meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Eduyot/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.txt"}
text: Mishnah Eduyot
  משנה עדיות
  The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein
  
  
  Mishnah Eduyot
  
  
  
  
  
  	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].
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.
  	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.
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.
  	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.
  	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.
  
  
  
  	R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest, testified as to four things: In all the days of the Cohanim they did not refrain from burning flesh that had become tamei through the "offspring" (velad) of tumah together with flesh that had become tamei through an av hatumah (proto["father"]-tumah,) even though they thereby added tumah to its tumah. [("offspring":) velad of velad is meant, i.e., flesh of third-degree tumah, having become tamei through a velad of a velad, having touched second-degree tumah and become third-degree tumah. They did not refrain from burning it together with flesh that had become tamei through an av hatumah (and had thus become first-degree tumah). And when this flesh, which in the beginning had been third-degree tumah, touches the flesh which had touched the av hatumah, it becomes second-degree tumah, having touched first-degree tumah. It is found, then, that tumah has been added to its tumah, it first having been third-degree, and now being second-degree — in spite of which they did not refrain from burning it together with a higher degree of tumah. For since this lesser degree is also to be burnt they were not concerned if it thereby became a higher degree of tumah. And even though, according to the Torah, food does not render other foods tamei¸ it being written in this regard: "It is tamei" — it is tamei, but it does not render tamei food like it — still, the Rabbis decreed that food does render other food unclean.]
  	R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest, testified: In all of my days I never saw the hide (of a bechor [a first-born animal]) going out to the burning site [after it had been flayed, if it were found to be treifah, even though the p'sul (the disqualifying factor) were in it before the flaying — since it was not recognized until after the flaying]. R. Akiva said: From his words we learn that if one flays a bechor and it is found to be a treifah, the Cohanim may enjoy its hide, and it is not burned. [R. Akiva comes to let us hear that even a blemished bechor, which is slaughtered outside of the sanctuary because of its blemish, the Torah (not having allowed it to be sacrificed but) only to be eaten, it being written (Deuteronomy 15:21): "In your gates (i.e., outside of the sanctuary) shall you eat it" — if it died, its hide is forbidden and it requires burial. And R. Akiva apprised us that when its being a treifah is not recognized until after it is flayed, its shechitah and its flaying permits its hide as if its blood had been sprinkled in the sanctuary.] The sages say: "We have not seen" is no proof [i.e., perhaps it never happened in his days that it was found to be treifah after flaying, and if it happened and they burned it, he did not see it]; but it goes out to the burning site.
  	He, too, [R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest,] testified about a small village near Jerusalem where there was an old man who lent (money) to all the men of the village and wrote with his own hand a note of indebtedness [on the borrower], and others signed [i.e., kosher witnesses signed the note]; and it (a case of such a note) came before the sages and they permitted it, [even though the writer of the note was the lender and an "interested party."] Correspondingly, you learn that a woman writes her get (bill of divorce) [and kosher witnesses sign], and a man writes his receipt, [a note of "waiving," his wife waiving her kethubah payments.] For there is no authorization of a get except by its signatures [i.e., the witnesses signed on the get are the essential cause of the confirmation of the get. Therefore, when kosher witnesses sign it, it is kosher, even though it is written by the woman.]
  	R. Yishmael said three things before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh [The sages used to sit in rows, like a vineyard (kerem) planted row on row of vines]: (He said) about a scrambled egg [in a pot, the white being intermixed with the yoke], placed over a green of terumah, that it is considered chibbur ("connection"). [i.e., If a tevul yom touches the egg, even though it is chullin (i.e., non-terumah), terumah not obtaining with an egg, and a tevul yom not invalidating chullin, still it is considered "chibbur" (a connection of the egg with the green) and the green is invalidated as if he had touched it.] And if it were like a dome [i.e., If the egg had "swollen" and become like a dome over the green (nothing intervening between it and the green)], it is not chibbur.
  	Three questions were asked before R. Yishmael, and he did not rule "forbidden" or "permitted," and R. Yehoshua b. Matiya explicated them [i.e., when, liable; and when, not liable]: puncturing an abscess on the Sabbath — if to make an opening for it, he is liable [for "boneh" ("building")]; and if to remove pus from it, he is not liable. [For it is "a labor that is not needed for its own sake", (the labor being the opening.) And this (abscess) does not require an opening henceforward, so that only a rabbinic issur obtains, which, because of the pain factor was not decreed. He is, therefore, not liable, and it is permitted.]
  	Three items were mentioned by R. Yishmael, and R. Akiva did not concur with him, viz.: Garlic, unripe grapes, and unripe ears, which were weighted [with stones] on the eve of Sabbath [so that their juice run from them to be dipped in (on Sabbath)] — R. Yishmael says: [since he has weighted and crushed them before Sabbath,] he may finish [and eat them] after dark, [on the Sabbath. And these are not like juices that flowed (from fruits), which are forbidden (to be eaten on the Sabbath) lest he come to squeeze (the fruit). For here, even if he does squeeze it, he does not transgress a Torah issur, since the juice flows out, of itself.] And R. Akiva sys: He may not finish, [in order to eat it after he sanctified the day, for they are forbidden like all juices that have flowed out (of fruits). The halachah is in accordance with R. Yishmael.]
  	Three things were said before R. Akiva, two by R. Eliezer and one by R. Yehoshua. Two by R. Eliezer: A woman may walk out (on the Sabbath) with "a golden city" [a golden crown in the form of the city of Jerusalem; and we do not fear that she may take it off and show it to someone and come to carry it four amoth in the public domain]. And (he said): Pigeon-flyers are unacceptable as witnesses. ["pigeon-flyers" — "gamers," i.e., If your pigeon beats my pigeon, I will give you this and this." Or, one who trains a pigeon to divert other pigeons to his coop, (which is "theft" vis-à-vis "the ways of peace" (darkei shalom), but not actual theft)].
  	R. Akiva said three things. About two, they (the sages) concurred with him; about one, they did not concur with him. (He said) about the shoe of those who work in lime [(The lime workers wore wooden shoes to protect their feet from being burnt by the lime)], that it (the shoe) contracts midras ("treading"-) uncleanliness [if worn by a zav]. And (he said) about what was left of an oven [that was very large and became tamei and was afterwards broken, that it does not become tahor unless what was left over was less than] four [(tefachim) in height. (An "oven" in the Mishnah was made like a big pot without a bottom, connected with clay to the ground, which was its "bottom.")] For they (the sages) (originally) had said ("less than) three," and (now) they concurred with him.
  	He [R. Akiva] was wont to say: A father endows his son with beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom, and years [i.e., long life. Because the nature of the son is likely to be similar to that of the father, from the beginning of his creation he is endowed with beauty, strength, wisdom, and years; and wealth is bequeathed him by his father. To me, the Mishnah seems to mean that if a man merits it, his sons come to acquire all of these things], and (he endows him) with the number of generations before him. [Sometimes, the Holy One Blessed be He assures the father that He will grant some favor to his children in the third or fourth generation, and it is the father's merit that secures that favor for his children]; and that is the "ketz" ("ending"). [i.e., that is the meaning of the "ketz" assigned by the Holy One Blessed be He to arrive at a certain time or at a certain generation], as in (Isaiah 41:4): "He calls out the generations from the beginning." Even though it is written (Genesis 15:3): "And they will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years," it is written (afterwards, Ibid. 16): "And the fourth generation will return here." [so that the number of generations, which is "the fourth generation," is the ketz of the "four hundred years" (referred to above).]
  	He [R. Akiva] was also wont to mention five things as being of twelve months duration: the judgment of the generation of the flood — twelve months. The judgment of the Egyptians — twelve months. The judgment of Job — twelve months. The judgment of Gog and Magog in time to come — twelve months. The judgment of the wicked in Gehinnom — twelve months, viz. (Isaiah 6:23): "And it shall be, from the month [of his death] until its month" [one year later in Gehinnom, that he will come (from Gehinnom) to bow down before the L rd.] R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: [He will be in Gehinnom] from Pesach [i.e., the first day of Pesach, which is called "Sabbath," it being written (Leviticus 23:15): "And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Sabbath, etc."] until Atzereth [(Leviticus, Ibid.) "the morrow of the seventh week"], viz. (Isaiah, Ibid.): "and from the Sabbath [(the first day of Pesach)] in its Sabbath (Atzereth)."
  
