meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Eduyot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Eduyot
  משנה עדיות
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Eduyot
  
  
  
  
  
  Shammai says: All women are judged [impure] from the time [they discover that their period has begun]; Hillel says: From the time of [one] examination [to the next] examination, even if [that spans] many days.  But the Sages say: Not like the words of [Shammai] and not like the words of [Hillel]; rather, [she is judged impure] from the [day preceding the discovery] if this is less than [the span] between the last examination and the current examination; [she is judged impure] from [the span] between the last examination and the current examination if this is less than [a day preceding the discovery].  [For] all women who have regular periods, the usual onset time of her period is sufficient [to be judged impure].  Using cloth [to clean herself after sexual relations] is considered an examination, and [this act] lessens [either] the preceding day's span or [the span] between the last examination and the current examination.
  Shammai says: [Dough] greater than a <i>kav</i> [a measure] [is obligated] in [the law of] <i>challah</i> [setting aside a portion of dough for the priests].  Hillel says: From two <i>kabbim</i>.  The Sages say: Not like the words of [Shammai] and not like the words of [Hillel]; rather, one and a half <i>kav</i> is obligated in <i>challah</i>.  After they made the measures larger they said: Five quarters are obligated.  Rabbi Yossi says: Five are not obligated; five and more are obligated.
  Hillel says: A full <i>hin</i> [a measure equal to three <i>kabin</i>] of drawn water renders a ritual bath unfit. One is obligated to transmit [oral traditions] in the language of his master [which explains why Hillel talks of <i>hin</i> and not <i>kav</i> units]. Shammai says: Nine <i>kabin</i>. But the Sages said: Not like the words of [Hillel] and not like the words of [Shammai], until two water drawers came from the dung gate in Jerusalem and testified in the names of Shama'ya and Avtalion: Three <i>logim</i> [a measure equal to a quarter of a <i>hin</i>] of drawn water render a ritual bath unfit; and the Sages upheld [Shama'ya and Avtalion's] words.
  Why are the opinions of Hillel and Shammai recorded [only] to be nullified? To teach the generations that one should not be insistent in his/her opinions, for the fathers of the world were not insistent in their opinions.
  And why do we record the words of an individual among the many, when the law is [according to] the words of the many? Because if the court sees [fit] the words of the individual, it may rely on them. But a court is not able to nullify the words of a fellow court unless they are greater in wisdom and number [than the fellow court]. If they are greater in wisdom but not number, or in number but not in wisdom, they are not able to nullify its words until they become greater in wisdom and number.
  Rabbi Yehudah said: "If so, why do we record the words of an individual among the majority [only] to be nullified? For if a person says "Thus I have received [the law]," another will say to him "You heard it according to the words of So-and-So."
  Beit Shammai says: "A quarter of bones from any bones, whether from two or from three [limbs can render things under its same roof-space impure]." Beit Hillel says: "A quarter of bones from the corpse, whether from the [bones that constitute the main] structure [of the body] or from the [total] number [of bones of the body]. Shammai says: "Even from one bone."
  Vetches of <i>terumah</i> [the portion given to the priest]: Beit Shammai says: They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.” And Beit Hillel says: They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.  Shammai says: They must be eaten dry. Rabbi Akiva says: All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.   
  One who exchanges [copper] coins from second tithe for a <i>sela</i> [a silver coin]: Beit Shammai says: Copper coins [worth] a whole <i>sela</i>. And Beit Hillel says: Silver [worth] one <i>shekel</i> [a coin worth half a <i>sela</i>] and copper coins [worth] one <i>shekel</i>. Rabbi Meir says: One may not substitute silver and produce for silver. But the Sages allow it. 
  One who exchanges a <i>sela</i> from second tithe in Jerusalem:Beit Shammai says: Copper coins [worth] the whole <i>sela</i>. And Beit Hillel says: Silver [worth] one <i>shekel</i> and copper coins [worth] one <i>shekel</i>. The disputants before the Sages say: Silver [worth] three <i>dinarim</i> [a coin worth one-fourth of a <i>sela</i>] and copper coins [worth] one <i>dinar</i>. Rabbi Akiva says: Silver [worth] three <i>dinarim</i> and for the [leftover] fourth, copper coins. And Rabbi Tarfon says: Four silver <i>asperim</i> [a coin worth one-fifth of a <i>dinar</i>] [and the remaining fifth in copper]. Shammai says: He must leave it in the shop and eat on its credit. 
  A bride’s chair from which the covering-boards have been taken: Beit Shammai considers it [liable to become] impure, and Beit Hillel [does not] consider it [liable to become] impure. Shammai says: Even the framework of a stool is [liable to become] impure. A stool which has been set in a [kneading] trough: Beit Shammai considers it [liable to become] impure, and Beit Hillel [does not] consider it [liable to become] impure. Shammai says: Even one made in it [is liable to become impure]. 
  These are the matters concerning whichBeit Hillel went back and taught according to the opinion of Beit Shammai: A woman who came from overseas and said: "My husband died," she may marry again; "My husband died [without children]," she must undergo levirate marriage. But Beit Hillel says: We have heard so only in [the case of a woman] who came from the harvesting. Beit Shammai said to them: It is the same thing in the case of [a woman] who came from the harvesting or [a woman] who came from the olive-picking or [a woman] who came from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened. [Then] Beit Hillel went back and taught according to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai says: She may be married and take her <i>ketubah</i> [marriage document] payment. But Beit Hillel says: She may be married, but she may not take her <i>ketubah</i> payment. Beit Shammai said to them: You have permitted the graver matter of a forbidden relationship, [but] you will not permit the lighter matter of property?Beit Hillel said to them: We have found that brothers do not enter into their inheritance based on her statement. Beit Shammai said to them: Do we not learn it from her <i>ketubah</i> scroll in which he writes to her: "That if you be married to another you shall take what is written for you?" [Then] Beit Hillel went back and taught according to the opinion of Beit Shammai. 
  One who is half a slave and half a free man should work one day for his master and one day for himself, [according to] the words of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to them: You have fixed [the problem] for his master, but you have not fixed [the problem] for himself. He is not able to marry a slave-woman, nor is he able [to marry] a free woman. Is he to refrain [from marrying]? But wasn't the world created for people to be fruitful and to multiply? For it is said, "He did not create it to be an empty place; but established it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45:18). But for the rightful ordering of the world they force his master to free him, and he writes out a document for half his value. [Then] Beit Hillel went back and taught according to Beit Shammai. 
  A vessel of earthenware [with a lid] protects everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to the words of Beit Hillel. But Beit Shammai says: It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware. Beit Hillel said to them: Why? Beit Shammai said to them: Because [the vessel of earthenware] is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus [who has presumably touched the vessel, rendering it impure], and no impure vessel interposes [against impurity]. Beit Hillel said to them: But did you not declare pure the food and liquids inside it? Beit Shammai said to them: When we declared pure the food and liquids inside it, we declared them pure for [the ignoramus] only, but when you declared the vessel pure you declared it pure for yourself and for him. [Then]Beit Hillel went back and taught according to the opinion of Beit Shammai. 
  
