishnah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Judah who are brothers, are each married, Reuven and Shimon being married to Rachel and Leah who are sisters and Levi and Judah being married to other women not related to Rachel and Leah. If Reuven and Shimon die without children, Rachel and Leah need to perform halitzah or enter into levirate marriage with either Levi and Judah. However, they cannot both be married to the same brother, since a man cannot marry two sisters. Since each sister is “tied” to each brother (by her need to perform halitzah or be married), the best thing to do is for each to perform halitzah, the release from levirate marriage. From here we learn that it is forbidden for a man to marry the sister of a woman who is tied to him, in a similar way that it is forbidden for a man to marry two sisters. According to Beth Shammai, if, even though it is forbidden to do so, Levi and/or Judah married Rachel or Leah, they are not forced to divorce them. According to Beth Shammai the law that says that they must perform “halitzah” is only “lekhathilah”, meaning ab initio. One should not do marry these sisters, but if one did the action is valid. According to Beth Hillel, this marriage is forbidden even “bediavad”, meaning even after it was done, it remains forbidden, and they are forced to divorce them. Beth Hillel probably reasons that if this marriage was permitted “bediavad”, “lekhathilah” people would marry in this situation.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do clauses 1a and 1c repeat the same opinion? What might this tell us about the structure and formation of the mishnah?

שער פקודה – the language of “deposit”/thing given in charge (regarding the hair of a leprous spot which remains after the inflammation has partially receded), that the bright white spot on the skin deposited the hair in the flesh of the skin and it went away, such as the case where there was in it a bright white spot and in it was white hair, and the white spot sent away and left the white hair in its place, and afterwards, the bright white spot returned. Akavyah ben Mehalalel makes it ritually impure since the hair turned white in the great white spot even though that great white spot that is there is now is not the same that turned it to white hair, it is ritually impure.

Introduction This mishnah contains the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel who was excommunicated for his disagreements with the other Sages. Although we have seen many disagreements in the Mishnah, some over major issues of law, it has seemed that the disputing Sages lived in peace despite their differences. This point was especially made with regards to the disputes of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in chapter four, mishnah eight. However, the border of legitimate dispute seems to have been crossed by Akavia ben Mahalalel. Although it will be difficult for us to understand what exactly it was that Akavia did that so angered the other Sages, this mishnah at least provides ample testimony to the ease in which legitimate dispute can turn into a fierce battle.

וחכמים מטהרין – as it is written (Leviticus 13:10): “[If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling] which has turned some hair white, [with a patch of un-discolored flesh in the swelling],” that it has turned it [white] but not its neighbor that turned it white.

Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” In the first section of the mishnah we learn the background to the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel. The Sages pleaded with him to retract the four things that he stated and in return they would appoint him to the head of the court. Akavia responded in two ways: 1) God would know that his retraction was false, and therefore he could not do so; 2) he cannot change his beliefs merely in order to be appointed to a position of power.

ודם הירוק – Akavyah ben Mehalalel makes it ritually impure as he holds that it is of the color of the bright-colored crocus (see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 6), which is one of the ritually impure bloods but that it had smitten with leprosy.

He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy], The mishnah now begins to list the four statements that Akavia made and with which the Sages disagreed. The first is with regards to a certain type of hair found in someone afflicted with a leprous like disease. A white hair found on the leprous patch is impure. If the disease disappears and the white hair stays and then the disease returns, Akavia considers the hair to be impure, since it is likely to be the same disease merely returning. The Sages consider the disease to be a new affliction and therefore, since in order for the hair to be impure, the disease must precede the formation of the hair, the hair is pure.

היה מתיר שער בכור בעל מום שנשר – wool that had fallen out from the firstling which was blemished, he would permit it for the benefit of the Kohen (this Mishnah is from Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4).

And green ( blood (of vaginal; But the Sages declared them clean. If a woman has a vaginal discharge which is green (yellow), Akavia considers it to be similar to blood which everyone holds is impure and therefore the yellow discharge is also impure. The other Sages disagree and hold that a yellow discharge is not blood and is therefore pure.