  
  
  	All (things) that cause tumah in a tent, [such as a corpse, or netzel (decomposed matter of a corpse), or a tarvad (a type of spoon) full of decayed matter, and all those things mentioned in the beginning of Chapter II of Ohaloth], whose [minimum size for uncleanliness] have been divided into two and brought into a house [i.e., into a tent] — R. Dossa b. Hyrcanus rules it tahor, [holding that the parts to not combine into the required size], and the sages rule it tamei. How so? If one touches or carried two half-olive sizes of neveilah (carrion) [(He opens with "tent-" (uncleanliness) and explains "neveilah," to teach that just as R. Dossa holds that they do not combine for tent-uncleanliness, he also holds that they do not combine for "touching and carrying" uncleanliness, both for a dead body and for neveilah)], and, with a dead body, if one touches a half-olive size and "tents" over a half-olive size, [for one who tents over a dead body is tamei, just as if he were with the dead body in a tent. (And all of these "tentings" in the first part, speak of "compressed" tumah ("tumah retzutzah), where there is not, between the tumah and the tent, the space of a tefach, for which reason the sages rule it tamei. For a "tent" of this kind is considered "touching." And the second part, viz.: "But if one touches a half-olive size and something else tents over him and a half-olive size, etc.," where the sages concur that it is tahor — this obtains where there is a space of (at least) a tefach between the tumah and the tent, in which instance the sages concur that they do not combine — "touching" and "tent" (uncleanliness) being two separate "names" (i.e., categories), and all that are of "two names" do not combine. And R. Dossa holds that even in "compressed tumah" they do not combine.)], or if he touches a half-olive size, and a half-olive size tents over him; or if he tents over two half-olive sizes, tenting over a half-olive size, and a half-olive size tenting over him — R. Dossa b. Hyrcanus rules tahor and the sages rule tamei. But if one touches a half-olive size and something tents over him and a half-olive size; or if he tents over a half-olive size and something else tents over him and a half-olive size, he is tahor. R. Meir says: Even in such an instance R. Dossa rules tahor, and the sages, tamei. [R. Meir disagrees with the first tanna, who says that when there is a tefach space between the tumah and the tent, the sages concur that it is tahor, the pieces not combining, (R. Meir) saying that even in such an instance the sages disagree with R. Dossa, holding that "touching" and "tent" are one name, wherefore they combine to make the (required) minimum size (for tumah), and they rule tamei. (The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir)]. Everything is tamei, except "touching" with "moving," [as when he "touched" a half-olive size and "moved" (heset) a half-olive size], and "carrying" with "tent", [as when he moved a half-olive size and tented over a half-olive size.] This is the rule: Everything which is of "one name" [as in "touching" with "touching," "moving" with "moving," "tent" with "tent"] is tamei; of two names, tahor.
  	Separated food [e.g., a clump of nuts, pistachios, and almonds, which, when they are separated from each other, do not contain the size of an egg, (the minimum size for making other foods tamei)], do not combine, each with the other, [(if they are tamei, and clean food touched them when they are clumped together) to make clean food tamei, since there is not in each one of them the minimum size for making food tamei.] These are the words of R. Dossa b. Hyrcanus. And the sages say that they do combine.
  	R. Dossa permits the innards [i.e., the seeds and the juice] of a melon and the discards of greens (of terumah) to zarim (non-Cohanim), and the sages forbid them. The shearings of five lambs, [each lamb] yielding a maneh and a half of wool, [less than that not being considered "shearings," this being the minimum] are subject to the mitzvah of "the first of the shearings" — These are the words of R. Dossa. The sages say: five lambs, any amount (of shearings). [Not really, for the rabbis did not mandate "the first of the shearings" for less than sixty selaim. But since R. Dossa required a (relatively) large amount, the tanna called the small amount of the sages "any amount." (The weight of a sela is twenty-four ma'im, and the weight of each ma'ah, sixteen barley grains.)]
  	All kinds of mattings [made of rubber and the like, which have a border roundabout, and being a "receptacle"] are susceptible of dead-body uncleanliness, [but not of mishkav ("lying down") and moshav ("sitting") uncleanliness, not being fit for those functions)] — These are the words of R. Dossa. And the sages say: midras. [i.e., they are also susceptible of mishkav uncleanliness, being also fit for lying down].
  	A sling whose receptacle [(where the stone is placed)] is woven, is tamei. And one of leather — R. Dossa b. Hyrcanus rules it tahor, and the sages, tamei. If its finger-hole, [where the finger is placed to fling the stone], is severed, it is tahor; if its handle, it is tamei.
  	A captive woman [i.e., the wife of a Cohein, who had been taken captive,] eats terumah [and we do not fear that the gentile lived with her and rendered her a zonah, to whom terumah is forbidden.] These are the words of R. Dossa. And the sages say: There is a captive woman that eats, and a captive woman that does not eat. How so? A woman who says: "I was taken captive, but I am clean" eats. For "the tongue that forbids" [i.e., her saying "I was taken captive"] is the tongue that permits, [when she says "but I am clean." ] And if there were witnesses [that she was taken captive], and she says "I am clean," she does not eat.
  	Four doubts (i.e., in four cases of doubt): — R. Yehoshua rules tamei and the sages rule tahor. How so? The tamei stands [under a tent or under a tree] and the tahor passes by [that way. There is a doubt as to whether he touched or did not touch; or whether or not the tree "tented" over both of them and the tahor became tamei — This is one doubt.] The tahor stands and the tamei passes by. [This is a second doubt.] Tumah (an object that is tamei) in a private domain, and taharah in the public domain, [as in the instance of a shop that is open to the public domain, and he is in doubt as to whether he entered it or not]; or taharah in a private domain and tumah in the public domain, [two other doubts] — If there is a doubt as to whether he touched or did not touch, tented or did not tent, moved (hesit) or did not move, R. Yehoshua rules tamei, [holding that since a private domain is involved in this doubt, it is considered "a doubt of tumah in a private domain," which is ruled tamei.] And the sages rule tahor, [holding that since the public domain is involved in this doubt, it is considered "a doubt of tumah in the public domain," which is ruled tahor. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehoshua.]