  
  
  Rabbi Hanina, vice-chief of the priests, testified concerning four matters:  Through all their days the priests never refrained from burning meat which had been defiled by an "offspring" of impurity with meat which had been made impure by a "father" of impurity, even though they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. Rabbi Akiva added: Through all their days the priests never refrained from lighting oil which had been disqualified by a <i>tevul yom</i> [one who has already immersed in a ritual bath but is waiting for the sun to set to become fully pure] in a lamp defiled by one who was defiled by a corpse, even though they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. 
  Rabbi Hanina, vice-chief of the priests, said: All my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning. Rabbi Akiva said: From his words we infer that whoever flays the hide of the firstborn [animal] and [the animal] is found to be torn apart, the priests may enjoy the use of the hide. But the Sages say: "We didn’t see" is not a proof; rather, [the hide must be] taken out to the place of burning. 
  He also testified concerning a village which was next to Jerusalem, where there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the loan documents] in his own handwriting [but] others signed it. And when the case came before the Sages, they permitted it. In your way, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorce, and a husband may write his own receipt, for the document is only upheld by those who sign it.  And concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice]: that the knife and the hands [which had touched the flesh] are pure, but the flesh itself is impure; and if it was found in the excrement, all are pure.   
  Rabbi Yishmael said three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: Concerning an egg which was beaten and placed on vegetables of <i>terumah</i> [the portion given to the priest]: that it acts as a connection; but if it was in the form of a helmet [i.e. a more substantial covering over the vegetables], it does not act as a connection. And concerning an ear of grain in the harvesting, the top of which reached the [adjacent] standing grain [when bent]: that if it can be reaped together with the standing grain, it belongs to the owner; and if not, it belongs to the poor.    And concerning a small garden which was surrounded by a row of vines: that if it has space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on [one] side and space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on [the other] side, it may be sown with seed; but if not, it may not be sown with seed. 
  They said three things in front of Rabbi Yishmael, and he did not say [whether] any of them [were] permitted or forbidden; and Rabbi Joshua the son of Matya explained them: One who lances an abscess on Shabbat: if it was to make an opening, he is liable; if it was to bring out the pus, he is exempt. And concerning one who hunts a snake on Shabbat: if he was occupied with it so that it should not bite him, he is exempt; but if [he was occupied with it] so that he might use it for medicine, he is liable. And concerning Ironian stewpots [clay pots made by villagers by forming a hollow sphere and breaking it in half]: that they do not contract impurity when under the same tent as a corpse, but they become impure if they are carried by a <i>zav</i> [one with an abnormal genital discharge]. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Zadok says: Even if they are carried by a <i>zav</i> they remain pure, because they are unfinished. 
  Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiva disagreed with him: Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain which were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day, Rabbi Yishmael says: He may finish crushing after it grows dark. But Rabbi Akiva says: He may not finish. 
  Three things were said before Rabbi Akiva, two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua. The two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A woman can go out [on the Sabbath] with a "city of gold" [a special, expensive headband], and those who race doves are invalid to testify. The one in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: If there is a vermin in the mouth of a weasel and it is walking on top of loaves of <i>terumah</i> bread and it is unclear if it touched [the bread] or not, it is still pure.   
  Rabbi Akiva said three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him: About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract <i>midras</i> impurity [an impurity imparted by a <i>zav</i> on things upon which one normally walks]. And about the remains of a [broken] oven, [that they must be] four [handbreadths in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say [the remains must be] three [handbreadths]. And they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him: About a chair, from which two of its adjacent covering-boards had been removed, which Rabbi Akiva declared [susceptible to] impurity, but the Sages declared not [susceptible to] impurity. 
  He used to say: the father transmits to the son beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom, and years. And the number of generations before Him, and that shall be their appointed end: For it is said, "calling the generations from the beginning" (Isaiah 41:4). Although it is said, "And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years" (Genesis 15:13), it is also said, "And in the fourth generation they shall return again" (Genesis 15:16). 
  He also used to say that there are five things that [last] twelve months: The judgment of the generation of the flood, twelve months; The judgment of Job, twelve months; The judgment of the Egyptians, twelve months; The judgment of Gog and Magog in the time to come, twelve months; The judgment of the wicked in hell, twelve months, for it is said, "And it will be from [one] month until the [next appearance of the same] month" (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Yohanan the son of Nuri says: From Passover to Shavuot, for it is said, "And from one sabbath until the [next] sabbath" (ibid.). 
  