וחכמים אוסרים – for if he had permitted wool that falls from a living being, they would come to be compared to a firstling in order that he could remove its wool at every hour, and regarding it, they would come to a stumbling block/snare that he would shear it and work it, and those holy things that are invalid, it is prohibited for shearing and working them, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “[But whatever you desire,] you may slaughter and eat meat [in any of your settlements, [according to the blessing that the LORD your God has granted you…],” you may slaughter but not shear. But Akavyah permits it, for since slaughtering causes the benefit of the wool that is attached to it to permit it after the slaughtering, one can benefit as well from the detached wool that is placed in the window.

He used to permit the wool of a first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards; But the sages forbid it. It is forbidden to shear a first born animal, even one that has a flaw and is therefore is not sacrificable. (First born animals that have no flaw are sacrificed and their flesh belongs to the priests. First born animals that have a flaw belong to the priests but are not sacrificed). Since it is forbidden to shear this animal, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden to use any wool that comes from it, even if it falls off on its own. If some wool falls off while it is alive and someone puts it away for safekeeping, but does not use it, and then the animal is slaughtered to be eaten (which is permitted since it has a flaw) Akavia permits this wool to be used. Since the slaughtering permits the wool that is on the dead animal to be used (it is only forbidden to shear the live animal), it also permits the wool that fell off the animal before it died to be used. The Sages hold that this wool is not permitted.

אין משקין – the waters of the suspected adulterous woman.

He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters. But the Sages say: they are made to drink. They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real. According to Numbers 5, a woman who is suspected of adultery is to be tested by drinking the “bitter waters” (5:24). In verse 12 of this chapter, in the introduction, it states, “speak unto the children of Israel”. From here Akavia learned that in order to drink the “bitter waters” the woman must be born an Israelite. According to Akavia, the chapter was taught to Israelites but not to non-Jews. This would exclude a woman who converted or a Canaanite slave who was freed (by being freed a Canaanite slave becomes a Jew). The Sages disagree and state that these women do drink. Although they were not born as Israelites, since they are currently full Jews they have the same ability and liability to drink the “bitter waters” if they are accused of adultery. The Sages support their opinion that the freed slave drinks by mentioning the precedent of Karkemith, a freed slave, who was given the “bitter waters” by Shemaiah and Avtalion, two early Sages. Akavia disagrees and states that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters, but rather a simulated version. The reason that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters is that the in the process of making the bitter waters God’s holy name is written on a scroll and then erased into the water, something which under normal circumstances is forbidden. To avoid unnecessarily erasing God’s name, Akaviah claims that Shemaiah and Avtalion gave the freed slave, Karkemith, some other type of waters.

לא את הגיורת ולא אתת המשוחררת – as it is written (Numbers 5:21): “[Here the priest shall administer the curse of adjuration to the woman, as the priest goes on to say to say to the woman – may the LORD] make you a curse and an imprecation among your people, [as the LORD causes your thigh to sag and your belly to distend],” except for those that are not among their people.

Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin. When Akaviah made this statement they put him into excommunication. He died while still in excommunication and to emphasize their point, the Sages stoned his coffin.

דוגמא השקוה – because they were its example, that is to say, converts like her, therefore they administered it (i.e., the bitter water) to her, and not according to the law, Another interpretation: They made her into an example, they made an example and a resemblance and showed her as if we administer the bitter waters to her, but they did [actually] do it.

Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin. Rabbi Judah claims that Akavia was not put into excommunication. Rabbi Judah emphatically states that the courtyard of the Temple, even when full would not contain a person of greater wisdom and fear of sin than Akavia. Such a person could not commit a sin which would cause him to be excommunicated. Rather Eliezer ben Hanoch was the one put into excommunication for questioning the Rabbinic concept of the impurity of the hands. Without entering here into detail, this concept, that hands alone can become impure is a Rabbinic innovation that doesn’t appear in the Torah. By questioning this concept, Eliezer questions the entire substance of Rabbinic authority.