  	Three things, R. Tzaddok rules tamei [i.e., susceptible of tumah], and the sages, tahor: the nail of the money changer, [on which he hangs his scales. Our rabbis have explicated it as a nail fixed into a post before the money changer on which he hangs the shutter of the shop, and which they rule tahor because it is ground-based], and the grist-maker's closet [(Those who make grist of beans in their mill have a wooden closet (in which to deposit them)], and an hour-stone [a stone which has lines on which are inscribed the signs of the hours into which is stuck a nail by which they indicate the hours.] R. Tzaddok rules [the closet] tamei [because it is considered a "vessel"], and the sages rule it tahor, [for it is a wooden vessel intended to remain stationary and not to be moved. (R. Tzaddok holds that sometimes it is made to be movable.) The halachah is not in accordance with R. Tzaddok.]
  	Four things, R. Gamliel rules tamei, and the sages, tahor: the teni-cover of the metals of home-owners [("teni":) a metal vessel into which home-owners place refuse or shards of metal. R. Gamliel rules the cover tamei, for it (the cover), too, is considered a vessel, a cover also having a receptacle. And the sages rule it tahor, holding that since it was made only for covering it is not considered a vessel], and the strigil hooks [on which are hung the strigils ("scratchers") in the bath houses. (Each of the clients takes a strigil and scratches his feet and his body)], and unfinished metal vessels, [which still require to be smoothed or scraped or hammered, or which lack a rim or an ear. They are not susceptible of tumah according to the sages until they are finished], and a table of two halves [i.e., a clay table which has rims and which is made in such a way that one part is not larger than the other. It is in such an instance that R. Gamliel and the sages differ.] And the sages concur with R. Gamliel that in a table of two parts, where one part is large and the other small, the large part is tamei and the small part, tahor. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]
  	In three things R. Gamliel takes the stringent view, according to the words of Beth Shammai: Hot foods are not stored from Yom Tov to Shabbath. [Beth Shammai hold that one may not bake (from Yom Tov to Shabbath) unless he has made an eruv tavshilin with a loaf. And he may not cook unless he has made an eruv tavshilin with something cooked. And he may not store food (for warmth) unless he had stored something from the eve of Yom Tov). And Beth Hillel hold that one may bake and cook and store on an eruv of cooked food alone], and a menorah is not assembled on Yom Tov [i.e., a menorah whose parts have been disassembled may not be restored, this being like "building," which obtains with vessels. And Beth Hillel hold that "building" does not obtain with vessels], and thick loaves are not baked (on Yom Tov), but only thin ones. [Beth Shammai hold that much bread is not baked on Yom Tov because of "exertion." And Beth Hillel say that it is baked, for when there is more bread it bakes better.] R. Gamliel said: From the days of Beth Shammai they did not bake thick loaves but only thin ones. They said to him: What shall we do for your father's house, who were stringent with themselves and lenient with Israel, allowing them to bake thick breads and chari? [(ample dough baked over coals.) The halachah is not in accordance with R. Gamliel in all of his stringencies according to the words of Beth Shammai.]
  	He (R. Gamliel) also stated three leniencies: It is permitted (on Yom Tov) to sweep between the beds [on which they used to recline to eat], and mugmar (frankincense) may be placed [on coals, to be inhaled] on Yom Tov. [But all hold that it is forbidden to do so to "scent" the vessels], and it is permitted to eat a "helmeted" (mekulass) goat on Pesach night. [Its legs and innards hung at its side when they roasted it. They would do this as a remembrance of the Pesach offering, in respect to which it is written (Exodus 12:9): "its head with its legs with its innards." ("mekulas":) like a warrior, whose weapons are at his side. The targum of "a copper helmet" is "kulsa denachsha."] And the sages forbid [all three: sweeping, because of the making of holes; mugmar, because it is not needed by all, but only by the very delicate or those with body odor; a "helmeted" goat, because it gives the impression of consecrated food being eaten outside (the sanctuary). The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]
  	Three things were permitted by R. Elazar b. Azaryah and forbidden by the sages: His cow went out (into the public domain on Shabbath) with the strap between her horns [for adornment. And the sages said that it is a "burden" and not "adornment" to her. (It was not the cow of R. Elazar b. Azaryah, but that of his neighbor, but because he did not protest, it was called by his name.)], and a beast may be curried on Yom Tov [with a kind of iron comb with small teeth. One may comb and scratch a beast with it even though he thereby makes a sore], and he may crush peppers with their [small] mills [made for this purpose]. R. Yehudah says: A beast is not curried on Yom Tov because he thereby makes a sore; but he may scrape [it with a wooden comb, whose teeth are large and do not make a sore.] And the sages say: They are not curried and also not scraped, scraping being decreed against because of currying. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Elazar b. Azaryah, except in the instance of currying a beast alone; for in this he follows the view of R. Shimon, who says that something not intended (like making a sore, in this instance) is permitted, and we rule according to him. And the sages who differ with him hold with R. Yehudah, who says that something not intended is forbidden, and this is not the halachah.]
  