  
  
  All things that defile in a tent [i.e. anything that defiles that which is under its same roof-space], if [the pieces of the corpse] were divided and brought into the house: Rabbi Dosa the son of Harkinas [declares everything under the same roof-space] pure, but the Sages [declare it] impure. How so [i.e. what are they]? He who touches as much as two halves of an olive [in quantity] of an animal’s carcass or carries them; or in the case of a [human] corpse, he who touches as much as half an olive (and forms a tent over [i.e. stands over] as much as half an olive; or touches as much as half an olive) and as much as half an olive forms a tent above him; or if he forms a tent over as much as two halves of an olive; or if he forms a tent over as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive forms a tent above him: Rabbi Dosa the son of Harkinas [declares him] clean, and the Sages [declare him] unclean. But if he touches as much as half an olive [in quantity] and another thing forms a tent over him [that is] over as much as half an olive; (or if he forms a tent over as much as half an olive and another thing forms a tent over him and over as much as half an olive), [he is] clean [according to both Rabbi Dosa and the Sages]. Rabbi Meir said: Even in this case Rabbi Dosa [declares him] clean and the Sages [declare him] unclean. In all such cases [he is] unclean, unless there is an act of touching and also an act of carrying, or an act of carrying and also [the state of] being under the same tent. This is the general rule: [If in] whatever [case], [the means of transmitting impurity] are of one name [i.e. category], [he is] impure; if they are of two names, [he is] pure.   
  Food [in] separate [pieces] does not combine [together to contract impurity]: the words of Rabbi Dosa the son of Harkinas. And the Sages say: It does combine. [One may] exchange [produce from] the second tithe for uncoined metal: the words of Rabbi Dosa. And the Sages say: [One may] not exchange. Hands [alone must be] immersed in order to [touch] the sin-cleansing [water]: These are the words of Rabbi Dosa. And the Sages say: If his hands have become impure, his body [also] becomes impure.
  The inside of a melon and the leaves of a vegetable [reserved] for <i>terumah</i> [the portion given to the priest]: Rabbi Dosa permits them to outsiders [i.e. non-priests], but the Sages forbid it. Five ewes, their fleeces [each] weighing a <i>maneh</i> [a measure] and a half, are obligated in [the law pertaining to] the first of the fleece: the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say five ewes, whatever [their fleeces weigh]. 
  All kinds of mattings [can become] impure through the impurity of death [i.e. contact with a corpse]: the words of Rabbi Dosa. And the Sages say: [Also through] <i>midras</i> [an impurity imparted by one with an abnormal genital discharge on things upon which one normally walks]. All things made of nets are pure, except for a girdle: the words of Rabbi Dosa. And the Sages say: [They] all [can become] impure, except those [nettings used by] wool-dealers.
  A sling, the receptacle of which is made of woven material, can become impure. [If it is made] of skin, Rabbi Dosa the son of Harkinas [declares it] pure, and the Sages [declare it can become] impure. If its finger-hold was cut off, it is pure. [If its] string-handle [is cut off], it [can become] impure.
  The female captive [presumably the wife or daughter of a priest] may eat <i>terumah</i>. These are the words of Rabbi Dosa. The Sages say: There are female captives who eat [<i>terumah</i>], and there are female captives who do not eat [<i>terumah</i>]. How so [i.e. who are they]? The woman who said, "I was captured, but I am pure [i.e. I was not raped]," may eat (because the mouth that forbade is the [same] mouth that permitted). If there were witnesses when she was captured and she says, "I am pure," then she may not eat [<i>terumah</i>].
  There are four [cases of] doubt [that] Rabbi Joshua [declares] impure, but the Sages [declare] pure. How so [i.e. what are they]? The impure stands and the pure passes by; the pure stands and the impure passes by; the impure is in the domain of the individual [i.e. private] and the pure is in the domain of the public; the pure is in the domain of the individual and the impure is in the domain of the public. [If there is] doubt [regarding whether one] touched or did not touch [the other], [or] there is doubt [regarding whether one] formed or did not form a tent over [the other], [or] there is doubt [regarding whether one] moved or did not move [the other]: Rabbi Joshua [declares these] impure, and the Sages [declare these] pure. 
  Three things Rabbi Tzadok [declares able to become] impure, and the Sages [declare] pure: the nail of a money-changer, the closet of grinders, and the nail of a stone sundial. Rabbi Tzadok [declares that these can become] impure, and the Sages [declare these] pure. 
  Four things Rabban Gamliel [declares able to become] impure, and the Sages [declare] pure: the covering of a metal basket, [if it] belongs to home-owners, the hanger of a strigil, unformed metal vessels, and a [clay] plate split in two [equal parts]. The Sages admit to Rabban Gamliel regarding a [clay] plate split in two [parts if] one [part was] big and one [part was] small. The bigger one [can become] impure, and the smaller one [is] pure.
  [In] three things Rabban Gamliel was stringent like the words of Beit Shammai: [one may] not [keep] hot food insulated on a festival for the Sabbath, and [one may] not put together a lamp on the festival, and [one may] not bake thick loaves, only thin loaves [on a festival]. Said Rabban Gamliel: During all their days, my father's house would not bake thick loaves, only thin loaves. They said to him: What can we do about your father's house, who were stringent regarding themselves but were lenient regarding Israel to [allow] baking of thick loaves and [even] loaves on coal.
  He [Rabban Gamliel] also declared three things leniently: [one can] sweep between couches [on a Sabbath/festival], and place spices [to roast] on a festival, and roast a [whole] kid during the night of Passover. And the Sages forbade them.
  Three things Rabbi Elazar the son of Azariah permits, and the Sages forbid: his cow would go out with the strap that was between her horns [on a Sabbath], [one may] rigorously groom cattle on a festival, and [one may] grind pepper in its own mill [on a Sabbath/festival]. Rabbi Yehudah said: One may not rigorously groom cattle on the festival, because it creates a bruise, but one may lightly groom them. And the Sages say: One may not rigorously groom nor lightly groom [cattle].
  