ונדוהו – since he neglected the honor of Shemaiah and Avtalyon (see Tractate Avot, Chapter 1, Mishnayot 10-11 and Tractate Hagigah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2 for the listing of the “Zugot/pairs”).

This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned. According to Rabbi Judah, when Eliezer ben Hanoch died in excommunication, they put a stone on his ark (this is a form of stoning, see Sanhedrin 6:4). This action serves as a precedent for others who are excommunicated.

שאין עזרה ננעלת – [the courtyard was locked] on the Eve of Passover, when they came in to slaughter their Passover offerings, for we say, that the first division went in the doors of the courtyard were locked, and similarly, with the second division and also the third division. There was not found in all the courtyard someone distinguished in humility and fear of sin like Akavyah ben Mehalalel.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section four: Why do the Sages hold that this wool is forbidden?
• Section seven: What does this section teach us about why Rabbis are put into excommunication according to the Mishnah? What is the reason that Eliezer ben Hanoch is put into excommunication? How does this compare to why Akavia may have been excommunicated?
• Section eight: What is the symbolic meaning of stoning the excommunicated person’s coffin?
• Over all, what might be the message of this mishnah? In other words, what is the attitude of the editor of the mishnah?

שפקפק – that he cast doubt/neglected

סוקלים את ארונו – no exactly stone, but they place a stone alone as recognition that his colleagues were aloof from him.

בד' דברים – hair of a leprous spot which remains after the inflammation has partly receded (see Tractate Negaim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3), and greenish blood and the detached hair of a firstling animal, and the handing of the bitter water to the suspected converted wife and a freed slave-woman.

Introduction This mishnah concludes the story of Akavia ben Mehalalel.

מוטב להניח דברי היחיד – because he also received [his tradition] from a majority, and his words are like the words of the majority, and because of this, it is stated, better to set aside, etc. and if not for this, what is “better” that is stated? Is it not from the Torah as it is written (Exodus 23:2): “you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty,” and it is obligatory to set aside the words of the individual against his will, but the reason that he (i.e., Akavyah ben Mehalalel) said “better” and he did not say, “it is better,” because that even he received [his tradition] from a majority, as has been explained, but the Halakha is not according to Akavyah ben Mehalalel in all four of these things.

At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” As Akavia is about to die, he offers some conciliation to the Sages, by telling his son to retract the statements to which he had previously clung. His son is perplexed by this request of Akavia. After all, Akavia was willing to be put into permanent excommunication, to lose his entire standing in the Rabbinic community, in order to stand up for the statements which he had made. Why now was he all of a sudden willing to change his mind? Akavia’s answer returns us to the principle which we had learned in chapter one, mishnah five. When there is a dispute between many Sages on one side and a singular Sage on the other, the halakhah is like the many. Here Akavia teaches that a tradition that was learned from many Sages is stronger and more accepted as normative halakhah than a tradition that was learned from a singular Sage. His son had learned them only from him, and therefore their weight was less than the rulings of the Sages, who in the time of Akavia were considered the many.

He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.” Akavia’s son’s final request of his father was that he put in a good word about him with his colleagues. Evidently, although Akavia had been put in excommunication, he retained some ties with other Sages. Akavia’s final words teach a lesson to all children of leaders. Although Akavia’s son was the child of a great teacher, one who was almost appointed to be the head of the court, the son will have to earn his own way into a position of leadership. If he is worthy, he will have the opportunity to achieve high positions as a Rabbi; if he is unworthy, a good word from his father will not help him.

Questions for Further Thought:
• According to Akavia, what gives a halakhah its authority? In other words, why did he not retract the things which he had stated? Did he believe that these were the necessarily “true” statements?
• As a piece of literature, what is the function of the final piece of the story? Why does this story end with Akavia’s telling his son that his own merits are what will earn him status in the world? Has Akavia somehow changed due to his excommunication?