  
  
  	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."]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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.)
  	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.]
  	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]
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	[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).
  
  
  
  	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.]
  	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).
  	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.
  	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.]
  	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.]
  	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."
  	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."
  
  
  
  	R. Yehudah ben Bava testified in five instances, viz.: minors are taught to refuse [If two brothers were married to two (orphaned) sisters, one an adult and the other, a minor — if the adult's husband died, so that she was "linked" for yibum to the husband of the minor, her linkage overrides the marriage of her sister, the minor, and forbids her to him, the marriage of the minor being reckoned naught. (In this instance,) the minor is taught to "refuse" him, and her refusal ("miun") dissolves his first marriage and he is permitted to take the older sister in yibum. And there is another instance similar to this one in Yevamoth, in the chapter "Beth Shammai."] And (he testified) that a woman may be married on the testimony of one witness. [If her husband went abroad and one witness alone came and said that he had died, she is married on the strength of his testimony.] And (he testified) that a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed someone [(It had gnawed out an infant's brain.) And even though it is written (Exodus 21:18): "If an ox gore, etc.," the same applies to all beasts, animals, and birds. For wherever "ox" is written, we derive "ox" - "ox" from Shabbath. Just as there, all beasts, animals, and birds are included, so, here.] And (he testified that) wine must be forty days old for altar libations. [Before then it is forbidden, being considered "wine from his wine-press."] And [he testified about the morning daily burnt-offering that it may be sacrificed in the fourth hour of the day. [For once, in the days of the kingdom of Greece, they had no lambs for burnt-offerings, and they waited to sacrifice the daily morning burnt-offering until the Holy One Blessed be He enlightened their eyes and they found two approved lambs in the lamb pen and sacrificed the morning daily burnt-offering in the fourth hour of the day.]
  	R. Yehoshua and R. Nechunia b. Elinathan of Kfar Habavli testified about a part [less than an olive-size], which had become separated from a dead body, that it is tamei. [(For all agree that an olive-size of a dead body is tamei like the body itself. They argue only about a small part, less than the size of an olive)]. For R. Eliezer says: They (the sages) said [that body parts have no (minimum) size (for tumah] only about a part from a living animal, [but a part from a dead animal requires a (minimum) size for tumah]. They said to him: Is it not derivable by kal vachomer (a fortiori) [that a part from a dead animal (even less than an olive-size) is tamei, viz.] If from a living animal, which is tahor (clean), a part (even less than an olive-size) which separates from it is tamei — a dead animal, which is tamei, does it not follow (a fortiori) that a part which separates from it is tamei? He said to them: They spoke only about a part from a living animal. And, furthermore, [in rebuttal of the kal vachomer], the tumah of the living is greater than that of the dead! For the living [i.e., a zav, when he is alive,] renders unclean via mishkav and moshav (couch and seat uncleanliness) [all of the vessels] beneath him, [even one hundred of them] to render a man unclean and to render garments unclean, [viz. (Leviticus 15:5): "And a man who touches what he (a zav) lay upon shall wash his clothes."] And he renders what is above him "madaf" [All the vessels above the zav, though they be a hundred, one above the other, acquire madaf uncleanliness; that is "light" tumah, not rendering men and vessels unclean, as do mishkav and moshav which are beneath him, but (only) food and drink. ("madaf" as in Leviticus 26:36: "the sound of a driven [nidaf] leaf") — that is, "light" tumah. Or, as in "its open nodef (spreads)," the "odor" of the tumah of the zav spreading far to render unclean all of the vessels above him, even though he did not touch them] —- which is not effected by a dead body. [For of the vessels beneath a dead body, only the first, second, and third acquire uncleanliness, by maga (contact). The vessel touching the dead body becomes like the dead body itself, rendering the vessel that touches it "av" (a "father" of uncleanliness.) And the third that touches becomes a rishon ("first"), after which vessels are not rendered tamei in turn, vessels acquiring tumah only from the av of tumah. Likewise, of the vessels above the dead body, only the first, second, and third are tamei, by way of maga, (contact), and not by way of mishkav and moshav.]
  	An olive-size of flesh which separates from the limb of a living man — R. Eliezer rules it tamei, and R. Yehoshua and R. Nechunia, tahor (clean). [A limb which separates from a living man is ruled to he tamei, so long as it is a whole limb — by maga (contact), masa (lifting), and ohel (tent-uncleanliness) — like the dead man himself, it being written (Numbers 16:19): "And all who touch on the face of the field, one slain by the sword or a dead body" — a limb separated from a living man by the sword is considered like the dead body itself. And flesh separated from a living man does not cause tumah unless it be (separated from) a whole limb. And when an olive-size of flesh separates from the limb of a living man, R. Eliezer rules it tamei and R. Yehoshua and R. Nechunia, tahor, as will be explained.] A bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from the limb of a living man — R. Nechunia rules it tamei and R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, tahor. [A bone the size of a barley-corn from a dead body causes tumah by maga and masa, but does not cause ohel-uncleanliness, it being written (Ibid. 18): "and upon him who touched a bone." And it is a law to Moses from Sinai that it causes tumah when it is the size of a barley-corn. And when it is separated from the limb of a living man, R. Nechunia rules it tamei, etc.] They said to R. Eliezer: Why did you see fit to rule tamei an olive-size of flesh which separates from the limb of a living man? He answered: We find a limb (separated) from a living man to be like a dead body [(see Numbers 16:19 above)]. Just as with a dead body, an olive-size of flesh which separates from it is tamei, so with a limb (separated) from a living man — an olive-size of flesh which separates from it should be tamei. They: No, it follows that an olive-size of flesh separated from a dead body is tamei, for [it (a dead body) has another stringency, viz.] a bone the size of a barley-corn, separated from it is [also] tamei. But would you, therefore, rule tamei an olive-size of flesh separated from a living man [which lacks such a stringency] when you have ruled tahor a bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from it? [viz. above: "A bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from the limb of a living man — R. Nechunia rules it tamei and R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, tahor." From his own words they challenge his inference; and thus with R. Nechunia.] They said to R. Nechunia: Why did you see fit to rule tamei a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from the limb of a living man? He answered: We find a limb (separated) from a living man to be like a dead body. Just as with a dead body, a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from it is tamei, so with a limb (separated) from a living man — a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from it should be tamei. They: No, it follows that a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from a dead body is tamei, for an olive-size of flesh separated from it is [also] tamei. But would you, therefore, rule tamei an olive-size of flesh separated from the limb of a living man, when you have ruled tahor an olive-size of flesh that separates from it? They said to R. Eliezer: Why did you see fit to divide your rulings (to rule tamei an olive-size of flesh separated from the limb of a living man and to rule tahor a bone the size of a barley-corn separated from the limb of a living man?) It should be either tamei in both case or tahor in both cases. He answered: Greater is the tumah of the flesh than the tumah of the bones. For flesh (uncleanliness) obtains with carrion and creeping things (sharatzim), as opposed to bone (uncleanliness), [it being written (Leviticus 11:36): "And one who touches their carcass" — their carcass, and not their bones, and not their horns, and not their hooves — whence we see that bones are not subject to carrion (neveilah) uncleanliness]. Another proof [that the tumah of flesh is more prevalent than that of bones]: A limb that has upon it sufficient flesh causes tumah by maga, masa, and ohel. If it is lacking flesh it is tamei; if it is lacking bone, it is tahor. [A limb does not cause tumah unless it has flesh, sinews, and bones, it being written (Numbers 19:16): "or the bone of a man" — Just as a man has flesh, sinews, and bones, so, all that has flesh, sinews, and bones. And if it were deficient in the flesh that was upon it, but there were left on it enough flesh that would heal if it were connected to a living man, it would cause tumah by reason of "a limb." And this is the intent of "If it is lacking flesh it is tamei." But if it is missing anything of the bone in the limb, it no longer causes tumah by reason of "limb." And this is the intent of "If it is lacking bone, it is tahor." That is, it is tahor by reason of "limb," but tamei by reason of "flesh." We therefore find the tumah of "flesh" to be more prevalent than that of "bone."] They said to R. Nechunia: Why did you see fit to divide your rulings? It should be either tamei in both cases or tahor in both cases. He answered: Greater is the tumah of the bones than the tumah of the flesh. For the flesh that separates from a living man is tahor, but if a limb separates from him, and it is in its natural state, [having flesh, sinews, and bones], it is tamei. Another proof (that the tumah of bones is more prevalent than that of flesh) is that an olive-size of flesh causes tumah by maga, masa, and ohel [(Because the beginning of the creation of a man is an olive-size, his tumah is an olive-size)], and the majority [125] of a man's bones [248] cause tumah by maga, masa, and ohel. If the flesh is lacking [an olive-size], it is tahor [entirely, from causing tumah — either by maga, or by masa, or by ohel.] If the majority of the bones are missing, even though he is tahor from causing tumah by ohel, he causes it by maga and masa. [For a bone the size of a barley-corn causes tumah by maga and masa — whence we see that the tumah of bones is more prevalent than that of flesh. For bones, (even) when their quantity (125) is lacking, tumah remains in them, whereas flesh, when its (minimum) size is lacking, is absolutely tahor.] Another proof: All the flesh of a dead body which is less than an olive-size is tahor, but the rov (majority) of the (bony) structure of a dead body [such as two forelegs and one thigh, (all of his structure being two forelegs and the thighs and the ribs and the spine)], and the rov of its number, though they lack a rova (a quarter), [(a rova of a kav of the bones of a dead body causes tumah in an ohel), still, even if they have neither the majority of the number nor the majority of the structure (but they have a rova); or if they have a majority of the number or a majority of the structure, but they lack a rova], they cause tumah. They said to R. Yehoshua: Why did you see fit to rule tahor in both cases? He answered: No, it follows that an olive-size of flesh [and a bone that separate from a dead body be tamei] for it has [stringencies like] "rov," "rova," and "rakav." Would you say the same thing about a living man, who does not have [the stringencies of] "rov," "rova," and "rakav"? [It does not follow that an olive-size of flesh or a barley-corn size of bone which separate from a living man should be tamei, but they are tahor. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua. ("rakav":) the dead body, when its moisture dissipates, becomes a kind of rotten (rakuv) earth, a full tarod of which (about a full hand-hollow of the average man) causes tumah. A full tarod causes tumah only (when taken) from a body buried naked in a marble coffin and covered with a marble cover, until it be known of a certainty that there is no admixture of the rottenness of a garment or of wood or of other earth. But a dead body that is buried in its garment or in a coffin of wood or earth has no rakav, and, likewise, a dead body buried without a limb.]
  