  
  
  The following are instances where Beit Shammai is more lenient and Beit Hillel is more strict: An egg which was laid on a festival, Beit Shammai says: It may be eaten. And Beit Hillel says: It may not be eaten. Beit Shammai says: [A person is liable for a violation of Passover eating prohibitions] with an olive-sized [portion] of yeast and a date-sized [portion] of leavened product. Beit Hillel says: With an olive-sized portion [each] of [yeast] and [leavened product].
  (An animal that was born on a festival, everyone agrees that it is permitted [for eating on that day]. [However], a hatched chicken from an egg, all agree that it is forbidden to eat [on that day]). One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival, Beit Shammai says: He can dig with a spade and cover [the blood]. Beit Hillel says: One may not slaughter unless he had dirt already prepared [from before the festival]. Both agree that if he slaughtered it [and realized afterwards that he did not have dirt prepared], he may dig with a spade and cover [the blood], and that ash from the oven is considered prepared [from before the festival and is thus permitted to use on a festival].
  Beit Shammai says: [That which was made] ownerless for [only] the poor is [considered] ownerless. Beit Hillel says: It is not [considered] ownerless until he also makes it ownerless for the rich, like in <i>shemittah</i> [the septennial "year of release" during which all produce is considered ownerless for everyone]. [If] all the sheaves of the field were just one <i>kav</i> [a measure], and one was of four <i>kabin</i> and it was forgotten, Beit Shammai says: It is not [considered] forgotten. And Beit Hillel says: It is [considered] forgotten.
  A sheaf that is close to a wall, or to a stack, or to the herd, or to vessels, and it was forgotten, Beit Shammai says: It is not [considered] forgotten. And Beit Hillel says: It is [considered] forgotten.
  A vineyard in its fourth year [the fruits of which must be brought to and consumed in Jerusalem], Beit Shammai says: [If one wishes to redeem its fruit for money], it is not [required to add] one-fifth [of its value, like it would be for second tithe], nor [is it required] to remove [the fruits of the vineyard before Passover, like it would be for other tithes in the fourth or seventh years of <i>shemittah</i>]. Beit Hillel says: It is [required to add] one-fifth [of its value] and [it is required] to remove [the fruits before Passover]. Beit Shammai says: The [law of] fallen grapes [still applies] to it [where the owner must leave any fallen grapes for the poor] and the [law of] gleanings [still applies] to it [where the owner may not pick the vines bare], and the poor may redeem [the grapes they pick] for themselves. And Beit Hillel says: All of it goes to the winepress [and no grapes need to be reserved for the poor].
  A barrel of pickled olives, Beit Shammai says: One need not poke holes in it [as it is assumed that the oil in the barrel is undesirable, which immunizes the olives from the ritual impurity to which wet food is susceptible]. And Beit Hillel says: He must poke holes in it [to actively demonstrate that the oil in the barrel is undesirable]. They both agree that if it was perforated and the dregs blocked up [the holes], that it is pure [and one need not worry about the olives contracting ritual impurity]. One who anointed with pure oil and became impure, and [with the oil on him] went down [to the ritual bath] and immersed, Beit Shammai says: Even if he is dripping [oil], he is [considered] pure. And Beit Hillel says: [He is considered pure only if the oil on him is just] enough to cover a small limb. If the oil was impure from the start, Beit Shammai says: [He is pure as long as the oil on him is just] enough to cover a small limb. And Beit Hillel says: [He is impure if there is enough oil] as a moist liquid [to moisten whatever is in direct contact with it]. Rabbi Yehudah says in the name of Beit Hillel: [It needs to] moisten [whatever is in direct contact with it] and moisten [another area else as well].
  A woman must be betrothed with a <i>dinar</i> [a coin worth about the same as a day's wages] or a <i>dinar's</i> worth, according to the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel says: With a <i>perutah</i> [a coin worth far less than a <i>dinar</i>] or a <i>perutah's</i> worth. And how much is a <i>perutah</i>? One-eighth of an Italian <i>issar</i> [a copper coin worth 1/24th of a <i>dinar</i>]. Beit Shammai says: One [may] dismiss his wife with an old divorce document, andBeit Hillel forbids it. What is an "old divorce document?" [It is a document written by] one who becomes confined with [his wife] after he has written [the document] for her [but has not yet given it to her]. One who divorces his wife, and then sleeps in an inn with her, Beit Shammai says: She does not need a second divorce document from him [i.e. the first divorce remains valid]. And Beit Hillel says: She needs a second divorce document from him. When? At a time when she was divorced from marriage. But if she was [merely] divorced from betrothal, she does not need a second divorce document from him, since his heart has not yet become familiar with her [and, thus, we do not suspect that they would have slept with each other].
  Beit Shammai allow the rival wives [of a deceased brother] to [marry his surviving] brothers, and Beit Hillel forbids it. If they had done <i>chalitzah</i> [the ceremony of release, after which a levirate marriage is no longer required], Beit Shammai invalidate [the rival wives from marrying into]  the priesthood. And Beit Hillel validate them. If they had done the levirate marriage, Beit Shammai validate the [rival wives to the priests, should the surviving brothers die as well], and Beit Hillel invalidate them. Even though [one House] invalidated and [the other House] validated, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying the women of Beit Hillel, and Beit Hillel did not [refrain] from marrying the women of Beit Shammai. And all the pure and impure that [one House] would declare pure and [the other House] would declare impure, they [still] did not refrain from making [sure] that [the vessels of one House] and [the vessels of the other House would remain] pure [according to both Houses].
  Three brothers: two of them married to two sisters, and one is single. One of the sister's husbands died, and the single [brother] performed <i>maamar</i> [the act of betrothal required before a levirate marriage is consummated], and afterward the second brother died, Beit Shammai says: His [betrothed] wife [stays] with him, and the other [widowed wife] goes free on account of [the law of a] wife's sister [being forbidden]. And Beit Hillel says: He releases his [betrothed] wife with a divorce document and <i>chalitzah</i>, and his [betrothed] wife's sister with [just] <i>chalitzah</i>. This is what they used to say: Woe to him for his wife, and woe to him for his brother's wife.
  If one vows [to abstain from] his wife in sexual intercourse,Beit Shammai says: [After] two weeks [of abstinence his wife may sue him for divorce]. And Beit Hillel says: [After just] one week. One who has a miscarriage on the [eve of the] eighty-first day [after giving birth]: Beit Shammai exempts her from the sacrifice [for the miscarriage], and Beit Hillel obligates her. A linen sheet with fringes: Beit Shammai exempts [the sheet from the law of fringes], and Beit Hillel obligates [in the law of fringes]. A basket [of fruit set aside] for the Sabbath: Beit Shammai exempt it [from tithes if one wishes to snack on it before the Sabbath], and Beit Hillel obligate it.
  One who makes a nazarite vow [for] longer [than thirty days outside of the land of Israel] and he completes his nazarite [days], and afterward comes to the land [of Israel, where he must redo his nazarite vow], Beit Shammai says: he must be a nazarite for thirty days. And Beit Hillel says: He must be a nazarite [for the amount of time he vowed] in the beginning. If someone had two sets of witnesses testify about him, [one set] testifying he vowed two [nazarite vows, each thirty days], and [the other set] testifying he vowed five [nazarite vows, each thirty days], Beit Shammai says: The testimony is divided, and [thus] there is no nazarite [obligation] here. And Beit Hillel says: Included in the [claim of] five [vows] are two [vows], so he must be a nazarite twice.
  A [dead] person who is set under the crack [of a portico], Beit  Shammai says: He does not [act as a bridge to] bring the ritual impurity [into the area which is beyond the crack]. And Beit Hillel says: a person is hollow [and it is as if all he has is a head, empty space, and then feet. This results in his head being considered a bridge between the two sides of the crack], and the upper side [i.e. the person's head] brings the ritual impurity [to everything under the portico].
  