  
  
  	R. Yehoshua and R. Tzaddok testified about the redemption (lamb) [which one set aside for the redemption of the firstling of an ass], which (lamb) died, that the Cohein has no claim in it. For R. Eliezer says: He (the owner) is liable to restore it, as [he is liable to restore (if they were lost)] the five selaim for [the redemption of his (first-born) son.] And the sages say: He is not liable to restore it, but it is like the (lost) redemption (money) for the second tithe, [which the Torah required him (to spend on food) to eat in Jerusalem — but he has lost it! The rationale of R. Eliezer: We find that the Torah compared the redemption of the firstling of an ass to (that of) the first-born son of a man, it being written (Exodus 34:20): "And the firstling of an ass shall you redeem with a lamb … All the first-born of your sons shall you redeem." And the sages say: It is written (Numbers 18:15): "But redeem shall you redeem the first-born of the man, and the first-born of the unclean beast (an ass) shall you redeem" — I have likened it (to a man) for purposes of redemption, and not for other things.]
  	R. Tzaddok testified about the brine of unclean locusts that it is clean. For an earlier Mishnah (taught): Unclean locusts which were pickled with clean locusts do not invalidate their brine. [They were lenient in respect to unclean locusts not to forbid their admixture, for they have no blood, but only a kind of moistness. This was the first Mishnah. And the testimony of R. Tzaddok added to this Mishnah to say that it is clean. Not only does it not forbid its admixture, but it itself is clean.]
  	R. Tzaddok testified — that they are kosher — about running waters [zochalin viz. (Deuteronomy 32:24): "zochalei afar" ("the 'crawlers' in the dust"), which, halachically, are equivalent to a well, which purifies with any amount of running water, and which are kosher for the consecration of the waters of the sin-offering (the red heifer) and for the immersion of zavim], which (zochalin) (intermixed with and) "outnumbered" the notfim ["dripping waters," like rain water, which, halachically, is like a mikveh, which purifies, with forty sa'ah and in an eshboren (a water collection pit), and which are unfit for the consecration of the waters of the sin-offering, not being "living waters," and likewise, for the immersion of zavim — When the running waters have mixed with the dripping waters and "outnumbered" the dripping waters, they are halachically like running waters and are kosher for the consecration of the waters of purification (of the red heifer) and for the immersion of zavim, and they cleanse, as running waters do, with any amount.] It (such an "outnumbering") once occurred in Biryath Hapilya, and they brought it to the attention of the sages, who pronounced them (the waters) kosher.
  	R. Tzaddok testified — that they are kosher — about zochalin which were made to jet through the leaf of a nut [i.e., the outer shell of a nut, the green shell. If, when it was moist, he made it like a tube through which the zochalim would run and jet outside of it, the jetted waters are halachically zochalim, and they are kosher for the waters of purification (the red heifer), and the immersion of zavim. And we do not say that since they entered through this shell, which acts as a receptacle through which they are jetted out, they are not halachically zochalin — for that shell is not considered a vessel.] This once happened in Ahalya, and it came before the lishkath hagazith (the seat of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem), and they ruled it kosher.
  	R. Yehoshua and R. Yakim Ish Hadar testified about the [earthen] pitcher of the (ashes of) purification (of the red heifer), which was placed upon a sheretz (a creeping thing), that it [i.e., what it contains, (the ashes)] is tamei. [The pitcher itself does not become tamei, for an earthenware vessel does not contract tumah from the outside. Still, the ashes are tamei, it being written (Numbers 19:9): "And he shall place it outside the encampment in a clean place." [(For R. Eliezer had ruled it clean, holding that since the vessel containing it was clean, it could be called "a clean place." The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.)] R. Papiyas testified about one who resumed two [unqualified] Naziritisms [and every unqualified Naziritism lasts for thirty days] that if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he shaves for the second on the sixtieth day. [For ab initio, he should shave on the thirty-first day, so that his Naziritism be thirty whole days; but if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has satisfied his Naziritism for we say that "part of the day is like the whole day." And if he shaves on the fifty-ninth day, he has satisfied (his Naziritism), for the thirtieth day is reckoned as part of the counting (for the second Naziritism). [That is, the thirtieth day of the first Naziritism counts for both reckonings. And since the thirtieth day of the first Naziritism is counted also as (the first day of) the second Naziritism, it is found that the thirty days of the second Naziritism end on the fifty-ninth day.]
  	R. Yehoshua and R. Papyas testified about the offspring of a shelamim (peace-offering) that it is sacrificed as a shelamim. For R. Eliezer says that the offspring of a shelamim is not sacrificed as a shelamim, [but it is placed into the stable (and left there) until it dies — a decree; for if you say that the offspring of a shelamim has amendment (by being sacrificed), he will come to delay the (sacrifice of the) mother until she gives birth, and raise flocks of offspring and come to shear (their wool) and work them]. And the sages say (that the offspring of a shelamim) is sacrificed. R. Papyas said: I testify that we had a cow for a shelamim (sacrifice), which we ate on Pesach, and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival [of Shavuoth. For if he waited until Succoth he would be in transgression of the positive commandment, viz. (Deuteronomy 12: 5-6): "…and you shall come there… and you shall bring there," the implication being that the first festival that you come there (after the vow), bring there all the vows binding upon you. (However, he is not in transgression of [Ibid. 23:22]: "…you shall not delay to pay it" until three festivals have passed.)]
  	They testified that the aruchoth [(the long, flat, wooden ranging boards of bakers on which they range loaves of bread for baking), "a (aleph) ruchoth" ("boards") like "a (ayin) ruchoth" ("ranged")] are tamei [susceptible, rabbinically, of acquiring tumah. For though, according to the Torah, flat boards are not thus susceptible, the Rabbis decreed that they are (viz. Kelim, Chapter II)]. For R. Eliezer ruled them clean, [holding that they are not considered vessels at all, not even like flat wooden vessels. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.]
  	Menachem b. Signai testified about the rim of the vat of the boilers of olives that it is tamei; and of dyers, that it is tahor. For there were those that said the opposite. [The olive boilers and the dyers used to have large vats on whose rims they placed a border of clay to contain the water when it boiled over. That (i.e., the rim) of the olive boilers was tamei because that addition was needed for the vessel and was used; and the Torah stated in respect to an oven or a stove (Leviticus 11:31): "They shall be unclean to you" — "to you," to all that you need; that is, the thing in the vessel that you need and use — it is that which is susceptible of tumah. ("and of dyers, that it is tahor":) The dyers do not make use of that addition, for they are afraid that it will spoil their dye.]
  	R. Yochanan b. Gudgeda testified that a deaf-mute whose father married her is given a divorce. [Even though she was a bona-fide married woman, her father having accepted her betrothal when she was a minor, still, she is given a get, and she receives her get when she is a deaf-mute, even though her consent is lacking. For a woman can be divorced perforce, so that her consent is not required.]; and (he testified) that the minor daughter of an Israelite [an orphan, whose marriage is rabinically (and not Scripturally) sanctioned] eats terumah [rabbinically mandated terumah, this not being decreed against by reason of (the possibility of her coming to eat) Scripturally mandated terumah]; and that if she died, her husband inherits her; and that if one built a beam that he had stolen into a building, monetary reimbursements is sufficient, [for the good of the penitent; for if he were required to raze his building and return the beam itself, he would be deterred from repenting.]; and that a stolen sin-offering which was not known to the public [as being stolen] atones [and another need not be brought], for "the good of the altar," [that the Cohanim not be distressed by (the thought of) having eaten chullin (non-consecrated food) from (an animal) slaughtered in the azarah (the Temple court) and the altar be "deserted," the Cohanim refraining from performing the (sacrificial) service.]
  