  
  
  Rabbi Yehudah says: There are six things about which Beit Shammai is more lenient, and Beit Hillel is more stringent. The blood of an [improperly slaughtered] carcass: Beit Shammai declares ritually pure, and Beit Hillel declares ritually impure. The egg of [an improperly slaughtered bird's] carcass: if its like would be sold in the marketplace, it is permitted to eat. If not, it is forbidden, such are the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit  Hillel forbids it [unequivocally]. They [both] agree that the egg of a <i>treifah</i> [an animal with a wound or illness that will cause it to die within twelve months] is forbidden, because it was grown in a forbidden [animal]. The blood of a gentile woman's [menstruation], and the blood of purity [i.e. blood that flows during the first forty (for a boy) or eighty (for a girl) days following childbirth] of a leprous [Jewish] woman:Beit Shammai declared pure. And Beit Hillel says: It is like their spit and urine [and is therefore impure]. One may eat seventh-year fruits whether with [giving] gratitude [to the owner] or without [giving] gratitude, such are the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel says: One may not eat them without [giving] gratitude [to the owner]. [Alternatively, the text is "One may only eat them without giving gratitude to the owner" since God made the food ownerless, and one should thank Him, not the owner]. A waterskin, Beit Shammai says: [It can become impure] if it is tied up and upright [so it can retain water]. And Beit Hillel says: [It can become impure] even if it is not tied up [as long as it is upright].
  Rabbi Yose says: There are six things about which Beit Shammai was more lenient and Beit Hillel was more stringent. Poultry can be put on the [same] table [as] cheese, but cannot be eaten [with it], such are the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel says: It cannot be put [on the same table], and it cannot be eaten [with it]. One can take <i>terumah</i> [the portion given to the priest] from olives on behalf of oil, and from grapes on behalf of wine, such are the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel says: One does not take <i>terumah</i> [on behalf of oil and wine from their fruits of origin]. One who sows [seeds] within four cubits of a vineyard, Beit Shammai says: One row [of the vineyard that is closest to the area where one sowed the seeds] is rendered prohibited. And Beit Hillel says: Two rows are rendered prohibited. A water-flour mixture: Beit Shammai exempt [from the law of <i>challah</i>, where a portion of dough is set aside for the priest], and Beit Hillel obligate [it]. One may ritually immerse oneself in a waterfall, such are the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel says: One may not immerse oneself [there]. A convert who converts on the eve of Passover [which requires the eating of the Paschal lamb that night, only by those who are ritually pure], Beit Shammai says: He may immerse and eat the Paschal lamb that night. And Beit Hillel says: One who separates from the uncircumcised is like he who separates from the grave [i.e. he must wait seven days before he can immerse in a ritual bath, so he cannot eat the Paschal lamb that night].
  Rabbi Yishmael says: Three items about which Beit Shammai are more lenient and Beit Hillel are more stringent. The book of Ecclesiastes does not make [a person's] hands ritually impure, such are the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel says: It [does] make the hands ritually impure. The waters of the [red heifer, biblically referred to as the waters of the] sin-offering, which have fulfilled their duty [by having been sprayed on a person who had come in contact with a dead person]: Beit  Shammai declares ritually pure, and Beit Hillel declares ritually impure. Black cumin: Beit Shammai declares ritually pure [as they do not consider it a food], and Beit Hillel declares ritually impure [as they do consider it a food]. And the same [considerations about the black cumin's status as food apply] to [their positions on] tithing [for the black cumin].
  Rabbi Eliezer says: Two things about which Beit Shammai was more lenient and Beit Hillel was more stringent. The blood of a woman who [had waited the week or two weeks after] giving birth [to a boy or a girl, respectively] who had yet to ritually immerse, Beit Shammai says: It [imparts impurity when it is wet] like her spit and her urine. And Beit Hillel says: It imparts impurity whether [it is] wet or dry. And they agree that if that woman after childbirth was a <i>zavah</i> [a woman with an abnormal genital discharge], [her discharge] would impart impurity whether wet or dry.
  Four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters, and those two brothers married to the sisters die, the [two surviving brothers] must perform <i>chalitzah</i> [the ceremony of release, after which a Levirate marriage is no longer required] and not [enter into] Levirate marriages. If they went and entered [into Levirate marriages anyway], they must leave [the marriages]. Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Beit Shammai: [The Levirate marriages] stay upheld. And Beit Hillel says: They must leave [the marriages].
  Akavya the son of Mehalelel testified about four things. They said to him: Akavya, retract the four things you have said and we will make you the head of the court of Israel. He said to them: Better I be called a fool all my days, so long as I do not do wickedness for even a single moment before the Omnipresent, so that they will not say "he retracted because [he wanted] power." He used to declare impure the leftover hair [from leprous skin], and green [or yellow] blood. And the Sages declared [these things] pure. He would permit the [use of] wool that had fallen from a blemished firstborn animal and had been placed in a cavity [for safekeeping] and [the animal] was afterwards slaughtered, but the Sages forbade [the use of the wool]. He would say: One may not make a converted woman nor a freed maidservant drink [from the "bitter waters" that were drunk by a woman suspected of adultery as a test]. But the Sages say: [They are] made to drink. They said to him: There was the case of Karkamit, a freed maidservant in Jerusalem, who was made to drink by Shama'ya and Avtalyon! He said to them: They made her drink an "example" [i.e. the "bitter waters" they made her drink were not authentic].  They excommunicated him, and he died in excommunication, and the Court stoned his coffin. Said Rabbi Yehudah: God-forbid [one should say] that Akavya was excommunicated! For the [Temple] courtyard is never locked for any man of Israel who has wisdom and fear of sin like Akavya the son of Mehalelel [had]. So who did [the Court] excommunicate? It was Elazar the son of Khanoch, who mocked the [laws of] purity of hands. And when he died, the Court went and placed a stone on his coffin, teaching that anyone who was excommunicated and died in excommunication, they "stone" his coffin [i.e. they place a stone on his coffin].
  In the hour of [Akavya's] death, he said to his son: My son, retract the four things that I used to say. [His son] said to him: And why did you not retract [these statements]? He said to him: I heard them from the mouths of many people, and they [i.e. the other Sages] heard [the opposite] from the mouths of many people. I stood by what I heard, and they stood by what they heard. But [now], you [only] heard [these things] from the mouth of a single person [i.e. me], and [the opposite] from the mouths of many people. It is better to leave the words of the single person, and to grab hold of the words of the many. [His son] said to him: Father, commend me to your colleagues [either referring to those on earth, or those in heaven]. He said to him: I cannot commend [you]. He said to him: Perhaps you do not find in me worthiness? He said to him: No! Your [own] actions will draw you near, or your [own] actions will distance you.
  
  
  