  
  
  	R. Yehudah b. Betheira testified about the blood of carrion (nevilah) that it is tahor, [and does not cause tumah, as carrion itself does, with an olive-size, but it does cause tumah with a revi'ith (one-fourth of a log of vital blood). For there is nothing but the sheretz (a creeping thing) which causes tumah with (the same quantity of) its blood as with (that of) its flesh. As to our having learned above (5:1): "The blood of neveiloth — Beth Shammai rule it tahor" — Beth Shammai ruled it tahor entirely. "And Beth Hillel ruled it tamei" — but not as (the flesh of) a neveilah, an olive-size of which is tamei, but only with a revi'ith.]
  	R. Yehudah b. Bava and R. Yehudah Hakohen testified about the minor daughter [an orphan] of an Israelite, who married a Cohein, that she eats terumah as soon as she enters the chupah, even though she had not yet had conjugal relations (see 7:9). [It is added here that once she enters the chupah, even though she had not yet had conjugal relations, (she may eat terumah). For from the preceding testimony, we can conclude that she eats terumah only when she has had conjugal relations]. R. Yossi Hakohen and R. Zecharyah ben Hakatzav testified about a minor who was taken as a pledge [by gentiles] in Ashkelon and whose family "distanced" her (from marrying a Cohein), and whose witnesses (to her having been taken as a pledge) testify that she had not been secreted and had not been violated — the sages said to them (the family): If you believe (the witnesses) that she had been taken as a pledge, then believe that she had not been secreted and had not been violated. And if you do not believe that she had not been secreted and not been violated, then do not believe that she had been taken as a pledge. [And it is only of this one, about whom the witnesses testify that she had not been violated, that the rabbis said — "Believe her," and that she had been wrongfully distanced by her family. But if she had no witnesses (that she had not been violated), then a woman who had been taken as a pledge for money at a time when the gentiles had the upper hand is forbidden to her husband, a Cohein, whether she had been taken willingly or forcibly.]
  	R. Yehoshua and R. Yehudah b. Betheira testified about an issah ("dough") widow that she is permitted to (marry) a Cohein. [In a family into which a safek (possible) chalal (one unfit for the priesthood) has become intermixed, each one of that family is suspect of being that chalal. And if a woman married one of that family and her husband died, she is called an "issah" widow. For just as dough is kneaded and intermixed, so this widow is "mixed" with (i.e., compounded of) doubts: one, her husband might not be that safek chalal; and,(the other), even if he is, perhaps he is not a chalal in reality. R. Yehoshua permits her to the priesthood, for we have a "a doubt of a doubt," in which instance we rule leniently.] And R. Gamliel holds that even though generally we rule leniently in "a doubt of a doubt," here it is different, for "a special eminence is accorded to family lineage."] (And they testified) that an issah (family) is kosher both for (declaring) tamei or declaring tahor, for distancing or for drawing near. [That is, a family in which a safek chalal has become intermixed is in a status of kashruth as are all of the pedigreed families. And just as the other families may say: "This one is tamei," and they distance themselves from her, and: "This one is tahor," and they draw her near, so, (about) this family in which a safek chalal has become intermixed, we cannot say that since a safek has become intermixed in it they need no longer examine, when they marry women, which is tamei and which is tahor in order to distance her who is tamei and to draw near her who is tahor.] R. Gamliel said: We have accepted your testimony, but what can we do? For R. Yochanan b. Zakkai has decreed not to convene batei-din for this [i.e., for permitting an issah widow ab initio. For] the Cohanim will heed you to distance her [if you rule her forbidden], but not to draw her near [if you rule her permitted. The halachah is that an issah widow is forbidden to marry a Cohein ab initio, but if she does, she is not divorced.]
  	R. Yossi b. Yoezer, Ish Tz'raidah, testified about ayal kamtza [a type of locust] that it is clean [and may be eaten. (The Targum of "kachagavim" ["like locusts" (Numbers 13:33)] is "kekamtzin")]; and (he testified) about the liquids [i.e., the blood and the water] of the slaughtering house, [in the azarah] that they are clean. [According to one view they are entirely clean; for the tumah of liquids is not Torah-based, but of rabbinic decree, and in this instance they did not decree thus. According to another view they are "clean" in that they do not defile others; but they are tamei in themselves, for the tumah of liquids in themselves is Torah-based, and the Rabbis cannot permit what the Torah has proscribed]; and (he testified) that one who touches a dead body becomes tamei. [That is, one who, of a certainty, touches a dead body becomes tamei, but, in an instance of doubt (safek), even vis-à-vis the stringent tumah of a dead body, he is tahor — how much more so does he come to permit the lesser tumah of a sheretz and a safek of tumah in the public domain. And even though a safek of tumah in the public domain