  Rabbi Yehudah the son of Bava testified about five things: [Girls who married as] minors [i.e. under the age of twelve and a half] are forced to do the "refusal" [when they come of age and annul their marriage]. A woman may remarry based on one witness [who saw her husband die]. A rooster in Jerusalem was stoned for killing a person. They used forty-day-old wine as libation for the Altar. And the [morning] daily offering was sacrificed at the fourth hour [into the day].
  Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nechunya the son of Elinatan, the leader of Kfar Babylon, testified about the limb of a dead person that it is impure [i.e. it imparts impurity to anything under the same roof-space]. Rabbi Eliezer says: They [i.e. the Sages] only said this about a limb taken from a live person. They said to him: Can we not make [a logical inference that supports our view based on what you said]? If a live person is ritually pure, yet the limb from him is impure, is it not [logical to conclude] that [when] a dead person, who is impure, loses a limb, [that limb is also] impure? He said to them: [True, but] they only said [their law] in reference to a limb taken from a live person. Another answer: [There are] more [ways to impart] impurity while alive than while dead, for a live person can make that on which he lies and sits impart impurity to man and clothes, and he renders what is over him a medium that imparts impurity to food and drink, which are not impurities that a corpse can cause. [Thus, the previous logical inference of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nechunya does not necessarily stand.]
  An olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person: Rabbi Eliezer declares impure, and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nechunya declare pure. A barley-grain's size of bone that separates from a limb of a living person: Rabbi Nechunya declares impure, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua declare pure. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Why did you see [fit] to declare an olive's worth of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person impure? He said to them: We find that the limb of a living person is like a complete dead person. Just like an olive's size of flesh that separates from a dead person is impure, so too an olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person is impure. They said to him: No. If you say that an olive's size of flesh that separated from a dead person is impure, as is a barley-grain's size of bone that separates from [a dead person], [how] will you also declare an olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person impure when you declare pure a barley-grain's size of bone that separates from [the limb of a living person]? [You yourself do not appear to judge these cases as parallel to each other, so how can you claim that to be your reasoning?] They said to Rabbi Nechunya: Why did you see fit to declare a barley-grain's size of bone that separated from the limb of a living person impure? He said to them: We find that the limb of a living person is like a complete dead person. Just like a barley-grain's worth of flesh that separates from a dead person is impure, so too a barley-grain's worth of bone that separated from the limb of a living person is impure. They said to him: No. If you say that a barley-grain's worth of bone that separated from a dead person is impure, as is an olive's size of flesh that separates from [a dead person], [how] will you also declare a barley-grain's size of bone that separated from the limb of a living person impure when you declare pure an olive's worth of flesh that separates from [a living person]? [You yourself do not appear to judge these cases as parallel to each other, so how can you claim that to be your reasoning?] They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Why did you see fit to divide your method [and be inconsistent in your reasoning]? Either they are both pure, or they are both impure! He said to them: [There are] more [chances for] flesh [to become] impure than [there are chances] for bones [to become] impure, for flesh applies to carcasses and insects, which is not so for bones. Another answer: A limb that has enough flesh on it [that were it still attached to a human being, it would be viable] imparts impurity by touching, carrying, and being under its [same] roof-space. If one diminishes the flesh [of the limb], it remains impure. If one diminishes the bone [of the limb], it [becomes] pure. They said to Rabbi Nechunya: Why did you see fit to divide your method [and be inconsistent in your reasoning]? Either they are both pure, or they are both impure! He said to them: [There are] more [chances for] bones [to become] impure than [there are chances] for flesh to become impure, for flesh separated from a living man is pure, but a limb that is separated from [a living man], and it is full [with flesh, bone, and sinews], it is impure. Another answer: An olive's worth of flesh [severed from a corpse] imparts impurity by touching, carrying, and being under its roof-space, and bones create a majority in making impure by touching, carrying, and being under its [same] roof-space, and a majority of a corpse's bones impart impurity by touching, carrying, and being under their [same] roof-space. If one diminishes [the] flesh [that has been severed from a corpse], it [becomes] pure. If one diminishes the majority of bone, even though they [now become] pure [and can no longer impart impurity on whatever is] under their same roof-space, they [still] impart impurity by touching and carrying. Another answer: Any flesh of a dead person which is less than an olive's worth is pure. But [bones that makes up] the majority of a dead person's build or [constitute] a majority of his [bone] count, even if they are only a quarter [<i>kav</i> (a measure)], they are impure. They said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Why did you see fit to declare both [bone and flesh from a dead person] pure? [Is not Rabbi Nechunya's reasoning correct?] He said to them: No. If you say about a corpse [that it is impure, it is because of] the laws of majority, quarter [<i>kav</i>], and decay [that apply to it], but [how can you] also say about a living person [that he is impure], [if] he does not have the laws of majority, quarter [<i>kav</i>], and decay [apply to him]? [You cannot compare that which was separated from a corpse with that which was separated from the limb of a living person, because the limbs severed from a living person are less likely to impart impurity than the corpse.]
  
  
  
  Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok testified about the redemption [sheep] of the first-born donkey, that if it had died, it is no longer the priests at all. But Rabbi Eliezer said that he is obligated in his responsibility [to give the priest the sheep], like [his obligation regarding] the five <i>selaim</i> [silver coins] [with which he redeems] his [first-born] son. The Sages say: He is only obligated in his responsibility in the same way [that he would be obligated] in the redemption of second tithes.
  Rabbi Tzadok testified about the brine of impure locusts, that it is pure. But the first [i.e. earlier] Mishnah stated: If impure locusts were pickled along with pure locusts, their brine is not invalidated [for drinking].
  Rabbi Tzadok testified about flowing water that was more [in quantity] than the dripping water [in a ritual bath], that it was fit [for use, even if the water was less than forty <i>se'im</i> (a measure)]. It happened once in Birat Happiliya, and the case came before the Sages and they declared it fit [for use].
  Rabbi Tzadok testified about flowing water that was diverted into a stream using the leaves of nuts, that it was fit [for use as a ritual bath, even if the water was less than forty <i>se'im</i>]. It once happen in Ahaliya, and the case came before the Chamber of Hewn Stone [i.e. the Sanhedrin], and they declared it fit.
  Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yakim, leader of Hadar, testified about an [earthenware] jar that contained [ashes of the red heifer, biblically referred to as] the sin-offering, which was passed over an insect, that it was impure. Rabbi Eliezer declared it pure. Rabbi Pappayis testified about one who vows two Nazarite vows [each thirty days long], that if he cut his hair on the thirtieth day of the first [vow], he could cut his hair on the sixtieth day of the second one. If he had cut his hair on the day before the sixtieth day [i.e. the fifty-ninth day], he [nevertheless] fulfilled his Nazarite vows, because the thirtieth day [when he cut his hair for the first time] counts for him from the count [as both the end of the first vow and the beginning of the second vow].
  Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappayis testified about the offspring of [an animal that was set aside as a] peace-offering, that it was offered as a peace-offering [as well, since it is consecrated through its mother when it was in the womb]. But Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of a peace-offering does not [need to be] offered as a peace-offering. Said Rabbi Pappayis: I testify that we had a cow to sacrifice as a peace-offering, and we ate it on Passover, and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering during the holiday [of Shavuot].
  They testified that the boards of bakers are [capable of becoming] impure. But Rabbi Eliezer declared them pure. They testified about an oven that was cut into round pieces, and one puts sand between each piece, that it [was capable of becoming] impure. But Rabbi Eliezer declared it pure. They testified that they could intercalate a year throughout the whole Adar [i.e. they had until the end of Adar to declare a leap year]. For they used to say it was only until Purim. They testified that they could intercalate a year on condition [if the Nasi approved it]. And it once happened to Rabban Gamliel, that he went to take permission from the governor of Syria, and he delayed in coming [back], and they intercalated the year on condition that Rabban Gamliel would acquiesce [to it], and when he came back, he said "I acquiesce [to it]," and the year became a leap year. 
  Menachem the son of Signai testified about the [plaster] ledge attached to the olive-boiler's cauldron, that it was [capable of becoming] impure, and [the ledge on the cauldron] of dyers, that it was pure. But they used to say the opposite [was true].
  Rabbi Nechunya the son of Gidgeda testified about the deaf-mute woman whose father had married her off: that she can leave [the marriage] with a divorce document. And about a minor [orphaned] daughter of an Israelite [i.e. a non-priest] who married a priest: that she can eat <i>terumah</i> [the portion given to the priest], and if she dies, her husband inherits [from her]. And about a stolen beam that was built into a palace: that he [i.e. the one who stole the beam] gives its value [in repayment, as opposed to returning the actual beam, which would be impossible in this case]. And about a stolen sin-offering that many did not know about: that it can effect atonement, because of the welfare of the altar [because if it was invalid, then the priests would refuse to sacrifice all their offerings lest they were stolen].
  