is tahor (even) according to the Torah — for the entire issur of safek tumah is derived from sotah, viz. (Numbers 5:13): "…and she had secreted herself and she be defiled," Scripture telling us that she is forbidden in an instance of doubt ("secreted, etc."), and just as sotah obtains only in the private domain, there being no "secreting" in the public domain, so the tumah of safek obtains only in the private domain — still, before the ruling of Yossi ben Yoezer, they said: "It is a halachah (that tumah does not obtain in the public domain), but we do not teach it." And he came and testified that we do teach it ab initio, to render tahor every safek of tumah in the public domain.] And they called him "Yossi, the permitter." [For he permitted three things vis-à-vis which they deported themselves as being forbidden. For every beth-din which permits three things whose heter (permit) is not apparent is called "a permitting beth-din."]
  	R. Akiva testified in the name of Nechemiah, Ish Beth D'li, that a woman may be married on the testimony of one witness. [If her husband went abroad and one witness came and said that he had died, she is married on the strength of his testimony. R. Yehoshua testified about bones that were found in dir etzim [(the wood storage compartment (of the Temple) where they stored all the wood for the wood pile. It was in the northeast corner of the ezrath nashim. Some bones of dead bodies were found there) ]: The sages said: They are removed bone by bone and all is tahor [i.e., We do not fear that men or vessels may have become tamei through them, for this constitutes "safek tumah in the public domain," which is tahor. And in the last chapter of Zevachim the Gemara adduces that they wished to decree tumah in all of Jerusalem because of the bones which were found in the wood compartment, but R. Yehoshua said to them: "Would it not be a shame and a mortification for us to decree tumah upon the city of our fathers!"]
  R. Eliezer said: I heard that when they were building in the sanctuary (in the days of Ezra) they made curtains for the sanctuary and curtains for the azaroth (the courtyards); but in the sanctuary they built from outside (the curtains) and in the azarah they built inside. R. Yehoshua said: I heard that sacrifices are offered even when there is no Temple, and that holy of holies are eaten even where there are no curtains; lesser order sacrifices and second tithe, even when there is no wall. For the first consecration [of the Temple by Solomon] was for that time and for future time. [But the consecration of the rest of Eretz Yisrael at the time of the first conquest was only for its time until the Babylonian exiles returned and consecrated it a second time. And that consecration was for time to come.]
  	R. Yehoshua said: I have received it from R. Yochanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his master, and his master from his master, "a halachah to Moses upon Sinai," [the Holy One Blessed be He having shown to Moses upon Sinai, each generation and its expounders,] that Eliyahu will not come to rule tamei and to rule tahor, to distance and to draw near [i.e., to resolve genealogical doubts — which families suffered assimilation and which did not — but he will leave them in their status of kashruth for the future, the halachah being that "a family that was breached was breached, etc."], but [he will come] to distance those who had intruded themselves by force [i.e., those who all knew to be pasul (unfit), but who had insinuated themselves forcibly. (But a family that had been "infiltrated" because the p'sul was not known will be left in its status of kashruth)], and [he will come] to draw near all who had been (wrongly) distanced by force. The family of Beth Tzerifah was across the Jordan and Ben Tziyon [a man of violence] distanced it [i.e., proclaimed it pasul] by force. And another family was there [which was pasul], and Ben Tziyon drew it near by force [i.e., he proclaimed them to be kosher for marriage. The tanna was solicitous of men's honor and did not mention the name of the family that Ben Tziyon drew near by force as he did mention the name of the family that was kasher, to teach how much one should take care not to speak in denigration of his friend and "to cover shame." If thus with those who are pasul, how much more so with those who are kasher!] Such as these [whose kashruth and p'sul are known but who have been distanced by force or drawn near by force] Eliyahu will come to pronounce tamei and tahor, to distance and to draw near. R. Yehudah says: (He will come) to distance, but not to draw near. [He will draw near the kosher family, which was distanced by force, but he will not distance the family that was drawn near by force.] R. Shimon says: He will come to resolve disputes (among the sages). And the sages say: Neither to distance nor to draw near, but to make peace, as it is written (Malachi 3:24): "Behold, I am sending to you Eliyahu the prophet… and he will return the heart of the fathers to the sons and the heart of the sons to their fathers." [He (Eliyahu) is destined to say through the Holy Spirit: "This one is a descendant of that one." And according to R. Shimon, "fathers" are the sages, and "sons," the disciples — their hearts will be attuned to each other and dispute (machloketh) will not befall them.]