  
  
  Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Beteira testified about the blood of [an improperly slaughtered] carcass that it was pure. Rabbi Shimon the son of Beteira testified about [the ashes of a red heifer, biblically referred to as] the sin-offering, a little of which came in contact with something impure, that it causes the entire [batch of ashes] to become impure. Rabbi Akiva added: About fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals, a little of which came into contact with a <i>tevul yom</i> [one who has already immersed in a ritual bath but is waiting for the sun to set to become fully pure]: he invalidates them all.
  Rabbi Yehudah the son of Bava and Rabbi Yehudah the Priest testified about a minor daughter of an Israelite [i.e. a non-priest] who married a priest: that she may eat the <i>terumah</i> [the portion given to the priests] as soon as they enter the wedding canopy, even if they have not yet consummated [the marriage]. Rabbi Yosi the Priest and Rabbi Zachariah the son of Haktzav testified about the baby girl who had been taken as collateral in Ashkelon [to gentiles], and her family members distance [themselves from her, thus preventing her from marrying], and witnesses testify that she was never secluded [with the gentiles] and that she was not defiled [by the gentiles]. The Sages said to them: If you believe that she was taken as collateral, then you [should] believe you that she was neither secluded [with] nor defiled [by the gentiles]. If you do not believe that she was not secluded [with] and not defiled [by the gentiles], then you [should not] believe that she was taken as collateral.
  Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehudah the son of Beteira testified about the widow of a man from a possibly illegitimate lineage: that she was fit for marrying a priest, and that those from a possibly illegitimate lineage are considered fit [to declare who is] pure and impure, [who] to bring close and [who] to distance. Rabban Shimon the son of Gamliel said: We have accepted your testimony, but what shall we do, for Rabbi Yochanan the son of Zakkai has decreed for courts to not be commissioned for this [i.e. for the widow of a man from a possibly illegitimate lineage to marry a priest]! The priests would listen to you on whom to distance, but not whom to bring close.
  Rabbi Yosi the son of Yoezer, leader of Tzereda, testified about the ayil-locust: that it is pure. And about liquid in the slaughterhouse [of the Temple]: that it is pure. And about one who touches a dead body: he is impure. And they used to call him "Yosi the Permitter."
  Rabbi Akiva testified in the name of Nechemiah leader of Bet Dali, that a woman may remarry based on one witness [who confirms that her husband has died]. Rabbi Yehoshua testified about bones that were found in a wood-shed [of the Temple] that the Sages said: One may gather bone by bone, and it [i.e. the Temple and the things inside it] is all [still] pure.
  Rabbi Eliezer said: I heard that when they built the Temple they made curtains for the Temple, and curtains for the courtyard [to demarcate where they were going to build the walls]. But the Temple was built from the outside [of the curtain border], while the courtyard was built from the inside [of the curtain border]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that we may sacrifice even without the Temple and eat the holy sacrifices even though there are no curtains, and [eat] the regular sacrifices and second tithes even though there is no wall [surrounding Jerusalem] because the first sanctification sanctified [the area] for its time and for the time to come. 
  Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Yochanan the son of Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher - a law to Moses from Sinai! - that Eliyahu will not come to declare people pure or impure, to distance [i.e. make impure] people or to bring [into purity those who are declared impure], but rather to distance those who were brought near by force, and to bring close those who were distanced by force. The family Bet Tzreifa was across the Jordan, and Ben Tzion distanced them by force, and someone else was there and Ben Tzion brought them close by force. [It is cases] such as these [that] Eliyahu is coming to declare pure and impure, to bring near and to distance. Rabbi Yehudah says: to bring [people] close, but not to [make people] distant. Rabbi Shimon says: to resolve arguments. The Sages say: He will not come to make distant or to bring close, but to make peace in the world, as it says "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet [before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD]. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers" (Malachi 3:23-24).